Firm News

Adam Gana Publishes Article on the Problems with Securities Laws in New York

June 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law will be publishing an article written by Adam Gana and Michael Villacres. The article is entitled Blue Skies for America in the Securities Industry… Except for New York: New York’s Martin Act and the Private Right of Action. The article addresses the origins and legislative history of New York’s securities regulations and compares the regulations to that of other states. The article then explores the disadvantages to New York’s retail investing public. Finally and most importantly, the article recommends changes to the law that will truly help protect investors in the state of New York.

The article will appear in the summer 2014 edition of the Fordham Journal.

Gana LLP Files Claim Against First Allied Securities on Behalf of Luxtera Investors

June 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP filed a complaint with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) on behalf of four investors against First Allied Securities, Inc. (First Allied) concerning broker Amram a/k/a Rami Yahalom’s solicitation and sale of Advanced Equities private placements. According to the complaint, First Allied and Yahalom sold the investors AE Luxtera Investments II, LLC (Luxtera), a private placement in a technology start-up company by misrepresenting Luxtera’s prospects and failing to conduct even basic due diligence on the company before recommending the investment to clients.

In the context of a Regulation D offering, FINRA requires broker-dealers to conduct a reasonable investigation of the issuer and the securities they recommend in offerings. The investors alleged that First Allied failed to meet FINRA’s due diligence requirements and made representations that were misleading. The investors alleged that Yahalom and First Allied marketed Luxtera and other private placements as “late stage equities” that were a mere 12-36 months from going public through an IPO. Luxtera was also allegedly sold to customers under the false premise that the company would provide “Higher near-term investment returns than the public equity markets” while providing “Greater short-term liquidity and lower risk profiles.”

However, according to the complaint, these representations were misleading and false. The complaint alleged that First Allied sought to raise $43 million for Luxtera based on a $175 million valuation that was 22 times Luxtera’s projected 2008 revenues. In addition, the investors alleged that while First Allied knew that Luxtera had only achieved $1 million in sales as of November 30, 2008, their broker provided them with a slide-show presentation that projected 2009 sales as high as $89,447,500 and 2010 sales could reach $341,883,000. The complaint alleged that First Allied lacked a good faith basis to believe that Luxtera would experience 8,945% sales growth in one year and 34,188% sales growth over the next two years when the company was then suffering losses in excess of $30 million a year.

How to Sell Restricted Stock Under Rule 144

May 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

There are many instances where an individual or corporation receives shares of stock by private placement, as opposed to purchasing the stock from the open market. Often times, the stock certificates received by private placement are stamped with a legend outlining applicable restrictions on the resale of that stock. This legend establishes the regulatory limitations surrounding the corporation or individual’s ability to resell the securities. This legend must be removed before one can legally effectuate the resale of the stock. Generally, the securities must either be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or sold pursuant to an exemption from registration. Only after the securities are registered or are shown to be exempt, may a transfer agent remove the restrictive legend—and only upon the removal of the restrictive legend may the underlying securities sold.

In the United States, the resale exemption most often relied on is Rule 144 of the Unites States Securities Act of 1933. Rule 144 allows the resale of restricted stock to be sold to the public without a registration statement being filed if a number of conditions have been met. These conditions vary depending on (1) whether the issuing company is a reporting or non-reporting issuer; (2) whether the holder is arms-length, and thus considered a “Non-Affiliate”; or a director, officer or significant shareholder, and thus considered an “Affiliate”; and (3) the length of time the securities have been held.

Removing the restrictive legend involves extensive communications with the transfer agent of the issuer of the securities being held and the broker dealer where the stockholder seeks to deposit those securities. The certificate holder will need to provide a number of documents including, but not limited to, a seller’s representation letter, the original stock certificates, a medallion signature guarantee, a legal opinion letter, and in some cases, a Form 144 for the proposed transaction.

Gana LLP Files Churning Case Against RBC and Morgan Stanley on Behalf of Client

April 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint against RBC Capital Markets, LLC (RBC) and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (Morgan Stanley) accusing their registered representative Bruce Weinstein (Weinstein) of churning (excessive trading) and making unsuitable recommendations. In addition, the complaint alleged that the brokerage firms failed to properly supervise Weinstein’s activities.

The claimant alleged that he is the owner of a small business who had very little investment experience with stocks, bonds, or any other investment products. In addition, the claimant has no other financial or investment training and is generally unsophisticated in financial matters. The complaint also alleged that Weinstein knew that the claimant was providing the broker with approximately 100% of his liquid assets. The claimant alleged that even though he did not tell the broker that he desired to speculate with 100% of his liquid assets, Weinstein incorrectly marked claimant’s investment objective as speculation. Claimant alleged that the broker also incorrectly selected his investment experience in options, stocks, and bonds as being 20 years. In fact, the claimant had no options trading experience.

According to the complaint, Weinstein immediately began executing a highly leveraged and excessive trading investment strategy in claimant’s account. The claimant alleged that Weinstein’s trading was made without authorization or prior notice to the client. The claimant alleged that the broker’s trading generated exorbitant commissions for himself while providing no material benefit to his client. For example, in the May 2011, the claimant alleged that his account lost 44.8% of its value in a single month. During this month, it was alleged that the broker excessively day traded options such as Apple causing losses of $23,228 in Apple options or nearly 21% of the claimant’s entire liquid net worth.

Gana LLP Files Complaint Against H. Beck on Behalf of Client For Unsuitable Investment

April 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint against H. Beck, Inc., on behalf of a client accusing the investment advisory firm of making unsuitable recommendations and failing to properly supervise one of its representatives.

The Claimant in this case is a retired sixty-three year old from Hawaii, who sought to safely invest what was left of his retirement funds, after being hit hard in the down market of 2008. H. Beck, through one of its advisers, offered him high, risk-free returns, which the Hawaii native readily accepted. H. Beck, through one of its advisers, took nearly two-thirds of Claimant’s retirement savings and put them into the Inland American Real Estate Investment Trust (Inland) and the Lease Equipment Finance Fund 4 (LEAF).

LEAF is a limited partnership. Limited Partnerships are investment vehicles formed to acquire, operate, and sell assets for the benefit of the partners. Investors in Limited Partnerships, also known as limited partners, are entitled to receive distributions of operating cash flow as well as distributions from the sale or financing of assets as outlined in the partnership’s limited partnership agreement. Unlike stocks and bonds, Limited Partnerships are not listed on an exchange. They are illiquid assets with a relatively limited secondary market. Consequently, reliable pricing information is typically very difficult to obtain.

Gana LLP Files Complaint on Behalf of Former NFL Player

March 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) on behalf of a former NFL athlete alleging that the brokerage firm Resource Horizons Group LLC (Resource Horizons) failed to supervise Robert Gist (Gist), one of the firm’s associated persons.

The claimant came to know Gist in the 1980s while playing in the NFL. The claimant knew that his NFL earnings would provide him with enough money to save for his retirement and support his lifestyle after retiring from the NFL and wanted Mr. Gist to prudently manage the funds. The claimant trusted Gist through many years of friendship and Gist was invited to the claimant’s family events and functions.

In 1991, Gist solicited the claimant to continue to invest with him at his new firm, Gist, Kennedy & Associates, Inc, (Gist, Kennedy) which also operated as a law firm. According to the complaint, Gist told the claimant that he could invest the couple’s retirement assets and an educational trust the claimant established for the benefit of their children and produce an income of between 7 to 10%.

Gana LLP Seeks Relief for Victim of Stanford Ponzi Scheme Against Clearing Broker, Pershing, LLC

March 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Over the last several years, we have seen the collapse of frauds and the capture of fraudsters, who have perpetuated a mind-numbing blow to the market and its participants. When we talk about Ponzi Schemes, the first name that springs to mind is, of course, Bernard Madoff. However, two years later authorities honed in on R. Allen Stanford (Stanford) and his fraudulent empire, which may have more far-reaching consequences than people think.

While the ponzi scheme developed and operated by Stanford fleeced investors of “only” eight billion dollars, it was perhaps far more damaging than the Madoff scheme. Why? Because the Stanford case pertains to everybody—not just to Stanford investors, not just the government, and not just the upper echelon of wealthy individuals. The Stanford scheme exploited one of the oldest, safest, and most universally understood financial instruments on the market—the Certificate of Deposit (CDs).

The ultimate reality of the Stanford Financial Group was that it was a Ponzi scheme. Essentially, Stanford and his co-conspirators used the Stanford Financial Group and the promise of high-return CD’s to lure investor money into different Stanford companies, where the funds were then pooled together and used for undisclosed and impermissible purposes. Federal authorities ultimately discovered Stanford’s multi-billion dollar scheme, putting an end to Stanford Financial Group and charging Stanford, civilly and criminally, with multiple counts of fraud. In March 2012, Stanford was convicted on 13 of 14 counts by a federal jury following a six-week trial and approximately three days of deliberation. It was ultimately revealed that the Stanford Financial Group was “selling” CD’s, marketed as low-risk, high return investments, but in reality, were paying distributions with subsequent investments–the prototypical pyramid scheme.

Why Corporations Should Hire Small Law Firms

March 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Corporations that once regularly hired large law firms for their litigation needs are now sending more work to smaller, less expensive firms for even the most complex legal work.

According to the Wall Street Journal, over the past three years, smaller law firms have nearly doubled their share of big-ticket litigation, to 41% from 22%, of the work that generates more than $1 million in legal bills, according to a new analysis released recently.

According to CounselLink, a division of LexisNexis, firms with over 750 attorneys have reduced their market ground in this area by approximately 6%.

Gana LLP Secures Unanimous Appellate Decision in the First Department

March 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP’s appellate practice has secured a unanimous ruling in the New York Appellate Division First Department reversing summary judgment entered by the Supreme Court of New York. The case is entitled Prince v. Lovelace, Index Number 304424/2011.

On February 7, 2013, Judge Barbato of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted Defendant-Appellee’s motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action. The lower court held that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102(d). The Appellate Division, through Judges Tom, Friedman, Acosta, Andrias and Richter, held that Defendant-Appellee failed to establish that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury. The Court ruled that even if defendant made a showing, plaintiff raised an issue of fact requiring trial by proffering the report of his treating physician. The treating physician opined, based on his review of the records, operative findings and plaintiff’s history, that plaintiff suffered an injury causally related to the accident and that he suffered permanent limitations in range of motion and other symptoms.

“We are very pleased with the result,” said Adam Gana, managing partner of the firm, “its always hardest to reverse lower court decisions, and to do so unanimously is a testament to the excellent briefing of our staff.” The case will now be sent back to the lower court for trial.

Gana LLP Moves and Welcomes a New Associate

March 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

There are many exciting changes that our firm would like to report. First, Gana Weinstein LLP would like to welcome Daniel Gwertzman to our team. Danny joins our firm as a senior associate. Dany has a wealth of securities industry experience and has had exposure to a wide range of financial products. Prior to graduating magna cum laude from the University of Miami, Danny worked at Deutsche Bank and GlobeOp Financial Services. After graduating law school, Danny worked as a senior compliance examiner for the National Futures Association and is a certified fraud examiner. Danny was a member of his law school’s Business law review and the moot court board. Danny is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and just sat for the Florida bar as well.

In other news, Gana Weinstein LLP has moved to 345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10001. Our new office offers a wide range of additional services to help meet our clients needs including additional conference space, more support staff, and a centralized location. As always, our goal is to position our selves to meet the needs of our ever growing client base and facilitate strong working relationships with our clients. We strongly believe that our growth (both in space and staff) will help our clients tremendously.