Tag Archives: class action

Help for investors of Larry Boggs

Please call 1-866-817-0201  to discuss your rights if you invested with Larry Martin Bogs, formerly of Wedbush and Ameriprise.  Discussions will be confidential and initial consultations are free of charge.

On January 5, 2018, the regulator overseeing securities brokerages, FINRA issued a press release.   An AWC, a regulatory settlement agreement containing factual findings, was issued in which Boggs was barred from association with any FINRA member firm in all capacities.   This would include a bar from all securities brokerages in the United States.

Without admitting or denying the findings,Boggs consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he engaged in excessive and unsuitable trading in customer accounts. The findings stated that Boggs used his control over the customers’ accounts to excessively trade in them in a manner that was inconsistent with these investors’ investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial situations.

Boggs engaged in a strategy that was predicated on short-term trading of
primarily income-paying equity securities that were identified on a list of recommended
securities by his member firm. Boggs would typically buy or sell these securities based on
whether they were added to or removed from this list, and would frequently liquidate
positions that increased or decreased by more than 10 percent.

The findings also stated that Boggs improperly exercised discretion in these accounts without written authorization from the customers or the firm. The findings also included that Boggs caused the firm’s books and records to be incorrect by changing the investment objectives and risk tolerance for several of these customers in order to conform to his high-frequency trading strategy, even though the customers’ investment objectives and risk tolerance had not actually
changed.

Investors of Mark Kaplan of Vanderbilt

We are currently looking to speak to investors of Mark Kaplan of Vanderbilt Securities.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 is you have suffered investment losses.  We believe there is potential for certain investors to recover these losses.

Between March 2011 and March 2015 , Mark Kaplan of Vanderbilt Securities engaged in investment churning and unsuitable excessive trading in the brokerage accounts of a senior customer. We believe that such actions were likely widespread and impacted many of Kaplan’s investors.  Kaplan willfully violated federal securities laws and FINRA regulations by such actions.

Invest photo 2Kaplan has been known for years by Vanderbilt to have problems in his handling of investor accounts.  Morgan Stanley terminated Kaplan in 2011 for his alleged improper activity in Kaplan’s customer accounts.  Additionally, Kaplan has been the subject of seven separate customer lawsuits concerning improper securities transactions.

A recent regulatory action by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) alleges that Kaplan took advantage a 93-year-old retired clothing salesman who had an account with Kaplan.   This investor not only placed his complete reliance in Kaplan but was also in the beginning phases of dimensia.

The investor opened accounts at Vanderbilt Securities with Kaplan during March 2011.  As of Match 31, 2011, the value of the investor’s accounts was approximately $507,544.64. Social Security was the investor’s only source of income during the Relevant Period. Kaplan exercised control over the accounts.  The investor relied on Kaplan to direct investment decisions in his accounts, contacting Kaplan frequently.

The investor was experiencing a decline in his mental health.  In 2015, a court granted an application by the investor’s nephew to act as his legal guardian and manage his financial affairs.

During the Relevant Period, Kaplan effected more than 3,500 transactions in the investor’s accounts, which resulted in approximately $723,000 in trading losses and generated approximately $735,000 in commissions and markups for Kaplan and Vanderbilt. Kaplan never discussed with the investor the extent of his total losses or the amount he paid in sales charges and commissions.

More can be learned about such excessive trading at the warning page for the SEC.

Please call the number above to determine if you have also been taken advantage of and your rights for recovery.

 

Losses in Inverse VIX ETNs and ETFs

NYSE pic 1

Investments connected to the VIX index were known to be highly speculative.

We are a firm that specializes in investor loss recovery.  Investors of Inverse VIX Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs) and Inverse VIX Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), including VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Terms ETN (XIV), the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (SVXY), and the LJM Partners’ Preservation and Growth fund (LJMIX and LJMAX) may have grounds for the recovery of their losses.

If you were sold an Inverse VIX ETN please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation with an attorney.

These investments were suitable for very few investors.   The sale of unsuitable investments is a form of negligence and possibly fraud.   These investments carry such a high level of risk and are so complicated that they were likely not suitable for any retail (non-institutional) investor.   “Unless you were a hedge fund manager you should not have been sold these funds.” If you were recommended such investments as part of a retirement savings portfolio you have grounds to recover your losses.  The makers of these funds have acknowledged that the fund was for hedge fund managers only, and not individual investors.

Starting on February 2 and continuing through February 6, investors saw portfolios implode due to investments in obscure products that tracked market volatility.  Such investments tracked the VIX index.  The VIX index is a complicated monitor of investment market volatility or “investor fear.”  An “inverse VIX” investment is an investment that benefits from stable markets but loses value quickly in times of volatility.  The losses in the inverse VIX investments mounted quickly until NASDAQ halted the trading of these investments on February 6, with some suffering losses of almost all value in just a few days.

For example, VelocityShares XIV plummeted 80 percent in extended trading on February 5, 2018.  This is a security issued by Credit Suisse this tracks the inverse of the VIX index tracking market volatility.  As the market rose and sank the value of XIV dropped sharply.  Such sudden drops have a cascading impact that can lead to margin calls and other losses.

Of particular concern, though any sale of such an investment to a retail investor is concerning, are investors who purchased such shares through the following brokerage firms:  Credit Suisse, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, and Wells Fargo.

The dramatic losses was foreseeable to securities brokerages, often referred to as securities “broker-dealers.”  The regulator that oversees broker-dealers, FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, issued its latest warning in a string of warnings on October 2017 to broker-dealers about VIX and inverse VIX investments.  FINRA identified such investments speculative and warned the “major losses” could result from such investments from a failure to understand how such investments work.  For example, many are short-term trading vehicles that can degrade over time.

FINRA also warned all financial advisers that VIX ETNs may be unsuitable for non-institutional investors and any investor looking to hold investment as opposed to actively trading the investment.   While this warning occurred in October 2017, similar warnings were issued in 2012.  That same month, FINRA fined Wells Fargo for unsuitable recommendations of similar volatility investingstockphoto 1funds.

FINRA stated in 2012 in a Regulatory Notice, RN 12-03, that heightened supervision is required of any broker who sells such complex investments, and specifically identified the need for brokerage firms to oversee any recommendation of an investment based upon the VIX.

While all short VIX trading is suspect and potentially recoverable, the following investments are of particular concern:  XIV, SVXY, VMIN, EXIV, IVOP, LJMIX, LJMAX, XXV, and ZIV.

FINRA is conducting sweep investigations of all brokerages that sold any and all of these investments to retail investors.  ‘The sweep is part of Finra’s continuing focus on the suitability of sales of complex products, including leveraged and volatile products, to retail customers,’ stated FINRA.

In addition to suitability, there is also concern that due diligence by these brokerages should have revealed that the index was subject to manipulation.  This was recently reported by the Financial Times of London.  A scholarly report from researches at the University of Texas in 2017 identified the mechanism for manipulating the VIX.  FT reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission is currently investigating such allegations.

Investors suffering losses in such investments may have valid claims despite the warnings contained in the prospectus.  These investments should not have been offered to any retail investors.

PedersonLaw has represented investors in similar actions in most of the 50 states either directly or pro hac vice.

Lawsuits Concerning Charles Frieda

If you suffered investment losses investing with Charles Frieda, formerly of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, please call 1-866-817-0201.  Mr. Frieda has been found to have been reckless in his handling of investor portfolios, particularly in the recommendations of oil and gas investments.

Frieda recently entered into a regulatory settlement  agreement with FINRA, the regulator that oversees securities brokerages.

FINRA Rule 2111 provides that brokers “must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended . . . investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through reasonable due diligence of the [broker] to ascertain the customer’s investment profile.”

Oil Stock IIBetween November 2012 and October 2015, Frieda and another Wells Fargo representative recommended an investment strategy to more than 50 customers, which was a majority of their customers, causing the customers accounts to become significantly over-concentrated in a single sector of the overall market.

The over-concentration primarily involved four speculative oil and gas stocks. Due to the speculative nature of the recommended investments and the high level of concentration, this investment strategy was unsuitable and exposed customers to significant potential losses.

The regulatory settlement simply bars Frieda from the securities industry.  Recovery of losses requires investors to contact a private attorney.

During the relevant period, in many instances, Frieda failed to properly consider and failed to obtain accurate customer investment profile information to determine the suitability of his over-concentration strategy and the securities he recommended as part of that strategy.

The CRD of Frieda, the record kept by regulators concerning wrongdoing, shows that
Frieda has been sued more that 30 times in his short career.  Most of these suits concern the recommendation of unsuitable securities, such as the oil and gas securities for which he is currently under fire.

 

Jeffrey Pederson has represented investors across the country in similar suits to recover investment losses.  Please call for more information.

NEXT Financial Supervisory Problems

NEXT Financial Group recently entered into a regulatory settlement with FINRA, the regulator that oversees securities brokerages, concerning lapses in supervision that have allegedly led to fraud in investor accounts.  This is part of a continuing and ongoing series of supervisory lapses of NEXT to ensure that its brokers do not commit fraud or other misdeeds.  These lapses may serve as a basis for investors to recover losses.

On December 6, 2017, entered into its most recent regulatory settlement.  Under that settlement, NEXT was censured and received a $750,000 fine.  The current allegations leading to the action included the failure to monitor and control investment churning and inappropriate sales of variable annuities.  The size of the fine was do to the ongoing and continuing supervisory deficiencies and regulatory violations that NEXT continued to commit.  The supervisory problems extend not just to these investments but extend to other supervisory issues.  This is evidenced by the string of regulatory violations that NEXT has been accused over the past several years.

On November 22, 2011, FlNRA issued a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (an “AWC” is a regulatory settlement ), in which NEXT was censured, fined $50,000 and ordered to pay $2,000,000 in restitution to investors for violations of FINRA Rule 2010 and NASD Rules 2110, 2310 and 3010 arising out of its sales of certain private offerings and related supervisory deficiencies.  Additionally, NEXT was censured and fined again for supervisory issues in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

In response to prior disciplinary actions, NEXT adopted new measures in an attempt to correct prior supervisory deficiencies. The new procedures, however, employed flawed methodologies and allowed misconduct to occur. The current regulatory action involves various supervisory and other violations during the period August 2012 through September 2015 that arose in part from NEXT’s inadequate response to prior FINRA disciplinary actions.

The primary violation in the current regulatory action occurred between May 2014 and September 2015 when NEXT used faulty exception reports, reports of potentially fraudulent activity, to detect excessive trading (commonly referred to as “churning”), failed to perform any review of those exception reports for a 14-month period, and allowed churning to continue due to inadequate oversight. The failure by some compliance personnel to fulfill their job duties was not detected due to an absence of procedures requiring follow-up on delegated supervisory tasks. These supervisory failures allowed a registered representative to excessively trade a senior investor’s accounts, resulting in losses of approximately $391,893.

NEXT had similar deficiencies between August 2012 and April 2014 concerning its supervision of variable annuities (VA). The Firm failed to have a surveillance system that monitored for problematic rates of exchange regarding VAs. In addition, NEXT also had inadequate exception reports, reports used to detect fraud, and NEXT’s procedures ignored risks associated with multi-share class VAs. The Firm also had information on its website.

Recovery of Woodbridge Loss

Landmark

Woodbridge investors believed real estate ensured the safety of their investments.

Investors of Woodbridge may have the ability to recover the losses they sustained.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 or 303-300-5022 for a free consultation with a private attorney concerning potential loss recovery.

Regulators have charged the Woodbridge Group of Companies with operating a Ponzi scam.  This creates liability on the part of those advisors selling Woodbridge.

There were glaring issues in these Woodbridge investments for an extended period of time.    These issues should have been discovered during reasonable due diligence by the brokers and agents selling the Woodbridge investments.  These investments should have been recognized as not being suitable for any investor.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had been investigating Woodbridge since 2016.  Woodbridge, the Sherman Oaks, California-based Woodbridge, which calls itself a leading developer of high-end real estate, had been under the microscope of state regulators even longer.   The focus of these regulators was the possible fraudulent sale of securities.

On December 21, 2017,  the SEC charged the Woodbridge Group of Companies with operating a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme that targeted thousands of investors nationwide.  “The only way Woodbridge was able to pay investors their dividends and interest payments was through the constant infusion of new investor money,” per Steven Peikin of the SEC.

Prior to the charge, in January 2017, the SEC served a subpoena on Woodbridge for relevant electronic communications.  Woodbridge failed to respond to this subpoena.  This left the SEC to seek court intervention to compel Woodbridge to produce potentially damaging documentation the SEC believes existed.  The SEC filed its allegation that Woodbridge is a Ponzi scheme within weeks of its access to Woodbridge’s documents.

Through court filings, the SEC states that Woodbridge “has raised more than $1 billion from several thousand investors nationwide” and it “may have been or may be, among other things, making false statements of material fact or failing to disclose material facts to investors and others, concerning, among other things, the use of investor funds, the safety of the investments, the profitability of the investments, the sales fees or other costs associated with the purchase of the investments.”

Shortly after the issuance of the order sought by the SEC Woodbridge declared bankruptcy.  This filing does not extinguish the rights of investors.  These investors have claims against the brokers and advisors selling the investments.

Woodbridge has additionally stated that it has also received inquiries from about 25 state securities regulators concerning the alleged offer and sale of unregistered securities by unregistered agents.

The Woodbridge Group of Companies missed payments on notes sold to investors the week of November 26, 2017, and December 5, 2017 filed chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The company blamed rising legal and compliance costs for its problems.

Woodbridge said it had settled three of the state inquiries and was in advanced talks with authorities in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and Michigan when it filed for Chapter 11 protection.

The company’s CEO, Robert Shapiro, resigned on December 2  but will continue to be paid a monthly fee of $175,000 for work as a consultant to the firm.

Those at Woodbridge are not the only ones responsible for investor losses.  The Colorado Division of Securities is considering sanctions against investment advisor Ronald Caskey of Firestone, Colorado.  Caskey is the host of the Ron Caskey Radio Show.  James Campbell of Campbell Financial Group in Woodland Park, Colorado and Timothy McGuire of Highlands Ranch, Colorado are also the subject of regulatory investigations by the state regulator.  The Colorado Division of Securities has also begun investigating Jerry Kagarise of Security 1st Financial of Colorado Springs.  Another seller of Woodbridge in the Springs area is Carrier Financial.

These and other Colorado investment advisors have raised approximately $57 million from 450 Colorado investors.  Woodbridge continued to solicit investors through these advisors, in addition to radio and online ads, through October 2017, just prior to the bankruptcy filing.

While the regulatory actions will do little to compensate the damaged investors, these actions support private civil actions for recovery by investors.  We are investigating and in the process of bringing suit against Colorado investment advisors selling Woodbridge investments, and would like to share what we have learned with other investors in Colorado and nationwide.

Rueters is the source of some of the information contained herein.

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.