Tag Archives: MLP

Oil / Gas Investment and Tax Loss

Some Energy, Oil and Gas investments can only legally be sold to a limited section of the investing public.  If you suffered losses we may be able to  help.  Contact us at 303-300-5022 or 1-866-817-0201 (toll-free) for a free consultation.

Oil and gas investors do not have to sit and watch their life savings diminish.  These investors have rights though many are unaware of the recourse they have for such losses.

Many investors have received high pressure sales of oil and gas investments.  Brokers and other investment pNYSE pic 1rofessionals like to sell these types of investments because they usually pay a very high commission.  These commissions can be 10 to 20 times higher than the commission on your average stock sale.

The high commissions will often cause these individuals to ignore the rules in the sale of such investments. The two rules that are usually ignored are those concerning accreditation and suitability.

blog_gulf_mexico_oil_rig

Many investors were led to believe energy investments were safe, only to have their savings left adrift.

Oil and gas limited partnerships can generally only be sold to “accredited” investors.  Such investors are individuals whose liquid net worth, their net worth excluding their home, is in excess of $1 million.

The second rule that is commonly violated in the sale of such investments is the suitability rule.  Oil and gas investments are known by investment professionals to generally be very high risk investments.  Investments need to be consistent with the level of risk that an investor is willing or able to take.  For example, a person approaching or in retirement or who cannot otherwise afford to take high levels of risk with their investments could not legally be offered an oil and gas investment.

Likewise, an individual who expresses a desire for conservative or moderate investments would not be a suitable investor. There are many other rules that can potentially be violated in the sale of oil and gas investments.

FINRA, which acts under the oversight of the SEC to regulate securities brokers, confirms that oil and gas securities, such as oil and gas exchange traded products, are only suitable for highly sophisticated investors.  On May 18, 2020, FINRA released a notice that such exchange traded products cannot be sold to average investors unless the investor has been adequately warned and consented to the high level of risk associated with the investment.  This means a broker is liable for an investor’s losses when such investments are inappropriately sold to an average investor.

The greatest losses exist with oil and gas master limited partnerships, or MLPs.  The SEC has warned about such investments.  This includes not only rules which favor the sponsor of the MLP over the investor, but also includes concentration risk of the venture being entirely invested in a risky industry, and tax risk that comes with limited partnership investing.

As limited partnerships for federal tax purposes, MLPs generally do not pay federal taxes.  Instead, investors report on their tax returns their share of the MLP’s income, gains, losses, and deductions, and are taxed at their individual tax rates.  Each limited partner receives annually a Schedule K-1 showing its share of the MLP’s income, gains, losses, and deductions.   So when debt forgiveness is given the MLP the amount forgiven is treated as income of the investors.  The investors are then taxed on such income, which means they could owe, and thus lose, more than the investment is worth.  

Such investment losses also exist with leveraged and inverse ETFs tied to the price of oil and gas.  These investments, such as Direxion GUSH and DRIP, were intended to be held by for a very short period of time.  While the investments were meant to be held for a matter of hours, many brokers negligently held for months.

Problems exist not just with the investment losses, but also with the tax consequence of investing in these companies.  This tax consequence is referred to as CODI.  A detailed description is found in the following Link to Forbes.   In short, these investments are partnerships.  When debt is defaulted upon by a partnership, and the lender “writes off” the debt, the write off means that the owners (the investors) are taxed as if they received the amount written off as income.  Considering some limited partnerships defaulted on billions in loans, the tax obligation of investors is substantial.

Oil StockIf you have any questions, please feel free to give us a call.  These rules apply no matter if you invest in individual oil or gas investments or invest through a mutual fund or master limited partnership (MLP).

Common oil and gas investments we see recoverable losses include Linn Energy (“LINE” or “LNCO”) and more information can be found at www.jpedersonlaw.com/blog/linn-energy-losses/, Williams Companies (“WMB”), Penn West Petroleum (“PWE”), BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust (“BPT”), Breitburn Energy Partners, LP (“BBEP”), Hawthorne, SandRidge Energy, Williams Ridgewood Energy, Apco, Atlas Energy, Midstates Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Resolute Energy, XXI Energy, Nobel, Permian Basin, Pioneer Energy, W&T Offshore, and Breitling Energy.  Some of these losses may be recoverable by class action while others may require individual FINRA arbitration suits.

More information on SandRidge can be found at this link.

Oil Stock II

Some oil investments are barely worth the paper they are written upon.

Jeffrey Pederson is an attorney who works with investors to recover losses in FINRA arbitration and has represented investors in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut , Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, in FINRA arbitration actions against securities brokerage firms for unsuitable investments.

Please call for a confidential and free consultation.

Investors with Bonanza Creek Losses

Bonanza Creek has suffered deep declines lately but investors purchasing Bonanza Creek as part of their moderate to conservative portfolio may have recourse.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 for more information.

Shares of Bonanza Creek Energy were battered Wednesday, July 13, after the Colorado oil and gas producer disclosed it had hired a financial specialist to help it explore alternatives, including a restructuring.

Bonanza Creek, said it had retained Perella Weinberg Partners, a New York firm known for working with financially troubled companies to avoid bankruptcy or planning for bankruptcy.

The market didn’t react well to the news. Shares of Bonanza Creek, which closed at $2.28 on Tuesday, plunged to as low as $1.14 before crawling back to end trading Wednesday at $1.44 a share, a 36.8 percent decline.

Shares of the company had traded above $60 in August 2014, a few months before Saudi Arabia said it would no longer limit its production to support prices. That set off a steep descent in oil prices from above $100 a barrel to briefly under $30 when Iranian producers re-entered the market, forcing prices down even further.

Oil is now back around $45 a barrel. But lenders are reducing the credit they are willing to extend to producers given the lower value of their oil and gas reserves.

Bonanza Creek said in late May that the amount it could borrow under its credit agreement was cut from $475 million to $200 million. That was a problem because the company had borrowed $288 million, leaving it with a deficit of $88 million.

Bonanza Creek, like many petroleum producers, initially turned to the equity markets to help it stay afloat. The company raised more than $200 million in a secondary offering back in February 2015 to investors willing to pay $26 a share.

The Denver Post of July 14, 2016 provided information for this post.

LINN Energy (“LINE”) Loss Recovery

Invest photo 2If you suffered losses in LINN Energy (LINE or LNCO), including tax obligations, you may be entitled to recovery of those losses.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation with a lawyer about loss recovery.  We have successfully recovered losses for many Linn Energy investors.  Most representations handled on a contingency basis where attorney fees are not due unless a recovery is received.

LINN Energy, which changed its name to LinnCo, stated on March 16, 2016 that bankruptcy protection through the courts may be unavoidable.  This prediction came true on May 11, 2016 when LINN filed for bankruptcy per Rueters.  This will leave many investors who have invested their life savings in LINN looking to change their retirement plans and their financial outlook. For many of these investors LINN Energy was never a suitable investment, and this fact may give the individuals the right to recover their losses.

While some investors may call it “LINN” and others refer to it as “LINE,” all investors can agree that investors should not be responsible for the losses in LINN Energy to the extent that the investment was procured by fraud or negligence. Brokerages that allow the sale of unsuitable investments are responsible for the ultimate losses sustained by their investors.  Brokers and financial advisors have a duty to only sell suitable investments to investors. To be suitable, the investment must be consistent with the wants and needs of the investor.

LINN Energy is, and has always been, a speculative investment.  Unless you are a speculative investor and could afford to gamble on high risk investments LINN Energy was unsuitable for you. The list of people for whom LINN would be unsuitable and entitled to reimbursement includes, but is not limited to, any one of the following:  conservative to moderate investors; investors reliant upon investments for income; individuals reliant upon their savings; unsophisticated investors; individuals not understanding the risks of limited partnerships; individuals who could not afford to risk the amounts invested in LINN: and individuals who would have difficulty re-earning the funds invested in LINN if the investment were completely lost.

The recommendation to invest in LINN can be the result of either negligence or fraud.  Speculative investments often pay a higher commission and give brokers incentive to recommend investments that are not in the best interest of their investors.  Irrespective, the broker’s or financial advisor’s employer is responsible for losses as the result of unsuitable recommendations.

379335_544495705568117_1587447150_nThe risk surrounding LINN are many and not just from the falling oil market.  The potential tax consequences for its investors, referred to as CODI, if LINN were to restructure some of its debt will also impact the value of the investment. When debt is restructured, debt that is forgiven is, for tax purpose, treated as income. Since LINN is an LLC, the tax liability belongs to the investors holding Linn shares.  This will further increase the losses of those holding LINN shares if they must pay tax on the income of LINN.

LLCs are popular because income is only taxed once, unlike regular corporations where the income of the corporation is taxed and the resulting dividends are also taxed.  While the single taxation is popular because it means less taxation of income when things are good, the downside is that investors are responsible for the tax the LLC cannot pay when things are bad.  That can accelerate the decline of an LLC when industry challenges, such as a decrease in the price of oil, occur.

By some estimates, investors will be responsible for paying CODI of approximately $24 per share in tax liability to the IRS even if they no longer hold the shares.  Even though the shares may be worthless.  So say an investor purchase $40,000 worth of the investment when Linn was trading at $40 per share, that individual may have to pay the IRS $24,000 for the tax liability of Linn.

Further, Linn offered investors the opportunity to trade in their shares for shares that protected7crude-oil-pumps-power-transmission-elements investors from such liability, but Linn and the brokers selling Linn gave investors very little and we believe insufficient notice to investors concerning the opportunity to make the transition and the severe consequence if the transition was not elected.  The deadline to exchange LINE units expired on August 1, 2016. Forbes estimates that only 35% of the Linn investors successfully made this switch to avoid payment to the IRS.  The other 65% will have to pay for Linn’s mismanagement beyond the extent they invested in Linn.

On August 2, 2016, Linn issued the following statement concerning the exchange period:

“The subsequent offering period for the Exchange Offer expired at 12:00 midnight (New York City time) on Monday, August 1, 2016 [...] a total of 19,954,774 LINN units were validly tendered during the subsequent offering period and an aggregate of 123,909,317 LINN units (including LINN units accepted for exchange during the initial offering period), representing approximately 35% of LINN’s issued and outstanding units, were validly tendered and not validly withdrawn pursuant to the Exchange Offer and have been accepted by LinnCo for exchange. “

This is all in addition to the likely losses that shareholders would feel from that restructuring and oil prices that may not rise above $40 per barrel in the near future. LINN and LINCO investments likely became worthless on May 11, 2016.  On that date, LINN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection per Rueters.

Please call for more information. The Law Offices of Jeffrey Pederson has represented investors with suitability claims in FINRA arbitrations across the country.  Most representations done on a contingency basis.

Other liability issues exist as to certain securities brokerages pushing this investment even when it became clear that the investment was troubled.  For example, Raymond James pushed LINE to its brokers to sell to all investors, upon information and belief.  Additionally, Raymond James kept strong ratings on LINE as late as 2016.

For a detailed description on the rise and fall of Linn:  http://www.oilandgas360.com/rise-fall-linn-energy/

For a great article on the mess investors will be facing, along with an estimate of tax liability Linn investors will face:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/05/19/oil-bankruptcies-continue-linn-energy-reorg-wont-be-pretty/#35f687375edc .

Aequitas

If you have suffered losses with Aequitas please call 1-866-817-0201 to speak to a lawyer for a free consultation.

The sudden and stunning collapse of Aequitas Capital Management continues to unfold. The alternative investment’s platform is under investigation by both the SEC and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Nearly $600 million was bet on a diverse array of subprime lending strategies.

This bet was done with the funds of the Aequitas investors.  It’s unclear how much, if anything, they’ll recover.

Complicit in this matter are the financial advisors recommending this investment.  The investment was reliant upon such financial advisors for funding the investment.  It appears that the due diligence in the investment by some financial advisors, required to be completed by financial advisors, was substantially insufficient.   The financials of Aequitas evidence existing and ongoing financial weakness.

Aequitas suffered a debilitating cash shortage that has forced it to terminate 80 of its 125 workers. It has defaulted on payments due to investors. It has confirmed in letters to customers it is considering bankruptcy filings.

The SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched separate investigations of the company. Brian Rice and Scott Gillis, two of the company’s six senior partners, resigned in recent weeks. The company’s general counsel just quit. As did Gillis, the CFO.  Gillis was the second Aequitas chief financial officer to depart in less than a year.

Caldwell International Securities

If you suffered losses at Caldwell International Securities, please call 1-866-817-0201 and request to speak to an attorney concerning this investigation.

Caldwell International Securities and a variety of its representatives were named respondents in a FINRA complaint alleging that the firm, by and through one or more of its registered representatives and principals, put profits before customers, growth before compliance and subterfuge before transparency. The complaint alleges that the firm’s culture of non-compliance led to serious sales practice, supervisory and reporting violations at its home office and multiple branches.

The representatives alleged to be involved are Greg Allen Caldwell (CRD #2816295, Austin, Texas), Alex Evan Etter (CRD #2981742, Old Tappan, New Jersey), Alain J. Florestan (CRD #2818942, Queens Village, New York), Lennie Simmons Freiman (CRD #1007506, Fischer, Texas), Paul Joseph Jacobs (CRD #4658235, Austin, Texas), Richard Andrew Lee (CRD #2768039, West Nyack, New York), Lucas Dylan Lichtman (CRD #5542092, Fort Lee, New Jersey) and Richard Lim (CRD #4949289, Clark, New Jersey).

Etter, Florestan, Lee, Lichtman, and Lim made unsuitable recommendations of an active trading investment strategy to their customers despite the fact these representatives failed to understand the risks of the investment strategy being recommended, or the impact the staggering commissions and fees generated by this active trading investment strategy would have on their customers’ accounts. These representatives had no reasonable basis to recommend such a strategy to their customers. As a result of the recommendation of an unsuitable active investment trading strategy, customer accounts suffered more than $1.1 million in realized trading losses while paying over $1 million in commissions and fees.

The firm is liable for the unsuitable recommendations of an active trading investment strategy made by Etter, Florestan, Lee, Lichtman and Lim under the doctrine of respondeat superior because each representative was an agent of the firm acting within the scope of his duties when he engaged in this misconduct. The firm, acting by and through its formerly registered representatives, made unsuitable recommendations involving inverse and/or leveraged ETFs without a reasonable basis for believing these investments were suitable for their customers.

The complaint also alleges that the firm, Caldwell, Freiman and Jacobs failed to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities alleged that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and NASD/ FINRA rules. The firm, Caldwell, Freiman and Jacobs failed to monitor for, detect and, when detected, investigate multiple instances of potential misconduct by the firm’s brokers involving unsuitable active trading investment strategies, unsuitable ETFs, discretionary trading without written authorization and excessive trading/churning in multiple customer accounts across multiple branches of the firm. In addition, the firm, Caldwell, Freiman and Jacobs failed to implement a reasonable supervisory system to adequately review trades for unsuitable recommendations, such as ETFs, and to adequately monitor whether the firm’s representatives understood the risks and benefits of the active trading investment strategy they were recommending, nor did the firm monitor whether the representatives had done any due diligence on the recommended active trading investment strategy.

This grossly inadequate supervisory system resulted in many firm customers suffering significant losses and paying staggering commissions and fees. The firm, Caldwell, and Freiman failed to establish and maintain a system to supervise the firm’s activities that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and NASD/FINRA rules and/or the firm’s WSPs in multiple other ways. The firm, Caldwell, and Freiman failed to place representatives on heightened supervision, review all electronic correspondence to and from customers, identify and report customer complaints received, and apply right of reinvestment/right of reinstatement fee waivers, resulting in overcharges of $107,367.08 to customers’ accounts. The complaint further alleges that the firm, Caldwell, Freiman and Jacobs failed to establish, maintain and enforce WSPs to supervise its business that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and NASD/FINRA rules. The firm did not establish, maintain and enforce written procedures to supervise its representatives’ recommendations of active and aggressive trading investment strategies to many of its customers in multiple branches. The firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce written procedures to ensure that reduced sales charges were applied for mutual funds where applicable in accordance with the fund’s right of reinvestment/right of reinstatement provisions. In addition, the complaint alleges that the firm, Freiman, Jacobs, and Etter failed to identify customer complaints and none of these complaints were reported to FINRA. The firm failed to report to FINRA statistical and summary information regarding written customer complaints from three branches as required. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the firm willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-10 by charging customers misleading and/or discriminatory miscellaneous fees in several transactions.  Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the firm, acting by and through Freiman, failed to log into the FinCEN system and conduct any of the required searches of its accounts and systems to determine whether it maintained any accounts for persons appearing on FinCEN’s 314(a) request list. The complaint also alleges that Florestan and Lim willfully failed to timely update their Forms U4 to disclose judgments against them. The complaint further alleges that Florestan failed to timely respond to requests from FINRA for documents and information during the course of its investigation of the firm’s branch activities.

 

UBS Willow Fund Losses

UBS

Please Call 1-866-817-0201 for a free consultation is you suffered losses in the UBS Willow Fund.

Two UBS subsidiaries agreed Monday, October 19, 2015, to pay $17.5 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose that the UBS Willow Fund, a closed-end fund they advised, had changed its investment strategy to include risky credit default swaps.

Part of investor losses in the UBS Willow Fund be recoverable from the SEC and there may likely be a significant claim against UBS for the lack of suitability of these investments recommended by UBS.  The Willow Fund had a much greater risk than represented by UBS representatives.

Of the total $17.5 million fine, $13 million will be returned to harmed investors.  Currently, it is unknown what percentage of loss individual investors will recover.

The SEC found that UBS Willow Management violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and failed to supervise UBS Willow Management, a failure that allowed the transition, and ultimate losses, to occur.

According to the SEC’s order, UBS Willow Management, a joint venture between UBS Fund Advisor and an external portfolio manager, marketed the UBS Willow Fund of simply investing in distressed debt with a strategy simply reliant on the debt increasing in value.

From 2000 through 2008, UBS Willow Management invested and marketed the fund’s assets consistent with the distressed debt strategy.  However, this all changed in 2008 when the fund began to invest in ultra-high-risk credit default swaps.

Marketing material for the fund misrepresented the risk to investors.  Statements specifically misrepresented the exposure of the Fund to credit default swaps in the Fund.

The misrepresentations continued on until the liquidation of the Fund in 2012.

Investors in the fund should speak to an attorney.  While the level of compensation each individual investor may receive from the SEC recovery fund is currently unknown, an attorney can navigate the recovery process through the SEC and help the investor decide if other legal avenues exist for recovery.

We believe that other significant avenues for recovery exist.  Call the number above for more details.

MLP Losses

Oil StockWe are investigating losses sustained by investors in Master Limited Partnerships (“MLP”).  This includes all MLP investments including but not limited to UBS ETRACS, Enbridge Energy Partners,  EV Enterprise Partners, and Eagle Rock Energy Partners.  If you have suffered such losses please call toll-free 1-866-817-0201.

MLPs are sometimes referred to as “SSPs” and other names.  There are limited types of investors to whom such investments could be legally sold.  Selling such high-commissioned investments when they contradict the objectives or needs of an investor, making them “unsuitable” for certain investors, is a form of fraud. In August 2015, the SEC conducted an examination of firms selling MLPs.

Among other things, the SEC regulatory examinations revealed several significant deficiencies in the areas of suitability and supervision with respect to all of the examined firms’ recommendations and sales of MLPs to retail investors. Specifically, all of the examined firms: “Failed to maintain and/or enforce adequate controls relating to determining the suitability of MLP recommendations;” and “Failed to conduct both compliance and supervisory reviews of registered representatives’ (“representatives”) determinations of customer suitability in the MLPs, as required by their internal controls.”

MLPs have been increasingly marketed to retail investors, who have been interested in generating income in the low-yield interest-rate environment that has persisted since the financial crisis.  Additionally, MLPs may offer attractive attributes such as partial or full “principal protection” or exposure to a particular asset class.

MLPs often provide for payments determined by reference to other assets or indices and may be more complex than a simple debt instrument with a stated interest rate.  However, these investments have always been known to carry a high degree of risk. A central aspect of a broker-dealer’s duty of fair dealing is the suitability obligation, which generally requires a broker-dealer to make recommendations that are consistent with the best interests of its customer.  So investments must be of the character and have the level of risk that is consistent with these wants and needs.  This “suitability” obligation is a requirement under the  antifraud provisions of the state and federal securities laws, and also requirement of a brokerage firm’s membership in FINRA.  

FINRA also requires brokerages to supervise their representatives, and the Exchange Act, the federal securities law, permits the SEC to sanction broker-dealers who fail reasonably to supervise, with a view to preventing violations of the state and federal securities laws by a person subject to their supervision.  In addition, FINRA has released guidance to help assess the adequacy of controls with respect to MLPs and complex products that members should include in their supervisory and compliance procedures.

For more information on MLPs containing LINN Energy, also known as LINE, see the following: www.jpedersonlaw.com/blog/linn-energy-losses/

Jeffrey Pederson has represented investors in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut , Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, in FINRA arbitration actions against securities brokerage firms for unsuitable investments.  Please call for a confidential and free consultation.

 

Petrobras Fraud and the Rights of Investors

Petrobras

Petrobras Petroleum of Brazil

Petrobras investors please call toll free 1-866-817-0201.  We have represented many similar investors. Contact this number for a free evaluation.

Each day brings new allegations of fraud at Petrobras and each allegation raises the question of whether these issues were known or should have been known by investment professionals recommending the investment.  Each investment professional recommending Petrobras must have satisfied their due diligence requirements in the investigation of Petrobras before recommending the investment, and either not recommended the investment or attach a clear warning with the investment concerning the potential from fraud within the company.

Many large brokerage firms made such recommendations without warning the investors of the extremely high level of known risk that existed in the investment.  We have represented a significant number of investors in similar cases concerning the failure of due diligence and recommendations without warnings of such unsuitable investments.

Such recommendations can be the result of fraud, influenced by higher commissions, and sometimes the faulty recommendation can be the fault of recklessness or negligence.  Either way, investors should contact an attorney to learn their rights and to explore their options.

We have helped hundreds of investors in claims against brokerage firms concerning unsuitable investments such as Petrobras.  Please call for a free consultation.

 

 

Oil or Gas Investment Losses

Oil Stock IIJeffrey Pederson, P.C. helps investors determine if they have a right to recover investment losses in oil, gas or other investments.  Please call 1-866-817-0201 toll-free for a free and confidential consultation.

While brokers will unlikely blame the 2020 decline in energy investments on the coronavirus issues, the declines started in advance of the virus and the virus was only a small portion of the decline.

These investments have always been known to be speculative with a potential for large losses.  Heightened commissions or an inattention to risk drove brokers or adviser’s to inappropriately recommend such investments over the past few years.  The losses such investments suffered in 2020 is not first time oil and gas has gone into free-fall.  In fact, the oil and gas industry has suffered equal or greater shocks in the past decade.

In 2016, oil dropped to a price below $30 a barrel.  This happened again in 2020 when some oil futures fell below $0.  Many investors simply ignore their losses, believing that the loss is simply due to the market, without knowing that they may be entitled to a recovery.  Such individuals unnecessarily let their plans for retirement or other future plans go unfulfilled because of the financial loss they sustained.

In late 2014, countless oil, gas and other energy companies have filed for bankruptcy.  Many investors in these companies were illegally sold these investments by brokerage firms motivated by commissions paid by the investments.  Such investments can take many forms including, but not limited to, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), common stock, notes, bonds, mutual funds, and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

Regulators have put brokers on notice that oil and gas exchange traded products, ETPs, should not be recommended to average investors.

In sum, these investments are and have always been inappropriately sold to investors looking for moderate investments or otherwise looking to fund retirement or retirement savings.  The investments are and have never been stable.  This was known or should have been known by brokers and investment advisors for years.  Recommendations of oil and gas investments to such moderate investors is motivated either by heightened commissions many of these investments pay or, in some cases, negligence.

The reason brokers continue to misrepresent these investments and recommend to people who do not want such risk is the commission paid.   These investments can pay a broker and brokerage 10 to 20 times the commission that the average stock transaction pays.

Investors in certain ETFs, such as Direxion or USO, may have been inappropriately invested in these historically speculative investments.  Please call to speak to an attorney about whether you are entitled to recovery.

We are also currently investigating investments into the following energy companies:Oil Stock

American Eagle, BPZ, Buccaneer, Clean Energy Fuels, Climax Energy, Duer Wagner, Earthstone, Ensign Energy Services, Exxon, Fiduciary Claymore, Genal Energy, Hart Resources, Hercules Offshore,  Matador, Milagro Oil and Gas, Noble Energy, Petrobras, Origin Energy, Quicksilver Resources, Sabine, Samson Resources, Sandridge Energy, SBM Offshore, Southern Pacific, Walter Energy and WBH Energy.

Additionally, we are looking at MLPs focusing on energy such as Goldman Sachs MLP (GMZ) or any of the Steelpath investments.

Oil and gas limited partnership losses can do more than take away the hard earned principal of investors, it can also create tax liabilities that the investor was not expecting.  The result is that the investor could lose more than invested.  The following link discusses the risks that in more detail.

Jeffrey Pederson has represented investors in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut , Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, in FINRA arbitration actions against securities brokerage firms for unsuitable investments.  Please call for a confidential and free consultation.