FINRA

Published on: August 24, 2012

Charles Schwab, Fidelity Investors Who Opted Out of Class Actions Could Recover Losses Through Securities Arbitration

Following settlements with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), stock fraud lawyers say Charles Schwab and Fidelity investors could recover losses through securities arbitration. Fidelity reportedly has agreed to pay a $375,000 fine in a settlement with FINRA over allegations that the firm committed sales violations from December 2006 through December 2008 involving the Fidelity Ultra Short Bond Fund.

According to FINRA’s allegations, Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co. Inc. and Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, two Fidelity broker-dealers, failed to provide adequate supervisory procedures and produced misleading advertising and sales materials for the fund. Apparently when the subprime crisis unfolded, the fund began losing value in June 2007, but the sales materials for Fidelity continued to purport fixed-income securities of “high credit quality” being held by the fund. The fund’s net asset value fell to $8.25 per share by April 2008, from $10 per share before June 2007, according to investment fraud lawyers.

In a separate ruling in May, a settlement was approved by a federal court in a class action filed against Fidelity units in 2008. In that settlement, Fidelity paid $7.5 million to investors of the bond fund. The Charles Schwab Corp. settled a similar case last year in which they paid almost $119 million over its YieldPlus bond fund. A separate class action claim saw Schwab pay another $235 million to investors in 2010. However, stock fraud lawyers believe that not all investors were compensated.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Following KBS Class Action Withdrawal, Investors Can Still Recover Losses Through Arbitration

by InvestorLawyers

According to securities arbitration lawyers, investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their losses in the KBS REIT still may recover those losses through securities arbitration following the withdrawal of a class action against KBS REIT. Plaintiff George Steward led investors in suing KBS REIT in May. Allegations stated that misrepresentations about the REIT were made by KBS. These alleged misrepresentations included the dividend payment policy, investment objects and the REIT’s investments value. Reportedly, a voluntary dismissal was filed by the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Florida last month.

Following KBS Class Action Withdrawal, Investors Can Still Recover Losses Through Arbitration

In March, KBS REIT I investors were notified that the investment’s value would drop from $7.32 to $5.16 per share, representing a 29 percent decline in value. The investment’s offering price was $10 per share. Furthermore, KBS also stated it would cease distributions to investors. An investor presentation filed with the SEC in March stated that KBS REIT I raised $1.7 billion in equity during its initial offering. The investment holds loans and other debt of $2.3 billion and property assets of $3.4 billion.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Non-traded REITs are illiquid and inherently risky and, therefore, not suitable for many investors. According to securities fraud attorneys, because of the high-commissions these investments generally offer, many brokers make unsuitable recommendations of REITs to investors. Based on information now known about KBS REIT, many of the firms that sold this investment will be unable to prove the adequate due diligence was performed before recommending this product to investors.

Published on: August 22, 2012

Dividend Capital REIT Restructuring Could be a Sign of Trouble

by InvestorLawyers

Since the writing of the previous blog post “Dividend Capital Total Realty Trust Non-traded REIT Investors Could Recover Losses,” investment fraud lawyers have received communication from investors related to their concerns about the value of their shares. Reportedly, the quarterly dividend rate of these shares is 5.23 percent and the new price of each share is $6.69. The investment’s prospectus for Dividend Capital shares and its recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing indicate new terms for repurchase plans and a major restructuring of the investment. In addition, Dividend Capital Total Realty Trust appears to be going by a new name, Dividend Capital Diversified Property Fund.

Dividend Capital REIT Restructuring Could be a Sign of Trouble

This new offering is purportedly a means for the company to offer liquidity, securities fraud attorneys say. Generally, non-traded REIT shares are illiquid but, when the REIT is liquidated, are sold to another REIT, or goes public, the shares are sold. The SEC filing states that the offering is intended to replenish the capital of their fund shares. As a result, they will not have to list a termination date, should one of the aforementioned events occur. This new plan is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2012 and purportedly allows investors to liquidate shares at any time. The price of the shares at liquidation is determined by the company’s Net Asset Value’s daily calculation. However, restrictions on this plan include the following:

While Class A, W or I shares may be redeemed at any time, a “Quarterly Cap” has been instituted by Dividend Capital, which will limit redemptions equal to 5 percent of the total Net Asset Value of all shares set upon completion of the prior calendar quarter.

Published on: August 20, 2012

Investors of Highland Floating Rate Funds Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Stock fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in a Highland Floating Rate Fund. The sales literature for this fund understates the risk of the fund when it states that the funds seek “capital preservation and the management of credit risk while utilizing leverage to increase yield potential.” In recent years, the Highland Floating Rate Funds have suffered significant declines in value. These funds include the Highland Floating Rate Opportunities Fund, the Highland Floating Rate Advantage Fund and the Highland Floating Rate Fund. For example, in 2008, the Highland Floating Rate Advantage Fund’s value declined by more than half. Even relative to the market’s overall decline in 2008, these are significant losses.

Investors of Highland Floating Rate Funds Could Recover Losses

According to securities arbitration lawyers, the increase in floating rate funds sales has caused the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to pay more attention to these funds — specifically how they are marketed and sold. A recent FINRA Investor Alert exhibited concern related to how financial advisors may place emphasis on high potential returns while placing less emphasis on the potential risks associated with floating rate funds.

FINRA rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. As a result, stock fraud lawyers are investigating whether firms and advisers registered with FINRA recommended floating rate funds unsuitably, given investors’ risk tolerance.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Investors of ArciTerra National REIT Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in ArciTerra National REIT. According to ArciTerra National REIT’s Form D filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, ArciTerra is a real estate investment trust based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Investors of ArciTerra National REIT Could Recover Losses

REIT Investments like the ArciTerra National REIT typically offer commissions between 7-10 percent, which is significantly higher than traditional investments like mutual funds and stocks. In some cases, the commission generated by these investments can be as high as 15 percent. This higher commission can explain why brokerage firms are motivated to recommend these investments despite their possible unsuitability.

Stock fraud lawyers are investigating the possibility that brokerage firms may be held liable for the recommendation of ArciTerra National REIT. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Non-traded REITs are illiquid and inherently risky and, therefore, not suitable for many investors.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Penneco Drilling Associates Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in a private placement offered by Penneco Drilling Associates. Penneco Drilling Associates is, according to its Form D filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, an oil and gas development company.

Penneco Drilling Associates Investors Could Recover Losses

Penneco Drilling Associates began offering the private placements as a means to raise capital. Certain broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulator Authority then sold the private placements. Reportedly, the following private placements have been offered and sold:

Penneco Drilling Associates 2009-1

Published on: August 15, 2012

Private Placement Loss Recovery: Cypress Leasing

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investments in Cypress Leasing private placements. Based in San Francisco, California, Cypress Financial Corporation is an equipment leasing company. The company’s website states that Cypress’s investments are in long-lived core equipment assets and that these assets are vital to the energy, industrial and transportation sectors.

Private Placement Loss Recovery: Cypress Leasing

Private placements have been offered by Cypress Leasing, which were then offered and sold by certain broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Reportedly, the market decline of 2008 impacted the equipment leasing business and, as a result, many of the Cypress Leasing private placements may have experienced a decline in value. It is believed that the following offerings are included in these criteria:

CypressEquipment Fund 13

Published on: August 13, 2012

Investors of Bradford Exploration, Bradford Drilling Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of their investment in Bradford Drilling or Bradford Exploration. Bradford Exploration is, according to its Form D filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, an oil and natural gas development company based in Buffalo, New York. Bradford Drilling Associates filed a Form D Notice of Sale of Securities with the SEC to raise capital. This type of filing is a limited offering exemption that allows small companies to use private placements to raise funds. This private placement was then sold by broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Investors of Bradford Exploration and Bradford Drilling Could Recover Losses

According to stock fraud lawyers, private placements allow smaller companies to use the sale of debt securities or equities to raise capital without it becoming necessary for them to register these securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Because these investments are typically more complicated and carry more risk than other traditional investments, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors.

Securities fraud attorneys say that because the creation and sale of private placements often carry high commissions, these investments continue to be pushed by brokerage firms despite the fact that they may be unsuitable for investors. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and that those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Recovery of Private Placement Losses: Mewbourne Oil

by InvestorLawyers

Stock fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in Mewbourne Energy Partners or Mewbourne Oil. Based in Tyler, Texas, Mewbourne Energy Partners is, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q filing, an oil and gas development company.

Recovery of Private Placement Losses: Mewbourne Oil

Beginning May 1, 2007, Mewbourne Energy Partners has offered the public private placements, which certain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority registered broker-dealers then offered and sold, in order for Mewbourne to raise capital. The private placement offering consisted of general and limited partner interests and was a part of the Mewbourne Energy Partners ’07 Drilling Program. When the offering concluded on August 13, 2007, the total investor contributions, originally sold to accredited investors, amounted to $70,000,000. Of this total, accredited investors as limited partner interests amounted to $4,290,000 and accredited investors as general partner interests amounted to $65,710,000.

According to securities arbitration lawyers, private placements allow smaller companies to use the sale of debt securities or equities to raise capital without it becoming necessary for them to register these securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Because these investments are typically more complicated and carry more risk than other traditional investments, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Investors of Whitestone REIT Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of their investment in Whitestone REIT. Whitestone REIT was previously known as Hartman Commercial Properties REIT, and was a non-traded, publicly offered REIT. Shares of Hartman REIT were first offered to investors in 2004 through stock brokerage firms. A 2009 statement informed investors that Whitestone REIT’s value had declined by around 50 percent. Many investors were unaware of any problems with their investment until this 2009 announcement.

Investors of Whitestone REIT Could Recover Losses

Whitestone REIT started trading on the New York Stock Exchange in 2010, but securities arbitration lawyers say the shares are still trading at significantly lower prices than what most investors paid. Non-traded REIT investments like the Whitestone REIT typically offer commissions between 7-10 percent, which is significantly higher than traditional investments like mutual funds and stocks. In some cases, the commission generated by these investments can be as high as 15 percent. This higher commission can explain why brokerage firms are motivated to recommend these investments despite their possible unsuitability.

Investment fraud lawyers are investigating the possibility that brokerage firms may be held liable for the recommendation of Whitestone REIT. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Non-traded REITs like this one are illiquid and inherently risky and, therefore, not suitable for many investors.