securities fraud attorney

Published on: July 13, 2012

Elder Financial Abuse Targeted by CFPB

On June 15, coinciding with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it would be launching a public inquiry regarding the financial exploitation of elder Americans. The CFPB is a new agency that will be policing consumer financial products, and investment fraud lawyers applaud its choice to focus its attention on elder financial abuse.

Elder Financial Abuse Targeted by CFPB

It is clear to securities fraud attorneys, who regularly file claims on behalf of elderly individuals, that financial abuse against the elderly is a common problem. This sentiment was reflected in the June 15 announcement by the CFPB.

“Older Americans have lost billions of dollars to the silent crime of financial exploitation,” says Richard Cordray, CFPB director. “Our older adult population is growing every year, which makes it even more critical that we study this issue. Today, the Bureau will launch a public inquiry to learn more about financial fraud of older Americans and the credentials of financial advisors who counsel them.”

Published on: July 9, 2012

Desert Capital REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently filing claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in Desert Capital REIT. Recently, a claim was filed on behalf of two individuals. Both of these investors were retirees, ages 81 and 88. The claim, which is seeking $130,000 in damages, was filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Desert Capital REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

The claim alleges that the Calton representative who solicited the Desert Capital REIT investment to the claimants was aware that the investors were retired and represented the investment as an income-producing, low-risk investment. Allegedly, the representative stated the REIT had a good reputation of paying dividends and would, therefore, be a good addition to the income-producing portfolio of the claimants. The claimants could not afford an illiquid, high-risk, speculative investment because their only source of income came from their investments and social security.

Securities fraud attorneys have stated that since REITs are, in fact, illiquid, non-traded investments, many REITs are not a suitable investment for all investors. FINRA rules have established that firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation. Furthermore, brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer. The claim states that the Calton representative and the firm itself did not perform the necessary due diligence and misrepresented the risks of Desert Capital REIT.

Published on: July 5, 2012

More Trouble for Investors of Behringer Harvard

by InvestorLawyers

Stock fraud lawyers have been investigating claims on behalf of investors of Behringer Harvard Holdings LLC for several months, but recent news shows even more trouble may be ahead for these investors. Apparently, Behringer Harvard is having significant difficulty making loan payments on two of its offerings. As a result, Behringer is losing real estate assets.

More Trouble for Investors of Behringer Harvard

Securities fraud attorneys say that earlier this month, several properties related to the nontraded Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I went into bankruptcy protection after negotiations over debt, amounting to $48.3 million, failed. Furthermore, the Behringer Harvard Short-term Opportunity Fund I LP, a private placement, entered into a “deed in lieu of foreclosure agreement.” This agreement was entered into in June 2012 and transferred properties to the lender.

At the end of 2011, Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I suffered an estimated value decline of 46 percent. According to stock fraud lawyers, this decline represents a reduction from $7.66 per share a year earlier to $4.12 at the end of 2011. In addition, as of December 31, 2011, Behringer Harvard Short-term Opportunity Fund I LP investors saw their investment drop in value from $6.48 per share on December 31, 2010 to a staggering 40 cents per share. The Short-term Opportunity Fund I had total assets amounting to around $130 million. To make matters worse, the Opportunity REIT I has total assets amounting to $524.4 million, with an additional $68.4 million in debt that will mature this year.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Investors of Bank of America Structured Products Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating potential claims on behalf of customers who suffered losses as a result in their investment in a Bank of America-created structured product or products. In some cases, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-registered brokerage firms may be held liable for having improperly sold structured products to their clients, such as those created by Bank of America.

Investors of Bank of America Structured Products Could Recover Losses

Typically, structured products are notes or debt instruments created by investment sponsors. These products are linked to assets such as stock, which are linked to another asset or assets. These investments are extremely complex and, as a result, are not appropriate for unsophisticated investors who are not capable of understanding the risks and complexity of the investment.

Because an income component is typically offered with structured products, they are appealing to fixed income individuals, such as retirees. Despite the fact the investment is not suitable for many individuals, they continue to be pushed by brokerage firms because of the high commissions offered in association with their creation and sale. 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, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Furthermore, securities arbitration lawyers say that brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Published on: June 29, 2012

News: Merrill Lynch Fined by FINRA

by InvestorLawyers

A June 21^st announcement by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) stated that the regulator has fined Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. The firm was fined $2.8 million for supervisory failures and failing to provide required trade notices, and ordered to pay $32 million in remediation to affected customers, plus interest. The supervisory failures allegedly resulted in overcharging customers in the form of unwarranted fees amounting to $32 million. Securities arbitration lawyers continue to file claims on behalf of investors who have been overcharged by the firms with which they invest.

News: Merrill Lynch Fined by FINRA

According to FINRA’s findings, Merrill Lynch failed to provide an adequate supervisory system from April 2003 to December 2011. This lack of adequate supervision allegedly resulted in customer billing that was not in accordance with contract and disclosure documents. This inaccurate billing affected almost 95,000 customer accounts. The unwarranted fees, plus interest, have since been returned to the affected customers by Merrill Lynch. Securities fraud attorneys say that when firms do not provide adequate supervisory systems, they can be held responsible for investor losses. This applies to both overcharges and instances where the firm does not supervise its brokers, some of whom then commit fraud.

In addition, Merrill Lynch did not provide customers with timely trade confirmations, as a result of computer programming errors, in certain advisory programs. Because of these errors, over 10.6 million trades in more than 230,000 customer accounts did not receive trade confirmations. Furthermore, Merrill Lynch did not properly identify its role on account statements and trade confirmations in certain transactions, specifically whether it acted as principal or agent. Securities arbitration lawyers, and FINRA’s decision, support the idea that computer programming errors are never an excuse for improper conduct on the part of a securities firm.

Published on: June 25, 2012

Paladin Realty Income Properties REIT, Wells REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who have suffered significant losses as a result of their investment in Wells or Paladin Realty Income Properties REITs.

Paladin Realty Income Properties REIT and Wells REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

Reportedly, investors were recently told by Paladin Reality Income Properties Inc. that its stock would cease to be sold next month because its current scale cannot cover expenses. This comes after it raised, in more than four years, $78.7 million. Reports about Wells Real Estate Funds state that, in an attempt to cut costs, the firm laid off its executive sales staff recently. This is not a good sign for investors, who are hoping their investment will rebound after dividend cuts and price drops.

Securities fraud attorneys have stated that as illiquid, non-traded investments, many REITs are not a suitable investment for all investors. 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, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation. Furthermore, brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Published on: June 22, 2012

Customers of Benjamin Daniel DeHaan Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Potential claims are currently being investigated by securities fraud attorneys on behalf of Benjamin Daniel DeHaan customers. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action on June 9, 2012, against Lighthouse Financial Partners LLC and Benjamin Daniel DeHaan in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Lighthouse has been owned and operated by DeHaan since 2007.

Customers of Benjamin Daniel DeHaan Could Recover Losses

According to the SEC’s complaint, from January 2011 until early May 2012, DeHaan allegedly moved about $1.2 million of investor funds to a bank account under his control, in Lighthouse’s name. By moving the funds to this account from the client accounts that were held at a custodial broker-dealer, DeHaan was able to gain control and custody of the client assets. Allegedly, the customers were told that new accounts at another broker-dealer would be opened through the use of these funds. However, once the funds were in the Lighthouse account, at least some of them were moved to DeHaan’s personal account and other accounts used for Lighthouse business expenses.

Client funds totaling at least $600,000 are still unaccounted for. Furthermore, DeHaan allegedly provided false documents to the SEC’s staff and the State of Georgia’s examiner.

Published on: June 18, 2012

Claim Against Stifel Nicolaus Could Mean More Arbitration Claims for Cardiac Network Promissory Note Investors

by InvestorLawyers

In light of a recent claim against Stifel Nicolaus, securities arbitration lawyers say other investors may come forward to recover losses sustained as a result of their investment in a Cardiac Network Promissory Note. This month, a claim was filed against Stifel to recover losses suffered by an 89-year-old veteran of World War II who suffered losses as a result of his investment in the Cardiac Network Promissory Note.

Claim Against Stifel Nicolaus Could Mean More Arbitration Claims for Cardiac Network Promissory Note Investors

According to securities fraud attorneys, the note was allegedly sold to the claimant, by a representative of Stifel, without prior approval by Stifel. This action is known as “selling away.” Securities brokerage firms have a legal obligation to provide reasonable supervision of their financial advisors’ activities. If a firm fails to reasonably supervise their advisors, they can sometimes be held responsible for losses sustained by investors.

The claim’s allegations state that the claimant was approached by the Stifel advisor and he was presented with an opportunity to earn 10 percent on a six-month investment. The advisor allegedly recommended a $150,000 Promissory Note investment but did not provide a prospectus or any other offering materials and did not mention he would be investing in “Cardiac Network.” Instead, the adviser allegedly only represented the investment as a Stifel enterprise that was being offered to affluent clients of the firm. The claimant agreed to the investment in the note based on its purported affiliation with Stifel. However, securities arbitration lawyers say that when the note came due, the claimant received no principal payment and the note is now believed to be worthless.

Published on: June 13, 2012

Investment Fraud Red Flags for Elderly Investors

by InvestorLawyers

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 11, 2012

Is Healthcare Trust of America Following in Inland Western’s Footsteps

by InvestorLawyers

According to stock fraud lawyers, a recent announcement by Healthcare Trust of America Inc. stated that the company will be advised by Wells Fargo Securities LLC in connection with the listing, on the New York Stock Exchange, of its Class A common stock. Healthcare Trust of America will be guided through the listing processes by Wells Fargo, positioning it for its next move in becoming a publicly-traded REIT. Healthcare Trust of America expects to be listed on the NYSE on or around June 6, 2012, and this move is intended to provide current stockholders with staged, phased-in liquidity.

Is Healthcare Trust of America Following in Inland Western’s Footsteps

Healthcare Trust of America is hoping for an IPO price of $10.10 per share minimum, but considering Inland Western REIT’s recent IPO and the fact that it was set much lower than was anticipated, stock fraud lawyers are monitoring the situation with Healthcare Trust of America as it unfolds to see if its investors will suffer the same kinds of losses experienced by Inland Western’s investors. Healthcare Trust of America investors should pay close attention to what happens with the investment’s IPO because if it follows in the footsteps of Inland Western, they could have a valid securities arbitration claim.

Securities fraud attorneys have stated that as illiquid, non-traded investments, many REITs are not a suitable investment for all investors. 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, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation. Furthermore, brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.