Tag Archives: financial adviser

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.

 

Loss Recovery from H. Beck

Investors with H. Beck may have grounds for recovery for investment losses in ETFs and other investments.

H. Beck recently consented to a settlement with regulators.  The settlement stated that from at least July 2008 until June 2013, H. Beck failed to properly supervise the sale of nontraditional ETFs and failed to properly supervise the recommendations made by its financial advisors. As a result, H. Beck violated NASD Rules 2310, 3010(a) through (b), and 2110, and FINRA Rules 2111, 3110(a)-(b), and 2010.

Between 2008 and 2011, H. Beck’s financial advisor James Dresselaers recommended to the Firm’s customer, EB, investments in several nontraditional exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and stocks issued by companies in the metals and mining sector. These recommendations were unsuitable for EB, a professional athlete with no investment experience, a moderate risk tolerance, and an investment objective of long-term growth. EB suffered losses of more than $1.1 million on these investments.

NASD Rule 3010(a)-(b) and FINRA Rule 3110(a)-(b) require every investment brokerage to establish and maintain a system and procedures to supervise the activities of its financial advisors that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with securities laws and regulations and applicable NASD/FINRA rules.

FINRA rules require that financial advisors only recommend investments to suitable investors.  So if an investment poses too much risk, or possesses other characteristics that are inconsistent with the wants and needs of the investor, it is a violation to recommend that investment to such an investor.  This is commonly referred to as a “suitability” violation.

This is not the first time H. Beck has been penalized by regulators over non-traditional investments.  In March 2015, H. Beck was censured and fined $425,000 for failing to properly supervise the sale of unit investment trusts (UITs), failing to properly supervise the preparation of account reports sent to investors, and failing to enforce its own written supervisory procedures relating to financial advisors’ outside email accounts, which is a significant protection against fraud. Dresselaers also has a history of customer disputes.   This is concerning since Dresselaers is listed as the top executive at H. Beck.

Such regulatory findings and prior disputes evidence wide-spread supervisory problems at H. Beck and support private claims by investors.

Todd Jones of J.P. Morgan investment fraud

If you have suffered investment losses while investing with J.P. Morgan financial advisor Todd Jones, you may be entitled to a recovery.  Mr. Jones has recently been accused of committing fraud in a large number of his investors’ accounts.  Call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation.

Invest photo 2The regulatory action was initiated by FINRA concerning unauthorized trades by Jones in certain high risk investments.  The FINRA regulatory settlement identifies that in July 2015, while registered with J.P. Morgan, Jones made trades in his investors’ accounts without permission in the accounts of 12 firm customers and mismarked most of the trades as “unsolicited,” which means that the trade was made at the request of the investor.

While many investors believe that their financial advisor or stock broker can make trades as he/she sees fit, regulations require that there must actually be verbal authority from the account owner contemporaneous to the trade.  Absent such verbal authorization, there must written authority.

On July 6 and 7, 2015, Jones exercised discretion to purchase a total of $208,714 of VelocityShares 3x Long Crude Oil (UWTI) in the accounts of 12 firm clients. This investment was not only unauthorized, the investment was also a very risky investment that is designed to multiply the gains or losses of the underlying holdings by three.

None of the 12 clients, had provided Jones with written permission to exercise such trades in their brokerage accounts.  Regulatory rules provides in relevant part that, “No… registered representative shall exercise any discretionary power in a customer’s account unless such customer has given prior written authorization to a stated individual or individuals and the account has been accepted by the member . . .” .

The trades likely enriched Jones by thousands of dollars while putting his clients in financial jeopardy.

Though Jones appears to be out of the securities industry, FINRA impose a fine and a four-month suspension.  Jones neither confessed or denied the allegations.

 

Investors of Paul Vincent Blum

If you suffered losses with Paul Vincent Blum, most recently a financial advisor with RBC, please call 1-866-817-0201.

In 2017, FINRA was conducting an investigation of Blum in connection with customer complaints and arbitration claims alleging, among other things, unsuitable trading. To date, Blum has approximately 23 customer complaints.  Many of the complaints concern his recommendation of energy sector investments to investors not wishing to speculate or unwilling to high levels of risk known to exist in the energy sector.  Many of these complaints were settled by Blum’s employers, including RBC.  He has also been accused of making misrepresentations concerning bonds, including the taxable nature of certain bonds.

On July 21,2017, FINRA staff sent Blum’s counsel a written request for on-the-record testimony pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. As stated in Blum’s counsel’s email to FINRA of July 25,2017, Blum aclmowledges that he received FINRA’s request and will not appear for on-the-record testimony in front of FINRA. FINRA requires that persons subject to FINRA’s jurisdiction provide information, documents and testimony as part of a FINRA investigation.

As a result of the failure to cooperate in the regulatory investigation of FINRA, Blum has been barred from association with any FINRA member, which would include any and all securities brokerages in the United States.

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.

 

 

WFG Investor Loss Recovery

WFG has recently been identified and fined as the result of allegations that its supervision of its brokers is lacking.  To speak to an attorney to discuss your rights please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation.

FINRA asserts that during 2012 and 2013, senior personnel at WFG were aware of red flags that one of its brokers in its San Antonio office, who FINRA only identifies as “MB,” was engaged in unsuitable trading with respect to low-priced securities, which generally carry a high level of risk. Notwithstanding their knowledge of these red flags, the Firm consistently failed to take adequate supervisory steps to ensure that MB’s sales of low-priced securities to his customers were suitable.

Unsuitable investments are investments a broker recommends that are either more aggressive than an investor’s risk tolerance, inconsistent with an investor’s objectives, too risky given an investor’s financial condition, too complicated for an investor given the investor’s lack of investment sophistication, or otherwise inconsistent with the wants and needs of an investor.  There are many incentives that a broker may have for recommending unsuitable investments, but the most common is that risky investments often pay a higher commission.

Brokerage firms have a duty to ensure that only suitable investments are sold.  FINRA’s action alleges that WFG failed to respond appropriately when it should have been aware that a broker was recommending unsuitable investments.

For instance, in August 2012, the Firm held a meeting at WFG’s headquarters that was attended by senior supervisory and compliance personnel, as well as a supervisor FINRA identifies only as “WG,” MB’s direct supervisor. During this meeting, compliance personnel noted that MB was unsuitably concentrating his customers’ portfolios in low-priced securities. WG was instructed during this meeting not to permit MB or other representatives in the San Antonio branch office to purchase any more positions in a specific security, LB, on behalf of their clients.

WG, however, failed to enforce this directive. In fact, MB continued to sell low-priced securities, including LB, in his WFG and RIA (investment advisory) accounts. The Firm and its personnel also failed to follow up appropriately on red flag information that they learned about MB’s sale practices during this meeting.

ln September 2012, the Firm conducted an inadequate inspection of MB’s branch office in San Antonio. The Compliance Manager assigned to conduct this audit, JA, another supervisor, had participated in the August 2012 meeting. Notwithstanding his knowledge of potential sales practice violations involving low-priced securities, the audit conducted by JA related only to non-sales practice issues, such as the review of change of address requests and a check of controls over the receipt of incoming mail.

During this audit, JA did not review: (1) advisory activity by representatives in this branch office, including MB, (2) trading in low-priced securities, including LB; or (3) suitability of transactions recommended or executed in this branch office. In January 2013, the Firm held another meeting at its headquarters with senior supervisory and compliance personnel, as well as WG and MB. During this meeting, compliance personnel raised continuing concerns about ongoing unsuitable trading in low-priced securities in MB’s accounts and about undisclosed complaints against MB from his time with his previous employer.

Ultimately, FINRA censured the firm and ordered it to pay a $150,000 fine for their supervisory lapses.  Such lapses in supervision can make the firm responsible for other broker misdeeds.  If you suffered a loss, call toll-free 1-866-817-0201.

Illinois/Chicago Muni Bond Loss Recovery

Jeffrey Pederson is licensed in the federal courts for the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois, and has aided investors nationwide in the recovery of investment losses, such as muni bond losses.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free and confidential consultation with an attorney.  We are currently investigating the potential recovery for losses in muni bonds issued by both Illinois and Chicago.

The risks of these bonds were foreseeable for years.  Financial professionals have a duty to only recommend investments that are consistent with the level of risk the investor both wants and can withstand.  Those either looking for retirement income or non-speculative investments may possibly have a claim if recommended either the Illinois or Chicago bonds.

Illinois bonds have long been at risk since the state has not had an approved budget in over two years.  The state currently has over $14 billion in unpaid bills.  This comes in the wake of similar financial problems in the territory of Puerto Rico.  In Puerto Rico, financial problems led to bankruptcy and caused thousands of investors to lose their life savings when they were led to believe that they were invested in “safe” municipal bonds.

Chicago is also on the verge of bankruptcy.  For years, the return on Chicago bonds were known to be too good to be true.  In 2014, the city’s debt was downgraded to junk status given the massive debts owed to four of its pension funds. This led to a widespread selloff in Chicago muni bonds.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in response, instituted a record property tax increase for city residents. Bills in 2016 will be, on average, 13% higher. The increased ‘revenue’ to the city is being used to help fix the four pension funds’ large underfunded status.

The Mayor’s plan to fix the $20 billion public pension shortfall was ruled unconstitutional. The restructuring plan was passed by the state legislature in 2014, but was struck down due to the state’s constitution, which has a clause that forbids the reduction of public pensions.

David Lerner Associates REIT Investigation

David Lerner Associates agreed to pay a $650,000 fine for the sale of unsuitable REITs to its investors and other violations.  Very little of the fine will compensate investors for their losses.  Instead, investors suffering losses contact a private attorney.  For a free, confidential consultation, investors can call Jeffrey Pederson at 1-866-817-0201.

LandmarkThe non-traded REITs at issue in the regulatory action were REITs now known as Apple Hospitality REIT investments.  The offerings included are Apple 7, Apple 8 and Apple 9.

Suitability violations are for the recommending of investments that are too risky, complicated or volatile for an investor considering the investors objectives, risk tolerance and investment sophistication.  Non-traded REITs such as Apple are generally only suitable for only a limited slice of the investing public.  Investors, including those looking for either stability, income, low risk, preservation of capital or liquidity from this investment, were likely inappropriately sold this investment.

The agreement to settle the charges was in the form of a consent order entered into with New Jersey regulators.  Of the fine, $100,000 went to pay for costs and $50,000 was to pay for investor education programs.

More information on the fine and the regulatory action can be found at the following link.