Conflict of Interest

FINRA Files Complaint Against Gopi Vungarala and Purshe Kaplan Sterling Over Fraudulent Commission Charges

February 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a complaint filed by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Gopi Krishna Vungarala (Vungarala) and his brokerage firm Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments (Purshe Kaplan). FINRA alleged that from at least June 2011 through January 2015, Vungarala regularly lied to his customer who is a Native American tribe regarding commissions paid to the broker and firm on non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) and business development companies (BDCs).

Vungarala served the tribe as both a financial advisor and was employed by the tribe as its Treasury Investment Manager and participated in decisions regarding the tribe’s investments. According to FINRA, Vungarala knew that the tribe prohibited employees such as Vungarala from engaging in business activities that could constitute a conflict of interest with the tribe. In order to induce the tribe to make purchases in Non-Traded REITs and BDCs in light of the prohibition against conflicts of interests Vungarala falsely represented to the tribe that he would not receive any commissions on the purchases. Despite the prohibition and the representations, FINRA alleged that Vungarala fraudulently induced the tribe to invest $190 million of dollars in Non-Traded REITs and BDCs without revealing that he and his firm received commissions on the sales at a typical rate of 7% generating $11.4 million in commissions for Purshe Kaplan of which $9.6 million was paid to Vungarala.

Worse still, FINRA alleged that the tribe was eligible to receive volume discounts on the products purchased but instead paid full commission. FINRA alleged that Purshe Kaplan’s supervisory failures led to the volume discounts not being applied. FINRA alleged that the tribe failed to receive more than $3.3 million in volume discounts and that these funds funds were instead paid to Purshe Kaplan and Vungarala in the form of commissions.

SEC Claims Advisory Firm Atlantic Asset Management Hid Conflicts of Interests From Clients

January 16, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced fraud charges against a Stamford, Connecticut based investment advisory firm Atlantic Asset Management LLC (AAM) and accused the firm of investing clients in certain Native American tribal corporation bonds with a hidden financial benefit to a broker-dealer affiliated with the firm. The SEC alleged that AAM invested more than $43 million of client funds in the illiquid bonds without disclosing the conflict of interest that the bond sales generated a private placement fee for the broker-dealer.

According to the SEC, AAM committed securities fraud in August 2014 and in April 2015 by investing client funds in debt securities without telling its clients that the investments would benefit individuals affiliated with one of AAM’s owners, BFG Socially Responsible Investments Ltd. (BFG), which holds a significant ownership interest in AAM’s parent holding company due to an undisclosed investment in AAM. AAM never disclosed BFG’s capital contribution to and indirect ownership in AAM to its clients or in its filings with the SEC in violation of the federal securities laws. The SEC stated that these dicsloures were not made even after BFG’s principal representative was charged by the SEC and criminally in an unrelated securities fraud.

The SEC alleged that BFG has used its undisclosed ownership interest in AAM to dictate AAM’s investment of its clients’ funds in ways that benefited BFG and its principals and affiliates. The SEC alleged that clients’ funds were invested in dubious, illiquid bonds issued by a Native American tribal corporation at the behest of individuals associated with BFG.

SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Broker Lee Weiss Over FEP Fund I and Catamaran Fund Investments

November 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a registered investment adviser and its owner on allegations of self-dealing and failing to disclose material facts to clients including conflicts of interest, use of investor funds, and the risks of the investments they recommended. The complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that Lee D. Weiss (Weiss) and Family Endowment Partners, L.P. (FEP) and relief defendants MIP Global, Inc. (MIP Global), Mosaic Enterprises, Inc. (Mosaic Enterprises), Mosaic Investment Partners, Inc. (Mosaic), and Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC (Weiss Capital) recommended their clients invest $40 million in illiquid securities issued by hedge fund FEP Fund I, LP (FEP Fund I) and the Catamaran Holding Fund, Ltd. (Catamaran Fund) without disclosing that Weiss had an ownership interest in the parent company of these entities and received payments from these entities.

The SEC’s complaint further alleges that FEP and Weiss recommended that their clients invest in entities that Weiss owned without disclosing that the investments would be used primarily to benefit FEP. The SEC also alleges that FEP and Weiss advised clients to invest in a consumer loan portfolio while concealing that Weiss would receive half of the clients’ profits from these investments.

Between 2010 and 2012, the SEC alleges that FEP and Weiss advised 11 FEP and caused two FEP affiliated hedge funds to invest more than $40 million in securities issued by subsidiaries of a French company that purportedly had designed methods to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. According to the SEC, FEP and Weiss had a financial interest in the French company and that Weiss and entities received more than $600,000 in payments from that company shortly after the FEP clients and hedge funds invested in it. However, the SEC stated that Weiss failed to disclose these conflicts of interest to investors.

Gana LLP Investigates Investor Losses In Star Scientific / Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals (RCPI)

July 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investor losses in Star Scientific, Inc. / Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals (Star Scientific) on the heels of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) investigation into alleged false and misleading research reports issued by Oits Bradley (Bradley) presumably made about the company. Although FINRA only refers to Star Scientific in its complaint against Bradley as the “Pharmaceutical Company” we believe that the referenced report citations refer to Star Scientific.

According to FINRA, Bradley was an equity research analyst with Gilford Securities, Inc. (Gilford), who authored eight research reports containing false, misleading and unwarranted statements concerning Star Scientific. During the relevant time period Bradley was associated with Gilford from February 2012 until his termination from the firm in October 2014. FINRA alleged that Bradley’s research reports on the Star Scientific were distributed to Gilford’s brokers as well as various financial media outlets, investment research firms, firm clients and others.

FINRA found that Bradley falsely claimed that a prominent medical research university was conducting clinical trials on humans to study the effects of one of the Star Scientific’s dietary supplements on thyroid disorders. Additionally, FINRA alleged that Bradley made unwarranted and misleading statements concerning Star Scientific’s financial prospects based on his inaccurate claim that the university was conducting clinical trials on humans, and made false, misleading and unwarranted claims regarding the company’s announcement of preliminary results of its clinical trials on humans.

FINRA Fines 10 Brokerage Firms $43.5 Million For Conflicts of Interests in Toys “R” Us IPO

January 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The merry go-round of Wall Street fraud continues. After the housing crisis where Wall Street sold terrible home loans to investors we’ve arrived back to dot.com era frauds of selling favorable research. Enter the recent fine imposed by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that 10 of the largest brokerage firms were fined a total of $43.5 million for allowing their equity research analysts to solicit investment banking business by offering favorable research coverage in connection with the 2010 planned initial public offering of Toys “R” Us.

FINRA fines are as follows:

Barclays Capital Inc. – $5 million

LPL Financial Fires Texas Broker James “Jeb” Bashaw

November 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating LPL Financial after its stunning termination of James “Jeb” Bashaw, a former broker with LPL Financial. According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck Report, LPL Financial terminated Mr. Bashaw for “participating in private securities transactions without providing written disclosure to and obtaining written approval from the firm.”

In addition, LPL explained that it terminated Mr. Bashaw for borrowing money from a client and engaging in a business transaction that created a “potential conflict of interest without providing written disclosure to and obtaining written approval from the firm.” Finally, LPL Financial stated that Mr. Bashaw failed to follow firm policies and industry regulations. Mr. Bashaw was discharged on September 24, 2014. In response, Mr. Bashaw stated that he was home supervised and had 13 perfect audits. Furthermore, he stated that he was still unclear as to the specifics of the discharge.

Mr. Bashaw started his career with Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. and worked there for about two years and four months. Over his thirty year career, he also worked at Kidder, Peabody & Co., Thomas F. White & Co., First America Equities Corp., Augusta Securities Corp., Suntrust Equitable Securities, J.C. Bradford & Co., UBS Painewebber, Inc. and was most recently working at Wunderlich Securities, Inc.

FINRA Addresses Conflicts of Interest In the Sales of Securities

January 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In the securities industry conflicts of interest can arise where a duty of care or trust exists between two or more parties. While the existence of a conflict does not always mean that one party will be harmed by the other party’s interest, brokerage firms have been involved in many situations where they did not effectively and fairly manage conflicts of interest.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently issued a “Report on Conflicts of Interest” that focused on enterprise-level frameworks to identify and manage conflicts of interest; approaches to handling conflicts of interest distributing new financial products; and approaches to compensating their associated persons.

Part of FINRA’s focus on conflicts on interests focused on the introduction of new financial products. FINRA recommended a number of effective practices to address conflicts in the issuance of new securities. First, firms can use a new product review process that includes identifying and mitigating conflicts that a product may present. Second, firms should disclose those conflicts in plain English to ensure that customers comprehend the conflicts that a firm or registered representative have in recommending a product. FINRA reminded firms that conflicts may be particularly acute where complex financial products are sold to less knowledgeable investors, including retail investors.

Fidelity In Lawsuit Over Its Employees’ 401(k) Plan

October 24, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On March 19, 2013, a former employee of Fidelity Investments filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts against her former employer alleging self-dealing with respect to the management of the FMR LLC Profit Sharing Plan, Fidelity’s 401(k) plan. In September, twenty-six additional current and former Fidelity employees joined a proposed class action lawsuit against Fidelity. The complaint captioned, Bilewicz v. Fidelity Investments, alleges that the FMR LLC Profit Sharing Plain offered expensive Fidelity mutual funds despite the availability of lower-fee mutual funds within Fidelity’s own investment offerings and the offerings of outside providers.

Fidelity’s 401(k) plan holds approximately $8.5 billion in assets for more than 50,000 of its employees. Fidelity generally makes annual profit sharing contributions to the plan in addition to matching up to 7% of its employees’ salary contributions.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) creates a fiduciary duty for 401(k) plans, meaning Fidelity, and any other 401(k) plan provider, must act in the best interest of its employee investors. The complaint in this case alleges that Fidelity and some of its officers failed to uphold thier fiduciary duty with respect to selecting, evaluating, monitoring, and removing investment options from the Fidelity 401(k) Plan. The complaint alleges that Fidelity and certain officers selected high-fee Fidelity mutual fund products that financially benefited Fidelity instead of acting in the best interest of their employees.

SEC Charged New York Based Hedge Fund Adviser Shadron Stastney, a Partner at Vicis Capital, LLC With Breaching Fiduciary Duty By Participating in Conflicted Principal Transaction

September 19, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

September 18, 2013 The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Shadron Stastney, a partner at a New York based hedge fund, Vicis Capital, LLC with breaching his fiduciary duties by engaging in undisclosed principal transactions in which he had a personal financial interest.

A principal transaction occurs when a registered investment adviser (RIA) acts as a principal for its own account and knowingly and intentionally buys securities from, or sells securities to a client. sells securities to, or buys securities from, a client. A principal transaction may also occur in situations where a controlling owner or an affiliate of the RIA engages in trades with the adviser’s clients. These transactions may lead to abuses, such as price manipulation, and the placement of unwanted securities in clients’ accounts—a practice known as “dumping.”

In passing Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act, Congress recognized that principal transactions are potentially very harmful to investors and advisory clients. Principal transactions create the opportunity for RIAs to engage in self-dealing. Principal trading with clients is a clear conflict of interest that must be adequately disclosed to customers.