Español Inner

Articles Tagged with investment attorney

Published on:

On July 5, a securities arbitration claim was filed against James J. Albright Jr. and what was formerly known as AIG Financial Advisors. Claims were made on behalf of eight individuals against Albright and what is now Sagepoint Financial Inc., but more slighted customers are expected to come forward.

Securities Arbitration Filed Against James J. Albright, AIG

The claim states that Albright recommended the purchase of risky, non-traded, illiquid Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to the eight claimants but failed to sufficiently disclose the risks. Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, KBS REIT and Behringer Havard are among the unsuitable REITs Albright recommended to his investors. These investments reportedly caused hardships and financial ruin among the investors, including substantial losses and locked assets.

“We believe that tens if not hundreds more of his trusted clients were invested in those REITs, and we anticipate filing many more arbitration actions to seek damages and other relief for them," James Eccleston of Eccleston Law, the firm that filed claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), stated.

Published on:

The nature of “churning” within an investor’s account is difficult to prove. According to the S.E.C., “churning refers to the excessive buying and selling of securities in your account by your broker, for the purpose of generating commissions and without regard to your investment objectives.” In short, churning is a form of broker misconduct in which the broker performs excessive trading to generate personal profit. If an investor feels they may be a victim of churning, he should check his monthly statements for numerous stock trades and then contact a stock broker fraud attorney. If you believe you are a victim of churning, contact the law office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. for information and guidance.

Investment Churning: A Slippery Slope of Broker Misconduct

Although churning is clearly prohibited in both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and the Securities Exchange Commission Regulation 10(b)(5), proving it in arbitration can be a challenge. Two critical factors of determining if churning has occurred are time and frequency of transactions. In addition, the broker must be acting willfully and not in the best interests of the investor. Finally, the broker must be in control of the trades that occurred. If the account is a discretionary account or if the broker is recommending most, or all, of the trades to the customer, the broker is said to be in control of the trades.

A case against churning is one in which the entire picture must be taken into account. A stock broker fraud attorney must analyze a large amount of data because of the high number of trades that occur in churning. Furthermore, the attorney must look at the Annualized Turnover Ratio, the Commission/Equity Ratio, the Total Cost/Equity Ratio, the commissions of the broker and factors that affect broker motivation. Above all, the trades must be done for the benefit of the broker, rather than the investor.

Contact Information