Tag Archives: attorney representation

Attention Investors of Voigt Cullen Kempson III

Pederson, PC is investigating the actions of V. Cullen Kempson III currently of American Portfolios and previously of Commonwealth Financial Network.   Kempson has previously settled charges of unauthorized trading in the account of a deceased investor and is currently facing felony weapons charges.  To speak to an attorney for a free and confidential consultation please call 1-866-817-0201.  

A recent settlement agreement Kempson enter into with FINRA regulators agrees to the 30-day suspension for making a large number of unauthorized trades in the account of an investor Kempson knew was deceased.  In the agreement, referred to as an AWC, Kempson neither admits nor denies fault.

The alleged facts are that in February 2007, A Kempson investor opened two investment Invest photo 2advisory accounts with Kempson at the Firm. At the time, the investor signed an agreement with the Firm granting Kempson discretionary trading authority, the ability to make securities trades without first contacting the investor.  A broker must contact an investor prior to the making of trades unless the broker has been granted authority by the investor in writing to make trades in an account.

On June 13, 2015, the investor passed away. Although Kempson was aware of the investor’s death since at least June 29,2015, Kempson did not inform his Firm of the investor’s death and continued to effect trades on a discretionary basis in the accounts.

Between June 29,2015 and April 5, 2016, Kempson effected a total of 40 trades in the deceased individual’s accounts.  FINRA Rule 2010 requires members to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. After the investor passed away, Kempson had no written authority to conduct any trades in the investor’s accounts. FINRA charged that, by effecting 40 trades in a deceased customer’s accounts, Kempson violated FINRA Rule 2010.

Additionally, in February 2017, Kempson was charged on felony weapons charges for the unlawful possession of a weapon.  As stated in his CRD, he case is in front of the New Jersey Superior Court in Essex Vincinage.  He has asserted that he is not guilty.

Investment Professionals, Inc. (IPI)

If you have suffered investment losses with Investment Professionals, Inc. (IPI) and believe that it may be due to mismanagement, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential attorney consultation.

Invest photo 2IPI has recently agreed to pay a fine to the Massachusetts Attorney General for violations of the suitability rule.  This rule requires a financial adviser to not recommend investments that are of a higher risk than an investor either wants or is financially able to take.  The allegations were that IPI was recommending risky investments to seniors who could not afford to take such risks. Though the action was brought by Massachusetts, the systemic nature is a good indication that such violations are occurring in other states as well.

IPI’s business model is based upon partnering with community banks so that the bank’s existing depository customers can be used to provide revenue to IPI and additional revenue to the bank. Though IPI is based in San Antonio, Texas, it engages in such partnerships around the country.

Networking agreements between IPI and their bank partners reveal a referral program where bank employees of its partner banks refer bank customers to IPI financial advisers for monetary incentives. In exchange for allowing IPI representatives convenient access to bank customers, IPI’ s bank partners receive “rent,” or commonly referred as a kickback, which is a percentage of the sales that IPI representatives earn from selling products at bank branches.

While IPI and their bank partners profit from their networking arrangements, the pervasive sales culture emphasizing and rewarding the volume of production at the expense of compliance with policies and procedures, suitability, and oversight means that certain senior citizen bank customers have been harmed .

As identified in the regulatory complaint, IPI has partnered with the following. banks and credit union in Massachusetts: Eastern Bank, Mutual Bank, East Boston Savings Bank, Edgartown National Bank, The Cooperative Bank, and Homefield Credit Union.  Between January 2014 and June 2016, the top ten IPI representatives working out of Massachusetts community banks received approximately 2,208 customer referals. Approximately forty-five percent ( 45%) of these bank referrals to IPI financial were referrals of semor citizens, those individuals aged 65 or older. Approximately fourteen percent (14 %) of those referred invested in market-linked certificates of deposit (“MLCDs”) and approximately thirty-nine percent (39%) invested in annuities. Eastern Bank, is IPI’s largest partner in Massachusetts. Eight of the top ten highest producing IPI representatives in the stat work at Eastern Bank branches.

IPI’s aggressive sales contests exist against a backdrop of lax supervision from offices located in Texas and Kentucky that management personal at IPI identified as “not adequate.” Although IPI’s own policies and procedures prohibit “activities that are designed to reward sales for a particular financial product or family of products” and prohibit activities that “would only serve as a luxury” to representatives, in 2016 IPI rewarded the top ten percent of the previous year’s highest-producing representatives with a trip to Turks and Caicos. In 2015, IPI held a sales contest approved by IPI’ s President and CEO whereby representatives who achieved sales of products up to $150,000.  This served as motivation to put seniors in inappropriate investments.

Kris Etter of IMS Securities

If you have suffered investment losses with Kris Etter of IMS Securities, particularly if you suffered losses in UDF, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation with an attorney.  We have suit filed against IMS and are currently investigating whether other claims may exist.

It is believed that Etter had an undisclosed conflict of interest in his recommendations of UDF.  Upon information and belief, Mr. Kris Etter sold a substantial amount of UDF to his clients and is the son of Todd Etter.  Todd Etter is the Chairman of UDF IV, one of the top officers of the company.  Mr. Todd Etter also serves as Chairman of the general partner of UDF I and UDF II and Executive Vice President of the general partner of UDF III.  This creates a substantial conflict of interest in UDF recommendations by Kris Etter.

Kris Etter and IMS also failed to properly investigate UDF before recommending it, likely because of the Etter conflict and the heightened commission paid by UDF.  IMS is one of the top four leading sellers of UDF IV in the United States.

The bottom fell out for UDF when it was revealed in December 2015 to be a Ponzi scheme. The offices were raided by the FBI, received a Wells notice, unable to release quarterly reports and was ultimately delisted for a time. Reasonable investigation into the investment of other financial firms revealed that the illegitimacy of the investment. Had IMS done sufficient due diligence it would have likewise discovered that the investment was not suitable for any investor. Instead, IMS and Etter turned a blind eye to the problems of UDF and instead focused on the profits that it was receiving from this high commission product.

The individual ultimately in charge of all IMS offices is the CEO of IMS, Jackie Wadsworth.  Ms. Wadsworth has seven customer complaints naming her for insufficient supervision of representatives under her oversight. These complaints largely concern the inappropriate recommendation by her representatives of unsuitable variable annuity and REIT investments, just like the investments sold clients of Kris Etter and IMS.

As reported in Investmentnews.com in August 2016, the balance sheet of IMS is tilted heavily toward high-commission products like variable annuities and non-traded REITs. Approximately 86% of its revenue of IMS in 2015 came from commissions from such products.

Charles Lee Deremo

Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. of Syracuse, New York and Stockbroker Charles Lee Deremo of Apple Valley, Minnesota submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent.

If you invested with either Cadaret or Deremo, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation with an attorney.

Cadaret was censured and fined $10,000 and Deremo was fined of $5,000,
suspended from association with any FINRA member, which is any stockbrokerage or financial advisory firm, in any capacity for 10 business days.

The firm and Deremo consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm failed to enforce its own procedures and conduct an adequate suitability review of Deremo’s recommended investment strategy for a customer.  This is in violation of FINRA rules that require a brokerage firm to review recommendations of brokers to verify that the recommendations are suitable.

The findings, which were neither admitted nor denied, stated that the firm failed to identify that Deremo’s basis for the recommendation of a strategy for the customer may not have been suitable given the customer’s age, his investment objectives, his risk tolerance and the concentration of his investment. Moreover, the customer relied on monthly withdrawals from his variable annuity for living expenses.

The regulatory document giving more details of the underlying facts can be found with the following link.

If you believe you were also sold unsuitable securities, please call the number above for a free consultation on your legal rights and whether you have grounds for recovery.  Regulatory actions such as this can often expose the basis for additional private actions.

William P. Carlson of Elhert

On February 21, 2017, he Securities and Exchange Commission charged William P. Carlson, Jr., a Deerfield, IL investment advisor with misappropriating more than $900,000 from a client’s account through more than 40 unauthorized transactions.  Deerfield is in the Chicago-area.

The SEC alleges that Carlson, an investment advisor representative associated with the Ehlert Group in Lincolnshire, forged a client’s signature on checks and journal requests and caused checks to be issued from the client’s account to a third party who gave the proceeds to Carlson.

Carlson had discretionary authority to place trades in the victim’s accounts. Such trades, involving the purchase and sale of mutual fund shares, were supposed to be made pursuant to a model asset allocation portfolio selected by the client based on advice from Carlson. When requested by the client, Carlson could direct disbursement of funds held in the accounts to the client. In order to disburse funds held in the accounts for the benefit of a third party, the Broker-Dealer holding the funds required a written request signed by the client.

On at least sixteen different occasions from November 2012 to April 2014, Carlson directed that a check made payable to the client be issued from the client’s account, purportedly based on instructions Carlson had received from the client. The check amounts ranged from $6,500 to as much as $97,000, and collectively totaled $437,000.

In approximately June 2014, Carlson changed his method of making unauthorized withdrawals from the client’s account. Carlson began forging the vicitm’s signature on “Check and Journal Request” forms that directed the Broker-Dealer to make disbursements of funds held in the client’s account to a third party who was a friend of Carlson’s.

In March 2015, Carlson forged the vicitm’s signature on a letter of authorization and a notarized signature sample letter permitting the firm holding the funds to issue checks from the victim’s account to Carlson’s same friend, without the need for further check and journal requests that required additional client signatures.

Between approximately June 2014 and December 2016, through the use of these forged authorizations, Carlson caused at least 25 checks—ranging in amount from $10,000 to $35,000 and collectively totaling $474,000—to be issued from the client’s account to Carlson’s friend, who in turn gave the proceeds to Carlson.

The Complaint of the SEC can be found at the following link.

Kelly Clayton Althar

Kelly Clayton Althar has been barred from the securities industry for excessive trades and recommending and purchasing investments that were too high of a risk for the broker’s investors.

The allegations to which Althar consented, without admitting or denying fault, are that between April 2011 and March 2014 the broker made unsuitable recommendations and engaged in excessive trading in two accounts held by an elderly customer.  Althar engaged in high volume trading to generate commissions and over concentrated a client’s accounts in risky securities, despite the fact that the client was close to retirement and wanted only low risk investments. Althar’s trading decimated the client’s accounts, which constituted the bulk of her net worth and retirement savings.

During the Relevant Period, Althar often purchased, sold, and subsequently repurchased the same security in CN’s accounts within a short period oftime. For example, on December 26, 2012, Althar purchased 696 shares of American Capital Agency Corp. (“AGNC”), a REIT, for $21,559.09 and sold those shares, at a loss, two months later on February 28,2013, for $21,298.50. He then re-purchased 782 shares of AGNC two months later after the price had risen, for $26,756.36. and then sold those shares, at a significant loss, six weeks later for $18,619.03. On those four trades, on which CN lost over $8,000 in a matter ofmonths, Althar generated over $3,000 in commissions.

A link to the AWC can be found at the following link.

Althar had previous pled no contest to a charge for felony grand theft and was sentenced to a 30-day work program and 36 months probation.

 

Losses with Matthew David Niederbaumer

Please call if you suffered losses with Matthew David Niederbaumer of Huron, South Dakota and employed by Thrivent Investment Management.

Mr. Niederbaumer submitted an AWC, a settlement agreement where a securities broker neither admits but cannot deny fault, in which he was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 10 business days.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Niederbaumer consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion in executing transactions in connection with the sale and purchase of exchange-traded notes and funds in five of his customer’s accounts. The findings stated that while the customers consented to the transactions, Niederbaumer did not obtain the customers’ prior written authorization to exercise discretion in the accounts, and his member firm did not approve the accounts for discretionary trading.

Part of the concern in this matter is the fact that the trades involved exchange traded notes (ETN).  ETN investments carry a high commission and are high risk.  The possibility for abuse and improper intent is much more likely when such trades result in a commission higher than normal, and the chance that a customer would reject a recommended investment with such a high commission if consulted is greater.

The record of Mr. Niederbaumer’s compiled by FINRA can be found at the following link.

Morgan Stanley ETF Losses

If you have suffered losses with an ETF purchased through Morgan Stanley please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation with a private attorney concerning your rights. We have reason to believe that Morgan Stanley engaged in systematic wrongdoing in the sale of certain ETFs based upon recent findings of the The Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC announced on February 14, 2017 that it has settled with Morgan Stanley for $8 million for inappropriate sales of complex exchange traded funds to advice clients.  More importantly, Morgan Stanley admitted to wrongdoing.

Morgan Stanley failed to obtain a signed client disclosure notice, which stated that single inverse ETFs were typically unsuitable for investors planning to hold them longer than one trading session unless used as part of a trading or hedging strategy.  This is important because the number of clients this impacted number in the hundreds.

The investment recommendations were also unsuitable, in violation of the regulatory duties that Morgan Stanley owes its investors.  Morgan Stanley solicited clients to purchase single inverse ETFs in retirement and other accounts, the securities were held long-term, and many of the clients experienced losses.

The SEC’s order further finds that Morgan Stanley failed to follow through on another key policy and procedure requiring a supervisor to conduct risk reviews to evaluate the suitability of inverse ETFs for each advisory client.  Among other compliance failures, Morgan Stanley did not monitor the single-inverse ETF positions on an ongoing basis and did not ensure that certain financial advisers completed single inverse ETF training.

Morgan Stanley also owes a duty to the investors to follow its own internal regulations.  The SEC’s order finds that Morgan Stanley did not adequately implement its policies and procedures to ensure that clients understood the risks involved with purchasing inverse ETFs.

“Morgan Stanley recommended securities with unique risks and failed to follow its policies and procedures to ensure they were suitable for all clients,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC Enforcement Division.

John Burns, Ameriprise, UBS Loss Recovery

John Burns of St. Charles, MO, and formerly of Ameriprise, UBS, Edward Jones and Sagepoint, submitted an agreement settling a regulatory suit in which he was assessed a deferred fine of and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 14 months.  Such regulatory actions rarely work to compensate injured investors and injured investors should speak to an attorney concerning their losses.  If you believe that you have suffered losses, or believe the offer to settle your matter is too low, call 1-866-817-0201 for a free initial consultation with an attorney.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Burns consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in a pattern of unauthorized trading in customer accounts and made unsuitable, risky investments for a senior couple. The findings stated that Burns did not have written discretionary authority to place trades in any of these customer accounts. In some of UBSthe customer accounts, Burns executed the trades without any authorization, while in other customer accounts, Burns had some verbal authorization to exercise discretion generally, but exceeded that verbal authorization by executing trades in excess of the available funds in the account. The findings also stated that Burns made unsuitable and unauthorized investments over a twoyear period in the account of a senior retired couple, both of whom were over 65 years old. These transactions involved repeated high-risk investments in small drug company stocks which were unsuitable for the customers’ moderate risk tolerance and investment profile. The customers sustained losses in all but one of these investments in an aggregate amount exceeding $50,000.

Burns has also been the subject of five lawsuits in recent years filed by investors concerning the mishandling of their accounts.

Dougherty & Company Investment Losses

 

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced in January 2017 that it resolved a regulatory action against Dougherty & Company LLC, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  We believe that this action exposed supervisory problems within Dougherty and may entitle investors of certain investments recovery for investment losses.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation with an attorney

Dougherty entered into a settlement agreement with FINRA regulators, where Dougherty did not did not admit or deny fault, but agreed to a censure, a fine of $140,000, and required to pay $78,910 in restitution to a customer.  The action stems from the allegation that for more than four years, Dougherty did not adequately supervise a securities broker who initiated hundreds of trades for elderly customers without contacting them, thus lacking appropriate authorization, and unsuitably recommended dozens of transactions to those customers. Unsuitable recommendations are investment recommendations that were of higher risk than the investor agreed to assume.

The settlement agreement contained certain findings of fact, and those findings stated that Dougherty assigned the primary responsibility for supervising broker trading activity to a supervisor who was also responsible for supervising numerous other brokers and handling his own customers’ accounts. The supervisor’s supervision of the broker in question was not subject to adequate firm oversight or specific direction. Instead, Dougherty inappropriately relied on the supervisor’s discretion and judgment, which the supervisor did not exercise appropriately.

The findings also stated that the firm did not have supervisory tools that were reasonably designed to detect financial adviser or broker misconduct.  FINRA stated that while the supervisor received daily trade blotters and certain monthly exception reports, data generated by a brokerage firm that identifies the investments recommended by a broker and warns of potentially inappropriate investment recommendations, the firm did not provide exception reports addressing short-term trading or margin usage by the financial adviser to the supervisor.

Additionally, the firm’s exception reports designed to identify inappropriate recommendations to elderly customers excluded accounts in the name of a trust, regardless of the age of the settlor or trustee.  Such shortcomings are important because the broker’s trading activity in two of the accounts at issue did not appear on those exception reports because of the existence of a trust.

The findings also included that the firm failed to respond appropriately to warning signs about the broker’s business, such as a dramatic increase in his commissions without a commensurate change in the number of accounts that he handled or the type of products that he sold. In sum, the firm’s system of supervision was not reasonably designed under the circumstances to prevent violations of securities laws and rules, including rules governing trading without customers’ approval and unsuitable recommendations.

The full AWC can be found at the following link.

Jeffrey Pederson PC is a private law firm that has helped hundreds of investors successfully recover similar losses.