Tag Archives: class action

Recovery of Losses with NPB Financial

Jeffrey Pederson, PC represents those suffering losses with NPB Financial Group.  Please contact us if you suffered losses with an NPB broker from investments made during the time period of 2012 through 2014.  Regulators have recently alleged supervisory lapses at NPB.  Call 1-866-817-0201 to speak to a private attorney about potential rights of recovery.

Regulators with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, the regulator that acts under the oversight of the SEC and has primary authority in overseeing securities brokerages, have recently brought a regulatory action against NPB for significant supervisory lapses.  NPB settle these charges without admitting or denying fault.

The allegations by FINRA are that from June 2012 through May 2014, NPB failed to: (i) establish, maintain, and enforce adequate procedures for the review of email, (ii) NPB failed to review the email of the firm’s president, chief executive officer, and chief compliance officer, and (iii) it failed to adequately enforce its own procedures regarding the use of non-firm email addresses, such as G-mail or AOL, by its brokers in violation, a regulatory rule violation designed to prevent fraud.

The shortcomings are all violations of rules designed to prevent fraud by its brokers.  Brokerage firms are required to review the written communications of its brokers to make sure that all recommended investments, even those an NPB broker recommends away from NPB, are appropriate.  The requirement that brokers utilize e-mail that passes through the brokerage is also important for cyber security to prevent accounts from being accessed by hackers.

Supervisory lapses likely contributed to the recently discovered misdeeds of John Oldham, an NPB broker from Wisconsin, who consented to allegations that he had engaged in improper fee sharing and allocation of responsibilities in the sale of REITs and other alternative investment products.  These lapses likely also led to the misdeeds of Stephen Kipp.

Jeffrey Pederson PC specializes in the handling of individual or group actions against securities brokerage firms.  Call to explore your rights.

Wells Fargo Losses

If you suffered losses with Wells Fargo in ETP investments or other investments that you understood to have only low to moderate risk, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation with an attorney.

Wells FargoFINRA, the regulator that oversees securities brokerages, ordered Wells Fargo on Monday to pay investors $3.4 million after its advisers recommended “unsuitable” investments known as volatility-linked products that were “highly likely to lose value over time.”

Wells Fargo pushed its investors into these investments, volatility-linked ETPs, as hedges, to protect against a market downturn. In fact, these investments are unsuitable for such a strategy.  The investment are, in reality, “short-term trading products that degrade significantly over time,” regulators said, and “should not be used as part of a long-term buy-and-hold” strategy.  The recommendation of such unsuitable investments is a form of negligence, and could be seen as reckless enough to be considered fraud.

Volatility-linked ETPs are complex products that most investors do not understand and, as such, they rely upon their adviser, who should be a trained professional, to understand.   Certain Wells Fargo representatives mistakenly believed that the products could be used as a long-term hedge on their customers’ equity positions to help safeguard against a downturn in the market. In fact, volatility-linked ETPs are generally short-term trading products that degrade significantly over time and should not be used as part of a long-term buy-and-hold investment strategy.

FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 17-32 shortly after announcing the settlement with Wells Fargo to remind firms of their sales practice obligations relating to these products. Wells Fargo had previously been on notice to provide heightened supervision of complex products such as ETPs in Regulatory Notice 12-03, and were advised, along with all other brokerages, to assess the reasonableness of their own practices and supervision of these products.

FINRA found, “Wells Fargo failed to implement a reasonable system to supervise solicited sales of these products during the relevant time period.”  The complete news release of the FINRA action can be found at the following link.

Losses with Stuart Pearl of Ameriprise

If you have been the victim of unauthorized securities trades or been recommended unsuitable securities by your financial advisor, please call 1-866-817-0201.  We are interested to investors suffering losses with Stuart Pearl.  Mr. Pearl has recently entered into a regulatory settlement where he neither admits or denies the following:

investingstockphoto 1On May 14, 2015, Stuart Pearl used discretion to liquidate positions in six different securities with a total principal amount of approximately $20,000, on behalf of a senior investor. Although the investor had authorized Pearl to execute these liquidations in discussions that took place prior to May 14, 2015, Pearl failed to speak with the investor again on May 14, 2015, to confirm the investor’s authorization to make these sales.

Pearl’s use of discretion as described was without prior written authorization from the investor, and without prior written acceptance of the account as discretionary from his firm, Ameriprise. By virtue of the foregoing, Pearl violated NASD and FINRA rules.

In June 2010, two other customers of Pearl, who were retired and both in their 70s, opened a joint brokerage account with him at Ameriprise. The new account documentation provided that securities could be purchased on margin, a process or lending money to buy securities that involves a great deal of risk.

At the time they opened their account, the investors had an investment objective of “growth and income,” a risk tolerance of”conservative/moderate” and limited experience with trading on margin. They also had a combined annual income of $30,000, a liquid net worth of$500,000 and investable funds of $400,000.

Between September 2011 and March 2012, Pearl recommended that the investors purchase four securities valued at approximately $122,000 on margin. Prior to making those purchases, the customers bad no margin debt balance in their account. As a result of those investments, the investors experienced a significant increase in their margin debt balances in relation to their available funds and their account was subject to seven margin calls during the relevant period, where the parties must deposit funds into their account to pay the outstanding loan or risk liquidation of their portfolio.  The recommendation to purchase such investments utilizing margin was unsuitable and in violation of FINRA and NASD rules prohibiting unsuitable recommendations.

Ameriprise had a duty to oversee the transactions of Pearl and should be responsible for the lack of supervision given Pearl.

More information on this matter can be found in the October 10, 2017 issue of InvestmentNews.

Network 1 Financial ETF Losses

From August 2010 to September 2015 Network 1 Financial failed to establish and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise advisor sales of complex investments such as leveraged, inverse, and inverse-leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs).  These are the regulatory findings that Network 1 neither denies or admits.  This issue has impacted over one hundreds securities accounts at Network 1.  If you are a Network 1 investor please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation.

Non-Traditional ETFs are complicated investment vehicles suitable for only a small section of the investing public.  Such ETFs are designed to return a multiple of an underlying index, Such as the Russell 2000, S&P 500 or VIX, the inverse of that benchmark, or both, over the course of a day.

The performance of such ETFs over periods of time longer than a single trading session be very volatile and be substantially risky.  The results, as FINRA states, “can differ significantly from the performance . . . of their underlying index or benchmark during the same period of time.”

FINRA, the regulator of securities brokerages in the United States, has warn brokerages and their advisors that NonTraditional ETFs “are typically not suitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for more than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.”

Approximately 29 Network 1 financial advisors/brokers traded such ETFs in 167 customer accounts. These representatives executed 645 ETF transactions totaling approximately $48 million in possibly unsuitable trades.

Transactions in Non-Traditional ETFs during the referenced period, Network 1 Financial had inadequate supervisory procedures regarding the suitability and supervision of Non-Traditional ETFs transactions.

 

Morgan Stanley $13 Mil. UIT Sanctions

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today, September 25, 2017, that it has sanctioned Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC approximately $13 million for UIT violations by its advisors and for failing to supervise its advisors’ short-term trades of unit investment trusts (UITs).

A UIT is an investment vehicle similar to a mutual fund but with some key differences.  It is an investment company that offers units in a portfolio of securities; however, unlike a mutual fund, it terminates on a specific maturity date. UITs impose a variety of charges, including a deferred sales charge and a creation and development fee, that can total approximately 3.95 percent for a typical 24-month UIT. This can be a significant cost.  A registered representative, or advisor, who repeatedly recommends that a customer sell a UIT position before the maturity date and then “rolls over” those funds into a new UIT, an action that can also be described as “churning,” causes the customer to incur increased and unnecessary sale charges over time.

FINRA found such actions in thousands of customer accounts. FINRA further found that Morgan Stanley failed to adequately supervise advisor sales of UITs by providing insufficient guidance to supervisors regarding how they should review such transactions to detect improper short-term UIT trading, failing to implement an adequate system to detect and deter such abuse, and failing to provide for supervisory review of rollovers prior to execution. Morgan Stanley also failed to conduct training for advisors specific to these UIT issues.

Susan Schroeder of FINRA said, “Due to the long-term nature of UITs, their structure, and upfront costs, short-term trading of UITs may be improper and raises suitability concerns. Firms must adequately supervise representatives’ sales of UITs –including providing sufficient training –and have in place a system to detect potentially unsuitable short-term UIT rollovers.”

In assessing sanctions, FINRA has recognized Morgan Stanley’s cooperation in having initiated a firmwide investigation that included, among other things, interviewing more than 65 firm personnel and the retention of an outside consultant to conduct a statistical analysis of UIT rollovers at the firm; identified customers affected and establishing a plan to provide remediation to those customers; and provided substantial assistance to FINRA in its investigation.

Diones LaCerte Investment Fraud Investigation

We are currently investigating the actions of Colorado Springs broker Diones LaCerte.  Ms. LaCerte was most recently a financial advisor for Morgan Stanley.  If you information or would like to discuss a potential claim that you have concerning Ms. LaCerte, please call 303-300-5022 in Colorado or 1-866-817-0201 outside of Colorado to speak to a Colorado licensed attorney.

Ms. LaCerte has recently been alleged by FINRA regultators to have committed significant fraud. Between July 1,2012 and December 31,2014, LaCerte engaged in an unsuitable pattern of short-term trading of Unit Investment Trusts (“UITs”) in 107 of her customers’ accounts.  This is a significant type of fraud perpetrated on a large number of investors.   Diones LaCerte settled the charges without admitting or denying fault.

The actions of LaCerte constitute an unsuitable pattern of short term trading of UITs in 107 customer accounts. This is similar to churning an account.  Short term trades of a high commission and high cost investment puts the advisor’s financial gain ahead of that advisor’s investors.

UITs typically carry significant upfront charges, such as costs and commissions, and as with mutual funds, short-term trading of UITs is generally improper. During the Relevant Period, in connection with these 107 customer accounts, LaCerte repeatedly recommended that the customers purchase UITs and then sell these products well before their maturity dates.

The primary issue brought by FINRA concerns the selling of UITs less than two years after purchase.  The majority of the UlTs that LaCerte recommended had maturity dates of at least 24 months. Nevertheless, LaCerte repeatedly recommended that her customers sell their UIT positions less than one year after purchase. Indeed, the average holding period for the UITs purchased in these customers’ accounts was less than 300 days. In addition, on more than 100 occasions, LaCerte recommended that her customers use the proceeds from the short-term sale of a UIT to purchase another, similar UIT. LaCerte’s recommendations caused the customers to incur unnecessary sales charges, and were unsuitable in view of the frequency and cost of the transactions.

Diones LaCerte has a significant history of customer complaints prior to the current regulatory action.  The CRD of Ms. LaCerte, the record a financial advisor has with FINRA regulators, indicates that she has received many customer complaints concerning the sale of unsuitable investments, and these complaints have led to five investor lawsuits brought or threatened in the past three years.

Colo. Attorney for Sonya Camarco Victims

Sonya Camarco is an LPL Financial advisor based in Colorado Springs who stole approximately $2.8 million from her investors/clients.  Camarco then used the stolen funds for personal expenses such as buying several homes.

If you are a victim, please call the Law Offices of Jeffrey Pederson at 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation on your rights.  Jeffrey Pederson is an attorney licensed in Colorado who has helped hundreds of victims of financial advisor fraud and theft from across the country.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Sonya D. Camarco with five counts of fraud charges and has frozen her assets after SEC investigators said she used third-party checks and other means to forward client funds toward personal expenses like mortgage and credit card payments.  Federal authorities filed charges against Comarco on or about August 27, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

broker in handcuffs

Camarco forged clients’ signatures on at least 129 first- and third-party checks, having them sent to a post office box and signing them over to an entity she controlled, an entity named “C Investments,” according to the SEC. Camarco bilked one widow victim for more than $1 million, investigators say.

These actions not only raise questions on the actions of Camarco, but also raises question as to the LPL supervisors charged with overseeing Camarco.  Reasonable supervision is designed to detect and stop these types of actions.  There are also money laundering issues on the part of those who helped Camarco commit her crimes.

Prior to working for LPL, Camarco had worked from both Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch.

Jeffrey Pederson, from his offices in the Denver Tech Center, has handled cases in the past with similar facts and has experience in this type of advisor scheme where an advisor uses similar mechanisms to gain control of the investor’s funds.   Consequently, he knows the documents to seek in discovery from defendants or to subpoena from non-defendants, and additional avenues of recovery to allow victims to increase their level of repayment.

John Correnti Investment Losses

If you have suffered investment losses with John Correnti, most recently with AXA, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation concerning your rights.

Mr. Correnti was terminated by AXA in July 2016 as the result of allegations concerning market manipulation.  The manipulation concern certain low-priced investments that were traded over-the-counter.  This is a serious type of securities fraud.  Such investments are easy to manipulate by a broker because they generally have a low volume of trading.  If a broker can get several of clients in a short time period or have one client make a significantly large purchase he can artificially inflate the price.  The problem from market manipulation generally comes in that the broker trades in his own account ahead of the purchase, sells once the price is artificially inflated and then the investment crashes since no other investors are available to keep the price inflated, though it is unclear if Correnti directly profited from the alleged market manipulation.  Notwithstanding, a violation may exist even if the broker does not directly profit as either a fraud on the market or by the damage the broker causes the investor/customer.

FINRA sought to investigate Correnti for these allegations and allegations that he was intentionally selling investments to his customer/investors beyond the supervision of AXA compliance and managers.   Correnti, at the regulatory hearing, chose to stop his testimony and, as a result, stopped contesting the charges.  He was then expelled from the securities industry by FINRA.

 

Anthony Vincent Ferrone securities violations

If you have suffered securities losses with Anthony Vincent Ferrone, formerly of Morgan Stanley, Ameriprise and Stifel Nicolaus, please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation with a private attorney.   We believe that investors may be entitled to recovery for securities losses based upon recent actions concerning allegations of securities violations.

NYSE pic 2In July 2017, Mr. Ferrone was barred by FINRA from the securities industry.  The reason was because of his refusal to give complete testimony in a regulatory investigation concerning allegations that he sold investors unsuitable investments.

Unsuitable investments are investments recommended by a broker that are too aggressive or otherwise consistent with the investment objectives of an investor.  It can also mean any investment where a broker puts his personal compensation ahead of those of his investors.  Investors sold unsuitable investments are entitled to damages from the broker and the broker’s employer.

This is a recent event in a history of events concerning alleged mismanagement of funds and other red flags as to Mr. Ferrone’s ability to act as a broker.  Ferrone has four other allegations of mismanagement by investors, which are largely based on suitability issues.

Although Ferrone appeared for the FINRA investigation review on June 21, 2017, he did not provide complete testimony to FINRA. Specifically, during the review, Ferrone stated that he did not intend to proceed further on that date or at any future date and departed prior to the completion of his testimony.

 

 

Attention Investors of Kyle P. Harrington

Investors of Kyle Patrick Harrington may have recourse for their losses.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation.

Harrington has been alleged to have committed several forms of deceit in his dealings with investors and regulators in the last eight years.  This includes actions while employed at National Securities (NSC), Bannockburn Partners, Matrix Captial, First Allied, and Robert B. Ausdall.  He is currently a representative of Aurora Capital and also operates under the name of Harrington Capital Management.  Responsibility for the actions of Harrington fall not just on Harrington, but also on his employers.

The types of deceit alleged over the years include churning, creating of falsified documents, theft of investor funds, unsuitable investments, excessive trading, unauthorized purchases made in investor accounts, and other forms of misrepresentations and fraud.

Of all the allegations of deceit, the most recent is a civil suit filed by FINRA.   The FINRA suit involves a series of alleged deceptions by Kyle Harrington with the help of his assistant, Linda Milberger, to conceal Harrington’s alleged theft of customer funds and private securities transactions, securities transactions done outside of his firms’ fraud monitoring to put his investors in questionable investments.

Harrington is also alleged to have created false documents to submit to FINRA to conceal his misconduct not just from his employers, but also from regulators. For her part, Milberger falsified wire request forms which allowed Harrington’s conversion of customer funds, submitted those falsified wire request forms to her firm and another brokerage as if they were authentic records, and knowingly assisted Harrington in providing an altered bank statement to regulators.

In particular, in August 2012, Harrington convinced an investor to authorize a wire transfer to Harrington’s registered investment advisor firm for a purported investment. In fact, after the investor’s funds were wired to Harrington’s business checking account, Harrington took the investor’s funds without her knowledge or consent, and used it to pay his own business expenses.

When difficulties arose completing the $20,000 wire transfer from the investor’s account in August 2012, Harrington’s assistant, Milberger, altered the wire request form that the investor had signed without the investor’s knowledge or consent, on at least two occasions, in order to transfer all available cash out ofLD’s account to Harrington. Milberger submitted the altered wire request forms to her own firm and another broker dealer as iftheywere authentic, thereby causing those firms to maintain inaccurate books and records regarding the wire transfer.

In August 2012 and early 2013, Harrington also engaged in a series of private securities transactions with multiple individuals through which he sold over 300,000 shares of restricted stock he had purportedly received as compensation from a company named Islet Sciences, Inc. for approximately $276,000. Harrington failed to disclose these transactions, including his role as seller of the securities, to his employing firm or seek its prior approval of them.

Harrington not only failed to disclose his private securities transactions in Islet but he actively attempted to conceal them. Specifically, in July 2014, during a firm audit of his business, Harrington submitted falsified records to his firm mischaracterizing payments he had received for the sale of his Islet stock.

Additionally, Harrington has been the subject of nine actual or threatened investor lawsuits, multiple other regulatory investigations and employment terminations.  This information is contained in the CRD of Harrington.