Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) records show that broker Christopher Veale (Veale) has been the subject of multiple customer complaints as well as other regulatory proceedings arising out of his dealings with customers.  FINRA records indicate that Veale has had at least 12 customer complaints, as well as six judgments, levied against him. FINRA records also show that Veale has been the subject of two investigations by state regulators and has been charged with one felony.

Veale’s customers have complained about multiple alleged securities law violations including unsuitable recommendations, unauthorized trades, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, churning, and fraud, among other claims.  In particular, Veale allegedly recommended unsuitable securities such as penny stocks and other speculative securities to customers.

Veale has worked at multiple brokerages, including Maximum Financial Investment Group, Franklin Christopher Investment Bankers, Inc., Brookville Capital Partners, Blackwall Capital Markets, Inc., Meyers Associates, L.P., John Thomas Financial, and Legend Securities, Inc. (until February 2015).

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently sanctioned and barred stockbroker Matthew Davis due to allegations of misconduct while Davis was associated with Beneficial Investment Services, Inc. from November 2008, through April 2010. Davis was later employed by OneAmerica Securities, Inc. from April 2010, through July 2013.

FINRA’s charges allege that Davis misappropriate customer funds, misrepresented of customer holdings and account value, committed forgery, and engaged in discretionary unauthorized trading as well as unsuitable investment recommendations.

FINRA has additionally now alleged that OneAmerica failed to supervise Davis and ignored numerous red flags of misconduct concerning his activities. For examply, FINRA alleged that two customers opened a OneAmerica account with Davis identifying the husband as a 65 years-old and earning between $50,001-75,000 per year. His wife was a “Homemaker” and the couple’s stated Net Worth, excluding their residence, was “$250,001-500,000?” and they had only two years of investment experience limited to stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

Popular Securities, Inc. (Popular Securities) was recently sanctioned by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for violations in their dealings related to Puerto Rico municipal bond funds.

Managers touted the Puerto Rico bond funds as providing tax benefits to investors, such as exemption from United States estate and gift taxes, as well as triple tax benefits. Instead, due to depressed economic activity and rising debt levels, investors lost loads of money in these funds.

FINRA alleges that for two years ranging from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013, Popular Securities continued to recommend the purchase of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and bond fund securities even after the Puerto Rico general obligation bond rating was downgraded in December 2012.

Derek Weaver was recently barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) after he failed to provide documents and information requested by FINRA to investigate his dealings.  FINRA first requested documents from Weaver in December 2014.

FINRA authority was looking into allegations that Weaver may have participated in a Ponzi scheme, the nature of which and Weaver’s role in such are not yet known. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where a broker pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the broker by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the broker.

FINRA alleges that Weaver’s actions constituted the illegal practice of “selling away.” Selling away is when a broker sells or solicits the sale of securities not held or offered by the brokerage firm with which he is associated.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Sigma Financial, for alleged supervisory failures. FINRA alleges that from April 2011 through June 2012, there existed supervisory deficiencies at Sigma, namely: the supervision of registered representatives, suitability processes and procedures, customer information procedures and branch office registration for trade execution.

Sigma’s supervisory and compliance functions were conducted by BD OPS, which also provided supervisory and compliance services for Sigma’s affiliated investment advisor and another broker-dealer.

FINRA found that 35 supervisory personnel were responsible for surveying some 1,274 registered representatives and 854 branch offices of Sigma. BD OPS, FINRA noted, only had three full-time staffers serving as field auditors during 2011 and 2012, which meant those staffers were responsible for conducting five to 10 branch inspections per week in order to meet obligations. This reliance on such a small number of supervisory personnel to survey such a large number of functions, FINRA found, was not reasonable.

Securities lawyers are investigating brokerage firms who made inappropriate recommendations and sold investments in Icon Leasing Fund 11 and Icon Leasing Fund 12, as well as LEAF Equipment Leasing Income Funds I-IV, to investors who would not be able to withstand the high risks associated with the funds.

Equipment-leasing funds of this type are both illiquid and highly risky, because the secondary market for the shares is very small. This is the case because dividend payments from these funds tend to be unpredictable because they are tied to profits made from those equipment leases.

The value of Icon 11 and Icon 12, for example, dropped substantially not long after the funds stopped taking on new investors. funds. While Icon 11 and Icon 12 later stopped paying out dividends to those investors, the funds still paid huge commissions to financial firms and investment advisors, reportedly among the biggest commissions for alternative products. Icon 11 and Icon 12 reportedly used just 81 percent of investors’ money on the equipment that is supposed to generate value, while 18 percent of that money went to various commissions, fees and expenses.

State securities regulators around the country warn that high oil prices that prevailed until recently created a heightened interest in investments in energy-related business ventures- ventures that may lead to losses now that oil prices have plummeted to the $45 a barrel range (from around $100 a barrel in recent months)

Oil and gas investments come in various forms, including limited partnerships (“LPs”), fractional ownership interests in leases, and general partnerships. In a drilling limited partnership, an oil or gas company sells partnership units to investors and uses the money it raises to lease property and drill wells. These limited partnerships often charge high upfront fees of about 15-16% of the initial investment and the sponsor may also take a share of any profits. Such limited partnerships are highly risky, are illiquid (meaning they can’t easily be resold by the initial investor) and can have a long holding period.

Unfortunately the field of oil and gas investments has a history of attracting dishonest promoters. Common sales techniques associated with dishonest promoters may include repeated unsolicited phone calls to members of the public featuring false representations such as purported successful track records of the promoter, or secret information concerning oil finds. Some of these investments sold over the phone through high pressure sales tactics may be out and out frauds.

A recent Reuters article analyzed the success of funds structured and offered by Reef Oil & Gas Partners, Black Diamond, and Discovery Resources & Development LLC . These firms have marketed their funds to investors as a way to profit from the U.S. shale oil and fracking boom. These companies issue limited partnerships and other private, non-traded investments that promise to drill for oil and gas and pay investors the profits that will result. Even in the best of times, such investments have substantial drawbacks including illiquidity (the fact that they can’t be easily re-sold after an investor purchases them), very high commissions, sales costs, and management fees, and risk that they investor may lose his initial investment. Due to these risks investors often lose money while issuers make handsome profits.

According to Reuters, of 34 deals Reef has issued since 1996, only 12 have paid out more cash to investors than they initially contributed. In addition, Reuters found that Reef sold an additional 31 smaller deals between 1996 and 2010 collecting $146 million for itself while paying out investors a paltry $55 million. The recent collapse in oil prices from around $100 a barrel to only about $45 a barrel will likely render Reef funds even less profitable for investors.

Under the terms of one Reef deal, of $50 million in initially invested, Reef immediately collected $7.5 million for fees and broker commissions. After that, Reef received a monthly management fee of $41,667 from the fund. Reef also charged for drilling, operating, legal, and other expenses to the fund- including money that was payable to its own affiliates.