securities arbitration lawyer

Published on: June 13, 2012

Investment Fraud Red Flags for Elderly Investors

According to securities fraud attorneys, elderly and retired individuals are frequently the targets of securities fraud. While this is not likely to change, elderly investors can be aware of red flags that could indicate fraud has occurred. Some of these red flags include recommendations for investments that are typically unsuitable for elderly investors, unsolicited investment offers, unrealistically high return promises, promises of little or no risk, request for up-front payments, high pressure tactics, direct mail offerings and Internet offerings.

Investment Fraud Red Flags for Elderly Investors

In regards to suitability, FINRA Rule 2111 will replace NASD Rule 2310 on July 9, 2012. Factors determining an investment’s suitability for each investor will now include the customer’s age, tax status, financial situation and needs, liquidity needs, investment experience, investment objectives, risk tolerance, investment time horizon and other investments. A broker or adviser must consider these factors before making a recommendation after July 9.

According to securities fraud attorneys, because of an elderly investor’s age, asset allocations that are weighted in investments with a long time horizon or higher risk investments are often considered inappropriate. Potentially unsuitable investment products for elderly investors include:

Published on: June 8, 2012

Retired, Unsophisticated Investors Targeted Again: Brookstone Found Responsible

by InvestorLawyers

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announcement dated June 4, 2012, stated that a hearing panel ruled in favor of claimants against Brookstone Securities of Lakeland, Florida, along with one of its brokers, Christopher Kline, and its owner and CEO, Antony Tuberville. Brookstone, Kline and Tuberville apparently made fraudulent sales of CMOs, or collateralized mortgage obligations, to elderly, retired and unsophisticated investors. Brookstone was fined $1 million in addition to an order of restitution payment of more than $1.6 million to customers. Of that amount, $1,179,500 was imposed jointly with Kline and the remaining $440,600 was imposed jointly with Tuberville. Securities arbitration lawyers say Kline and Tuberville were also barred by the panel from working again in the securities industry. In addition, David Locy, former chief compliance officer of Brookstone, was barred from acting in any principal or supervisory capacity. Locy was also fined $25,000 and was barred for two years from acting in any capacity.

Retired, Unsophisticated Investors Targeted Again: Brookstone Found Responsible

According to the panel’s findings, from July 2005 through July 2007, Kline and Tuberville made intentional fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions regarding the risks associated with CMOs. The affected customers were all retired investors seeking an alternative to equity investments that was safer. Despite the fact that the negative effects that increasing interest rates were having on the CMOs by 2005 were evident to Kline and Tuberville, they failed to explain these conditions to their customers. The clients were instead led to believe that the CMOs were “government-guaranteed bonds” that would generate 10 to 15 percent returns and preserve capital.

For a long time, investment fraud lawyers have been warning investors that retired and elderly investors are often the targets for investment fraud, and this was certainly the case here. Of the seven customers named in the original complaint, all were retired, elderly and/or unsophisticated investors. Furthermore, two were elderly widows who were convinced to put their retirement savings in the risky CMOs and then told that because they were “government-guaranteed bonds,” their money could not be lost. However, in total, the seven investors lost $1,620,100 while Brookstone racked up $492,500 in commissions.

Published on: June 4, 2012

Possible Securities Arbitration Claims for David Lerner Associates Clients

by InvestorLawyers

In May 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ordered David Lerner Associates Inc. to pay claimants Florence Hechtel and Joseph Graziose $24,450 following the return of their Apple REIT Nine shares to the firm. According to securities arbitration lawyers, this could be the first of possibly hundreds of securities arbitration proceedings that are related to David Lerner Associates Inc. and its sale of Apple REITs.

Possible Securities Arbitration Claims for David Lerner Associates Clients

The fourteenth largest non-traded REIT in the United States, Apple REIT Nine is only one of the Apple REIT investments involved in recent arbitration claims. Apple REIT Six, Apple REIT Seven and Apple REIT Eight are also involved in current and potential claims. Since 1992, David Lerner Associates allegedly sold almost $7 billion in Apple REITs, according to FINRA. As a result, stock fraud lawyers believe many more claims could potentially be filed on behalf of David Lerner clients.

With respect to David Lerner’s sales practices of Apple REITs, FINRA launched an investigation in May 2011 and class actions were filed in June 2011 with similar allegations. Recently, David Lerner allegedly changed the way the REITs are valued on account statements, stating that they are “unpriced.” This is the first time it has been acknowledged that the value of the Apple REIT shares may not be the same as what investors paid, according to securities arbitration lawyers. Furthermore, clients who requested a redemption prior to the last quarterly deadline on June 20, 2011 were allegedly informed that only a partial redemption was possible and the only known offer of purchase for Apple REIT shares is allegedly $3 per share, despite the alleged book value of around $7 per share.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Pacific Cornerstone Faces More Problems; FINRA Arbitration Offers Hope for Investors

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers continue to file claims against Pacific Cornerstone Capital Inc. on behalf of investors. In a February Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Pacific Cornerstone stated that it was “involved with an arbitration proceeding before FINRA and one FINRA investigation.” Pacific Cornerstone did not, however, state any specifics about the investigation referred to in the filing, or in its Focus report, which is the firm’s annual report of audited financials.

Pacific Cornerstone Faces More Problems, FINRA Arbitration Offers Hope for Investors

Pacific Cornerstone is Cornerstone Real Estate Funds’ broker-dealer arm and manager of the devaluated REITs. According to stock fraud lawyers, Pacific Cornerstone’s SEC filing stated that it didn’t know what the results of the FINRA matters would be.

In 2009, Pacific Cornerstone was fined $700,000 by FINRA for allegedly misstating material facts related to private placement sales. Recently, Pacific Cornerstone saw severe devaluations of two non-traded REITs, or real estate investment trusts. Investors received word in March that Cornerstone Core Properties REIT’s value had dropped from $8 per share to $2.25 per share and it raised only $158 million, falling dramatically short of its target of $439 million. Last year, the Cornerstone Healthcare Plus REIT replaced the fund’s adviser and changed its name to Sentio Healthcare Properties Inc. Cornerstone Healthcare’s value has dropped from $10 per share to $9.02 per share. A third Cornerstone offering, CIP Leveraged Advisors, has also seen severe declines in value.

Published on: May 28, 2012

A & O Fraud Scheme Targets Retired Individuals; Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are investigating claims on behalf of A & O Resource Management investors. A & O Resource Management and other affiliated companies, such as A & O Life Settlements, were used in a fraud scheme that resulted in lengthy prison sentences for two of the principals involved in the fraud. Many investors suffered significant losses as a result of the scheme. Some losses have already been recovered for defrauded investors, but there are still many victims that could recover losses through securities arbitration.

A & O Fraud Scheme Targets Retired Individuals, Investors Could Recover Losses

According to securities arbitration lawyers, A & O marketed bonds that were sold as fixed-maturity investments. Furthermore, investors who purchased the bonds were guaranteed annual returns at a minimum of 10 or 12 percent. The scheme claimed the investments were safe and had been designed to grow retirement assets. However, the targets of the fraud, retired and older individuals, were not made aware of the risks associated with the bonds.

While direct claims against A & O cannot be made easily because the company is currently in receivership, investors who purchased the products through a broker may be able to hold that broker responsible if he or she did not adequately explain the investment’s risks. According to investment fraud lawyers, prior to recommending an investment to a client, brokers and firms are required to perform the necessary due diligence to establish whether or not the investment is suitable for the client given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. This investment was clearly unsuitable for many of the investors who received the recommendation to purchase the bond.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Inland American REIT Under SEC Investigation; Investors Could Recover Losses in Securities Arbitration

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently investigating possible claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of their purchases of Inland American Real Estate Trust Inc. through a full-service brokerage firm. Inland American is the largest non-traded REIT in the industry. Recently, it has been reported that Inland American is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC is investigating whether there were violations of federal securities laws regarding Inland American’s fees and administration.

Inland America REIT Under SEC Investigation, Investors Could Recover Losses in Securities Arbitration

Inland American’s quarterly report stated that the company “has learned that the SEC is conducting a nonpublic, formal fact-finding investigation to determine whether there have been violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws.” The potential violations mentioned in the report pertain to “the business manager fees, property management fees, transactions with affiliates, timing and amount of distributions paid to investors, determination of property impairments, and any decision regarding whether the company might become a self-administered REIT.”

As a public non-traded REIT, sales of Inland American may have carried a high commission which motivates brokers to make the recommendation to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Non-traded REITs, such as Inland American, carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. However, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors, according to stock fraud lawyers.

Published on: May 14, 2012

The Problem with Non-traded REITs

by InvestorLawyers

Lately, there has been a lot of buzz amongst securities arbitration lawyers about non-traded REITs. Investors who have suffered losses as a result of these investments have been encouraged to come forward to attempt to recover their losses through FINRA arbitration. But what exactly is the problem with these investments?

The Problem with Non-Traded REITs

Generally, a problem with these investments arises when a financial advisor fails to adequately disclose to the customer the risks and illiquidity of the investment. Often, the motivation for the broker/adviser’s failure to disclose when recommending the product is the high commission he or she will earn on the investment.

Valuation problems of these investments are another major issue with non-traded REITs, according to investment fraud lawyers. Currently, FINRA rules only mandate that the sponsors of the investments establish an estimated per-share valuation no longer than 18 months after the investment stops raising investor funds. This is an issue because fund raising can, and often does, last for years. As a result, the per-share valuation can go for years without being updated. Furthermore, there is an obvious conflict of interest when it is the non-traded REIT’s sponsor that establishes the valuation.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Investors of Lehman Return Optimization Security Note, Maluhia Eight Could Recover Losses Through Securities Arbitration

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently investigating potential claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of their investments in Lehman Return Optimization Security Note and Maluhia Eight LLC.

Investors of Lehman Return Optimization Security Note, Maluhia Eight Could Recover Losses Through Securities Arbitration

Lehman Return Optimization Security Notes were allegedly marketed by brokers as investments designed to guarantee safety much like the safety associated with “capital preservation.” Furthermore, they were marketed as “low-risk investment,” according to investment fraud lawyers. However, the investment’s safety was actually dependent upon the solvency of Lehman Brothers, which acted as the issuer of the note. Following Lehman Brother’s September 2008 declaration of bankruptcy, investments such as this one that were backed by Lehman Brothers suffered disastrous losses. The potential liability of brokerage firms that sold the note to investors is now being investigated.

Brokerage firm liability for a Hawaii real estate deal, Maluhia Eight LLC, is also under investigation by securities arbitration lawyers. Chapter 11 bankruptcy was declared by Maluhia Eight in 2010 in the Northern District of Texas. Many investors have suffered losses as a result of the declaration of bankruptcy, but investors who purchased Maluhia Eight because of an unsuitable recommendation may be able to recover losses.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Ameriprise Financial Investors Filing Claims Over REIT Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently investigating possible claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses as a result of their purchases of Inland Western Real Estate Investment Trust, which is now known as Retail Properties of America. Many of the investors who suffered losses as a result of Retail Properties of America were purportedly customers of Ameriprise Financial. Some Ameriprise customers have already come forward with potential claims.

Ameriprise Financial Investors Filing Claims Over REIT Losses

In April 2012, Retail Properties of America was converted to a publicly-traded New York Stock Exchange company from a non-traded REIT. Last June, the value of the REIT was reported at $6.95 per share. Some brokers advised investors to remain invested in the REIT, given the decline, and asserted that it should rebound following the IPO. At the IPO, Retail Properties was expected to be offered at $10 to $12, but its actual offering of $8 was well below this expectation. Furthermore, the offering price of $8 resulted from a reverse stock split and the actual value of Retail Properties was around $3.20.

As a public non-traded REIT, the Inland Western REIT may have carried a high commission which motivates brokers to make the recommendation to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Non-traded REITs, such as Inland Western REIT, carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. However, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors, according to stock fraud lawyers. If Ameriprise made unsuitable recommendations to clients to invest in Inland Western, this is a stark contrast to its claim that the company takes the “time to understand your dreams and goals, recommend strategies and product solutions to help you make progress toward those dreams and goals and help you implement these solutions and monitor progress.”

Published on: May 3, 2012

RMC Medstone Capital Promissory Note Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

RMC Medstone Capital promissory note investors who suffered significant losses may have a valid securities arbitration claim, according to investment fraud lawyers. Investors of RMC Medstone Capital apparently received a Notice of Default in September 2011. The Notice of Default informed investors that their RMC Medstone Capital investment is now worthless.

RMC Medstone Capital Promissory Note Investors Could Recover Losses

According to securities arbitration lawyers, approximately $18 million in promissory notes were issued by RMC Medstone Capital and owners of these promissory notes should be seeking recovery of their losses. 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. Brokerage firms and broker-dealers offering the RMC Medstone Capital promissory notes will most likely be unable to demonstrate that the necessary due diligence was performed, based on what attorneys know about the investment.

Specifically, investment fraud lawyers are investigating recovery options for investors who suffered losses in RMC Medstone Capital V and VI promissory notes. Both of these notes were apparently sold under the Regulation D private offerings exemption. This exemption applies to certain private offerings and exempts the investment from normal SEC filing requirements.