securities arbitration lawyer

Published on: November 16, 2012

FINRA Decision: David Lerner Associates to Pay $12 Million in Restitution to Customers for Unsuitable Sales of Apple REIT Ten

According to a news release on October 22, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has sanctioned David Lerner Associates Inc. and ordered the company to pay approximately $12 million to customers. The affected customers purchased Apple REIT Ten shares, which is a non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust sold by David Lerner Associates. Some customers who will be receiving restitution were also charged excessive markups. Investment fraud lawyers are still investigating potential claims on behalf of investors who purchased Apple REITs from David Lerner Associates.

FINRA Decision: David Lerner Associates to Pay $12 Million in Restitution to Customers for Unsuitable Sales of Apple REIT Ten

David Lerner Associates is the sole distributor of Apple REITs, including the $2 billion Apple REIT Ten. According to the press release, David Lerner Associates “solicited thousands of customers, targeting unsophisticated investors and the elderly, selling the illiquid REIT without performing adequate due diligence to determine whether it was suitable for investors.” According to securities arbitration lawyers, selling non-traded REITs to customers for whom the investment is unsuitable is one of the biggest problems with non-traded REITs. Furthermore, misleading marketing materials were used in order to sell the REIT. These materials presented performance results but did not disclose that the REIT’s income was insufficient for supporting owners’ distributions.

In addition to the $12 million in restitution, David Lerner Associates was fined over $2.3 million for supervisory violations and charging unfair prices on collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and municipal bonds. These unfair prices occurred over a 30-month period. According to investment fraud lawyers, victims of CMO and municipal bond fraud can also recover their losses through FINRA arbitration.

Published on: November 5, 2012

Recovery of Inland American REIT Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Many investors are currently seeking recovery of their Inland American REIT losses through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority securities arbitration. Following Inland American’s 10Q Securities and Exchange Commission Q1 filing, investors were made aware of a current investigation being conducted by the SEC. According to this 2012 quarterly report, which was issued in May, Inland American had “learned that the SEC is conducting a non-public, formal, fact-finding investigation to determine whether there have been violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws regarding our business manager fees, property management fees, transactions with our affiliates, timing and amount of distributions paid to our investors, determination of property impairments, and any decision regarding whether we might become a self-administered REIT.”

Recovery of Inland American REIT Losses

Inland American’s prospectus, initially filed in August 2005, shows fees and commissions including a .5 percent due diligence expense allowance, a 2.5 percent marketing contribution and a 7.5 percent selling commission. Furthermore, Inland American’s 2011 annual report indicates that a $40 million business management fee and a $1.6 million investment advisory fee to be paid to its business manager.

Other concerns related to the Inland American REIT that investors should be aware of include the fact that even though it was recognized as the largest non-traded REIT, with real estate assets totaling over $11 billion, nearly 30 percent of the REIT’s properties are located in only four cities. The quarterly report cited above states that “Geographic concentration of our portfolio may make us particularly susceptible to adverse economic developments in the real estate markets of those areas or natural disasters in those areas.” Furthermore, the report discloses the fact that around 16 percent of the properties owned by the REIT are leased by SunTrust Bank and AT&T.

Published on: November 2, 2012

Recovery of Dividend Capital REIT Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Many investors are exploring the possibility of recovering their Dividend Capital REIT losses through securities arbitration. Dividend Capital Total Realty Trust Inc. is, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission filing, a Maryland corporation, formed on April 11, 2005, and located in Denver, Colorado. Its goal is to invest in a portfolio of real estate-related and real property investments. It has targeted investments that include direct investments that consist of high-quality industrial, office, mutli-family, and retail real properties, located primarily in North America. The corporation also invests in securities like mortgage loans, and securities issued by separate real estate companies.

Recovery of Dividend Capital REIT Losses

Many firms have offered to buy shares of Dividend Capital from investors at a price that has been significantly reduced from what they initially paid include. Some of these firms include MPF Income Fund 26 LLC, MPF Northstar Fund LP, MPF Flaship Fund 14 LLC, MPF Platinum Fund LP, MPF Flagship Fund 15 LLC, and Coastal Realty Business Trust.

Recently, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration statement of claim related to Dividend Capital REIT was filed against Wells Fargo Investments LLC. If the claim is successful, investors hope to recover around $200,000 in REIT losses. The Claimant is a retired Iowa farmer. Allegations include breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law fraud and negligent supervision. Furthermore, the allegations state that Wells Fargo’s investment of the client’s funds was unsuitable because of an over-concentration of assets in the illiquid, high-risk, non-traded REIT.

Published on: October 26, 2012

Fraud Victims of William T. Johnson Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of the customers of William T. Johnson. A resident of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., Johnson is accused of stealing around $500,000 from 13 clients. Johnson allegedly informed his clients that he would invest their money in Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), short-term commercial paper and various other products. However, according to the allegations against him, Johnson actually used the money he received from clients to benefit his family and himself. The fraud allegedly took place between July 2003 and September 2011.

Fraud Victims of William T. Johnson Could Recover Losses

Johnson’s attorney reportedly said that Johnson would likely plead guilty. Securities regulators in Maine and Florida have apparently scrutinized Johnson in the past and, in addition, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has already barred him from association with FINRA-registered firms. Securities arbitration lawyers say Johnson previously was associated with Kovack Securities and Next Financial Group Inc.

If Johnson defrauded clients through his company while also registered with Kovack Securities or Next Financial group, he may have been “selling away.” From 2002 until 2009, Johnson was registered with Kovack Securities, and was registered with Next Financial Group from May 2010 to June 2010. According to securities fraud attorneys, “selling away” occurs when a FINRA-registered broker-dealer executes transactions outside his or her registered firm. Investment firms can still be held liable for a broker that is “selling away” if their supervision of that broker is deemed to have been negligent. As a result, it is possible for investors to recover their losses through securities arbitration.

Published on: October 22, 2012

Elderly Investors Targeted by Pennsylvania Financial Advisor

by InvestorLawyers

David L. Rothman, a Pennsylvania resident, has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly defrauding elderly clients. Stock fraud lawyers say the civil and criminal charges accuse Rothman of sending his clients falsified account statements that inflated the value of their accounts. Then, in a repayment scheme, Rothman took funds from another client in order to repay those who received phony statements.

Elderly Investors Targeted by Pennsylvania Financial Advisor

According to the SEC’s complaint, the two clients were “elderly and unsophisticated investors” which, securities arbitration lawyers say, made them ideal targets for Rothman’s fraud. The complaint further alleges that the fraud occurred from 2006-2011 and the falsified statements “materially overstated” the value of the clients’ investments. In addition, allegations against Rothman state that once the investors realized the fraud had taken place, the financial advisor stated that he would repay the statements’ reported value. However, his financial resources eventually ran short.

Apparently, Rothman was previously censured by the CFP Board in 2004. This separate matter involved the purchasing of mutual fund Class S shares.

Published on: October 18, 2012

Layton Energy Wharton LP Investors 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 Layton Energy Wharton LP product. As a Texas-based energy company, Layton Energy Wharton offers various private placements, one of which is Layton Energy Wharton LP. Launched in 2007, this investment’s aim was to raise $10,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring interests in oil and gas deals, according to its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Layton Energy Wharton LP Investors Could Recover Losses

According to securities arbitration lawyers, because private placements like Layton Energy Wharton LP are typically more complicated and carry more risk than other traditional investments, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors. 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.

FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, Brad Bennett, has stated that, “FINRA continues to look closely at sales of private placements to determine whether the selling firms are fulfilling their responsibilities to customers.”

Published on: October 17, 2012

First Midwest Securities, Scott & Stringfellow Customers Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of the customers of First Midwest Securities Inc. and Scott & Stringfellow LLC in light of recent fines and censures by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Both firms were censured; in addition, First Midwest Securities was fined $75,000 and Scott & Stringfellow was fined $350,000. Both firms submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent but did not admit or deny FINRA’s findings.

First Midwest Securities and Scott & Stringfellow Customers Could Recover Losses

In the case of First Midwest Securities, securities arbitration lawyers say FINRA’s findings indicated that the firm failed to provide an adequate supervisory system and enforce adequate supervisory procedures to prevent excessive trading and ensure the suitability of equity transactions. Furthermore, the firm allegedly failed to utilize exception reports that would help in detecting excessive and unsuitable trading. Instead, according to the allegations, the firm relied on turnover ratio reports and daily trade blotter reviews that were prepared manually. However, these reports failed to address accounts’ cost-to-equity ratios.

Investment fraud lawyers are also investigating claims against Scott & Stringfellow based on FINRA’s findings that indicated the firm failed to maintain an adequate supervisory system related to the sale of Non-Traditional ETFs, or Non-Traditional Exchange Traded Funds. In addition, the firm allegedly allowed the recommendation of a Non-Traditional ETF by its registered representatives to customers without performing adequate due diligence. FINRA stated that some of the firm’s customers received unsuitable recommendations of the investment. The firm’s supervisory system, according to FINRA, was not reasonably designed for compliance with applicable FINRA and NASD rules and did not provide adequate guidance, tools, or adequate formal training to educate the firm’s supervisors and registered representatives about these investments.

Published on: October 11, 2012

Fidelity Customers 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 investments with Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC and Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company Inc. Reportedly, Fidelity Brokerage Services and Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent recently. In this letter, the firms were jointly censured and fined $375,000.

Fidelity Customers Could Recover Losses

According to the allegations against them, the firms sold, wholesaled and/or marketed an income mutual fund’s shares and, in connection, created training, wholesaling and/or advertising materials for the fund. These materials were provided to the retail sales firms, used within the selling intermediaries for institutional purposes, used internally, used for institutional purposes and provided to public customers.

Securities arbitration lawyers say that the findings stated that some of the sales materials distributed by the firms were misleading, unbalanced, failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the risks of the funds and contained statements that were unwarranted. Furthermore, the firms allegedly failed to perform timely updates on the sales materials which affected the accuracy of the portrayal of the negative impacts resulting from the sub-prime crisis. This resulted in an inaccurate representation of the value of the portfolio investments and share of the fund and unqualified promises about future performance.

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.

ProShares Investors Could Still Recover Losses Following Class Action Lawsuit Dismissal

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 4, 2012

Advanced Equities Investors May Have Securities Arbitration Claim

by InvestorLawyers

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of Advanced Equities customers who invested in what reportedly was known as Bloom Energy, a Silicon Valley alternative energy company. On September 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged co-founders Keith G. Daubenspeck and Dwight O. Badger, a FINRA registered broker-dealer, and Advanced Equities Inc. in connection with the private offerings of an alternative energy company offered in 2009 and 2010. According to the allegations, Advanced Equities misled investors and failed to adequately supervise the offerings in two private equity offerings.

Advanced Equities Investors May Have Securities Arbitration Claim

Reportedly, Daubenspeck is the parent company’s board chairman and Badger was the parent company’s former chief executive. Together, they founded Advanced Equities. The SEC has stated that the sales effort was led by Badger, who misstated facts about the finances of the energy company, and Daubenspeck failed to correct these misstatements, which resulted in a failure to adequately supervise.

One of these misstatements, according to the SEC and stock fraud lawyers, occurred in the 2009 offering when Badger said the company had order backlogs amounting to more than $2 billion when, in fact, this amount never exceeded $42 million. In addition, he said a national grocery store chain had placed a $1 billion order when, in reality, it was only a $2 million order, with a non-binding letter of intent for future purchases, that had been placed by the store. Badger also stated that a U.S. Department of Energy loan had been granted to the company that exceeded $250 million, but only a $96.8 million loan had been applied for. This loan application misstatement was repeated in 2010 during the follow-up offering. Reportedly, Daubenspeck, when hearing these misstatements during his participation in at least two internal sales calls, remained silent. No reasonable corrections were made despite these red flags and, as a result, an obvious risk of investors receiving this false information went unchecked. According to securities arbitration lawyers, when misstatements like this are made in an internal sales call to brokers, it is likely that the brokers will unknowingly pass this false information to investors.