Suitability

Published on: October 15, 2012

Sanders Morris Harris, Fifth Third Securities Fined by FINRA

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of the customers of Sanders Morris Harris Inc. and Fifth Third Securities Inc. in light of recent fines and censures by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Fifth Third Securities was fined $80,000 and ordered to pay restitution to investors in the amount of $26,876.52, plus interest. The firm was also ordered to revise its WSPs in regard to step-out transactions. Sanders Morris Harris was fined $75,000. Both firms submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent but neither admitted or denied FINRA’s findings.

In the case of Sanders Morris Harris, FINRA’s findings indicated that the firm’s registered representatives distributed advertising material to retail customers for hedge funds that did not adequately disclose the risks of the funds. Furthermore, it was alleged that the advertising contained unclear graphs or charts that contained misleading statements and omitted material information. In addition, the material allegedly implied that investors could avoid negative returns and/or indicated that the fund’s past performance would yield future positive returns. According to stock fraud lawyers, FINRA’s findings also indicated that two of the nine subject pieces of advertising were distributed by the firm, without principal review, to retail customers.

Securities fraud attorneys say that in the case of Fifth Third Securities, FINRA’s findings indicated that the firm’s transactions with or for a customer resulted in a failure to execute due diligence to determine the most appropriate inter-dealer market and, further, failed to execute transactions in such a market to procure the most favorable price to its customer as possible, given market conditions. Reportedly, the firm did not properly report transactions in municipal securities to the RTRS, and an adequate supervisory system was not in place to maintain compliance with applicable MSRB rules, securities laws and regulations in regard to step-out transactions.

Published on: October 10, 2012

FINRA Targets Non-traded REITs

by InvestorLawyers

According to stock fraud lawyers, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has and will continue to relentlessly target non-traded real estate investment trusts, or REITs. Specifically, the regulatory authority is focusing on how broker-dealers sell these investments and potential shortcomings in their strategies. According to the Executive Vice President of Member Regulation Sales Practices at FINRA, Susan Axelrod, examiners at FINRA have been scrutinizing “numerous retail sellers of non-traded REITs.” Axelrod also stated that, “In several instances, FINRA examiners have found that firms selling these products failed to conduct reasonable diligence before selling a product and failed to make a determination that the product was suitable for investors.”

Investment fraud lawyers note that independent broker-dealers have a responsibility to perform adequate due diligence when selling any investment, especially complex, illiquid products. Since the 2008 market collapse, FINRA has been aggressive with broker-dealers who failed to do so. Axelrod stated to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s Complex Products Forum that, “FINRA examiners have noted that in the instances of REITs that have experienced financial difficulties, red flags existed and should have been considered by firms prior to the product being offered to firm clients.”

Another problem with non-traded REITs, according to Axelrod, is that “non-traded REITs may also borrow funds to make distributions if operating cash flow is insufficient, and excessive borrowing may increase the risk of default or devaluation. In addition, non-traded-REIT distributions may actually be a return on principal.”

Published on: October 8, 2012

ProShares Investors Could Still Recover Losses Following Class Action Lawsuit Dismissal

by InvestorLawyers

Following the dismissal of the class action lawsuit against ProShares, securities fraud attorneys are investigating potential claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in the ProShares leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed the class action lawsuit that was reportedly filed in 2009. According to securities arbitration lawyers, reports indicated that the plaintiffs’ claims that certain risks were omitted from the registration statements disclosures were rejected by the courts. Reportedly, these omitted risks were associated with holding inverse and leveraged exchange-trade funds, or ETFs, for periods exceeding one day.

In a warning issued by FINRA, the regulatory authority stated that leverage inverse ETFs are unsuitable for ordinary investors and that these investments should be held for a short time period only. Brokers have been known to sell ETFs and ETNs as conservative ways to track a sector of the market, or the market as a whole. However, complicated trading strategies are necessary to accomplish this, and using these investments to track a sector of the market may or may not be a conservative trading strategy. This depends on the sector of the market and assets in the account relative to the investment’s concentration level. For more information on ETFs and ETNs, see the previous blog post, “Investors Could Recover Losses from their Inverse ETF and ETN Investments.”

Published on: October 5, 2012

News: Arbitration Panel Rules in Favor of Investor, Citigroup to Pay $1.4 Million

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys scored a win for investors in FINRA arbitration against a unit of Citigroup Inc. in a FINRA ruling on September 5. The arbitration panel ordered Citigroup to pay investors losses amounting to $1.4 million. These losses were associated with a municipal bond steeped in derivative securities that were very risky — yet the bond was, allegedly, marketed as “safe” to the investor.

New York City investor Margaret Hill filed the case in 2011 and requested over $3.5 million in damages. Her losses were a result of Citi’s Rochester Municipal Fund. Investment fraud lawyers say Hill’s case alleged that she was sold unsuitable investments by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. which, in addition, misrepresented facts.

According to the allegations against Citigroup, Hill bought the Rochester Fund as an alternative to her individual municipal bond funds because Citigroup said it would pay more interest and would be a “safe” alternative to her funds at that time. However, the Rochester Fund reportedly consisted primarily of tobacco bonds and risky derivative securities. After purchasing the bond in 2007, Hill sold the funds in 2009, suffering losses amounting to $2.9 million.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Winex Investments LLC Investors 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 Winex Investments LLC. Winex Investments is a foreign currency investment. In many cases, broker-dealers may have improperly recommended Winex Investments to their clients. Furthermore, securities arbitration lawyers believe some broker-dealers misrepresented the risks associated with Winex.

Recent anxiety about the devaluation of the dollar and rising U.S. government debt has made some investors turn to foreign currency investing. However, because this type of investment is relatively unknown to many investors, it is essential that the risks are adequately disclosed before any decisions are made. Trading in foreign currency involves the purchasing of debt of foreign countries. Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, can either buy options and future contracts or purchase the currencies directly.

Prior to recommending an investment to a client, brokers and firms are required to perform the necessary due diligence to establish whether the investment is suitable for the client, given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations. Furthermore, brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Published on: September 28, 2012

TIC Investor Losses Could be Recovered in FINRA Arbitration

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in TIC, or tenants-in-common, investments with a full-service brokerage firm. The securities industry has watched as TICs have become more common as a result of the IRS rules amendment in 2003, allowing an avoidance in capital gains taxes to investors who invested their property sale proceeds into TIC investments.

According to stock fraud lawyers, following the crash of the real estate market, many TIC investors, as fractional owners in a single property, saw a significant decline in the value of their investment. However, because of the sales practices of some FINRA registered brokerage firms, some of these investors may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. These products were often represented as “guaranteed” and/or “safe” investments that would return between 7 and 12 percent each year. However, in many cases, investors were not properly advised on the risks associated with TIC investments.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has already ordered one firm, LPL Financial, to reimburse investor losses amounting to $1.4 million in Braintree Park LLC and Heron Cove LLC. These two TICs were sponsored by Direct Invest LLC.

Published on: September 24, 2012

Lehman Brothers PPN Investors to Explore Every Option

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are encouraging investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in Lehman Brothers 100% Principal Protection Notes to thoroughly explore all their options for recovering losses. These notes, which have also been called “Principal Protected” notes, are not the only Lehman Brothers structured products being investigated by securities arbitration lawyers. Auto-call Notes and Return Optimization Notes are also being investigated on behalf of investors who suffered losses in these Lehman Brothers products.

Lehman Brothers PPN Investors to Explore Every Option

While many investors have filed claims in Lehman’s bankruptcy proceedings, it now appears that these individuals will receive only about 20 cents on the dollar for their investment losses. Investors must consider alternate methods of loss recovery, including filing a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority securities arbitration claim. Furthermore, investors will have to determine if any statute of limitations issues exist relating to their case.

Despite the fact that a class action lawsuit related to these notes has been filed, investors should be aware that they may only recover a nominal amount as a part of a class action lawsuit. It may, therefore, be in investors’ best interest to acquire a securities arbitration lawyer to file an arbitration claim on their behalf.

Published on: September 21, 2012

Customers of Ray Lucia Sr. Could Recover Losses Through Arbitration Following SEC Allegations

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment with Ray Lucia Sr. and his affiliated broker-dealers. Reportedly, the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Lucia and his company, formerly known as Raymond J. Lucia Companies Inc. (RJL), for using misleading information at a series of investment seminars when soliciting for his “Buckets of Money” strategy.

Customers of Ray Lucia, Sr. Could Recover Losses through Arbitration, Following SEC Allegations

According to the allegations issued by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Lucia claimed that this wealth management strategy had been thoroughly “backtested” over real bear market periods. He allegedly made these claims while promoting Buckets of Money at seminars where he presented a lengthy slideshow indicating that retires would receive inflation-adjusted income while protecting and increasing savings through his wealth management program. In truth, however, despite publicly made claims, little, if any, backtesting was done by RJL and Lucia on the Buckets of Money strategy.

These seminars were held in hopes of obtaining advisory clients, according to the SEC’s order which instituted administrative proceedings against RJL and Lucia. These clients would then be charged advisory services fees. Lucia’s radio show and personal and company website promoted the seminars.

Published on: September 20, 2012

JOBS Act for Hedge Fund Advertising Faces Criticism from Investor Protection Groups

by InvestorLawyers

In a recent 4-1 vote, SEC commissioners decided to invite public comment related to a proposal for how to put an end to decades of limits imposed on startups and private funds in their pursuit of investors. Together with the mutual fund industry and investor protection groups, stock fraud lawyers look upon the new JOBS Act with criticism. The Act will essentially, as part of an effort to increase fledgling companies’ funding options, end the advertising ban on hedge funds. Reportedly, hedge funds will possibly be able to conduct wide advertising campaigns, as opposed to the current strategy of closed-door solicitation to individual investors.

JOBS Act for Hedge Fund Advertising Faces Criticism from Investor-Protection Groups

According to securities arbitration lawyers, concern related to the JOBS Act comes from the possibility that a restriction-free lift of the ban could result in some private funds exposing investors to misleading advertisements. Securities laws have previously only allowed firms to solicit non-public securities to “accredited” investors, who were usually wealthy, frequent investors. Furthermore, these investors would have needed an existing relationship with the firm.

While individuals who qualify for the investments will still need to have over $1 million in assets or a minimum income of $200,000 a year, a lack of advertising restrictions would still expose individuals for which these investments are unsuitable to misleading solicitation. Furthermore, those individuals may not have the investment sophistication required to understand the risks of these products. According to stock fraud lawyers, this could be a situation that leaves investors susceptible to securities fraud.

Published on: September 17, 2012

What Went Wrong with Dividend Capital REIT: What Many Investors Didn’t Know

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys have been investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered Dividend Capital Trust investment losses, but what exactly went wrong?

What Went Wrong with Dividend Capital REIT: What Many Investors Didn't Know

According to investment fraud lawyers, while most REITs experience value changes every day because they are traded on stock exchanges, “non-traded,” “private,” or “unlisted” REITs were not traded on exchanges with regulations. Furthermore, these investors of non-traded REITs paid additional layers of fees because the investments were mostly sold by brokers. Generally, investors were promised stable prices and healthy income generation from these investments, but the decline in the commercial real estate market and management problems have resulted in a significant decline in the value of many non-traded REITs.

Many brokers unsuitably recommended non-traded REITs; after all, they were extremely profitable to them thanks to the hefty fees associated with the investment. Many brokers told investors that the REITs values would remain the same while providing income, but many non-traded REITs have temporarily — or indefinitely — suspended payments to investors. That said, securities fraud attorneys note that most public REITs that have been responsibly managed are providing reliable income to their investors.