Suitability

UBS Preparing to Face Investor Claims Over Puerto Rico Bond Funds

September 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to UBS’ second quarter earnings report, the bank is now looking at over $600 million in claims brought by Puerto Rico investors, who have suffered significant losses related to their investments in closed-end bond funds. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has been inundated with a plethora of claims in connection with the closed-end UBS Puerto Rico Bond Funds. Investors are looking to be made whole after they purportedly received misleading information regarding these investments. While the majority of the claims were filed against UBS Financial Services of Puerto, other firms, including Merrill Lynch, Banco Popular, Santander Securities, and Oriental Financial Services have also been named as Respondents in many of the claims.

UBS recognizes the perilous situation that it now faces with respect to these claims, explaining, “declines in the market prices of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and of UBS Puerto Rico sole-managed and co-managed closed-end funds since August 2013 have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed damages exceeding [$]600 million filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own those securities.”

Some of the claims that UBS face, including clients represented by our firm, include allegations of unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, and breach of contract among others. FINRA and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board require broker dealers to have a reasonable basis to support the suitability of their recommendations to customers. Legal representatives for many claimants have said that the UBS employees prioritized commissions when they sold the closed-end bond funds to Puerto Rican investors, who were not economically equipped to make those investments.

Gana LLP Investigation – Former RBC Capital Markets Broker Michael Zukowski

September 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Michael Zukowski (Zukowski) concerning allegations that Zukowski recommended unsuitable transactions in inverse and inverse-leveraged Exchange Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) in the accounts of his customers.

Zukowski first became registered with FINRA as a securities representative in 1989. Thereafter, from July 2005 to November 2010, he was registered in that same capacity through RBC Capital Markets, LLC (RBC) where he worked in the firm’s Massachusetts office. On December 23, 2010, RBC filed a Termination Notice (Form U5) stating that Zukowski was permitted to resign for “failure to meet Firm expectations.”

On August l8, 2011, RBC filed a an amended disclosure stating that an Administrative Complaint filed by the Massachusetts Securities Division (MSD) stated that: “The Massachusetts Securities Division alleged Michael Zukowski made unsuitable recommendations to brokerage and advisory clients regarding the purchase and sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse-leveraged exchange traded funds.” Thereafter, on November 12, 2012, Zukowski entered into a Consent Order with the MSD concerning the allegations of unsuitable recommendations where Zukowski consented to sanctions including a Cease and Desist and a five year bar to act as a “broker-dealer agent, investment adviser, investment adviser representative and issuer-agent” in the State of Massachusetts. Finally, on November 16, 2012, RBC filed another amended Form U5 and disclosed a written complaint by two customers indicating that the “Clients allege material omissions and unsuitable advice regarding non-traditional ETFs, in period 2/2009 to 12/2009.”

Broker Sanctioned Over Allegations of Unsuitable Variable Universal Life (VUL) Policies

September 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

shutterstock_50740552 The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker David Herlicka (Herlicka) concerning allegations that from 2003 through 2011 Herlicka made unsuitable trade recommendations to seven customers in connection with the sales of Variable Universal Life (VULs). FINRA found that Herlicka also made misstatements and failed to adequately disclose information regarding VULs, including the fact that they have surrender fees. FINRA also alleged that Herlicka recorded false information regarding customer net worth and annual income on VUL applications for four of these customers and that he, in 2011, also effected an unauthorized trade of a VUL for a customer.

VUL are complex insurance and investment products that investors must fully understand the risks and benefits of prior to investing. One feature of a VUL policy is that the owner can allocate a portion of his premium payments to a separate sub-account that can be used to grow in value through investments. Monthly charges for the life insurance policy, including a cost of insurance charge and administrative fees, are deducted from the policy’s cash value. The cash value of the policy may increase or decrease based on the performance of the sub-account investments. In addition, the VUL policy terminates, or lapses, if at any time the net cash surrender value is insufficient to pay the monthly cost deductions. Upon termination of the policy, the remaining cash value becomes worthless.

Given the costs involved in purchasing VULs, brokers must be careful to ensure that the recommendation to invest in VULs is suitable for the client. For example, if a policy is too expensive for the client to continue to make premium contributions to the policy could lapse over time. This is precisely what FINRA alleges that Herlicka failed to consider in some recommendations to his clients.

Great American Advisors Sanctioned Concerning Supervision of Variable Annuities

September 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Great American Advisors, Inc. (Great American) concerning allegations that between December 2006, and December 2007, Great American failed to have an adequate supervisory system for the sale of variable annuities. FINRA alleged that two of the firm’s registered representatives recommended and effected 301 unsuitable variable annuity transactions involving 206 customers causing customers to pay $363,173 in unnecessary surrender fees and incur longer surrender periods.

Great American has been a registered firm with FINRA since 1994. From 1994 through August 2010, the Great American operated as a full service firm selling mutual funds and annuities, among other investment products. Since August 2010, the firm serves as a principal underwriter and distributor for annuity products and has 54 registered representatives.

As a background, a variable annuity is an investment and insurance product with significant risks and features the investor should be aware of before investing. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know. A variable annuity is a contract with an insurance company where the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you based upon the chosen investments made in the annuity account. The investment options for a variable annuity are usually a selection of a group of mutual funds.

FINRA Sanctions Salomon Whitney Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales Practices

August 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Salomon Whitney, LLC (Salomon Whitney) concerning allegations from July 2008 through November 2009 the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to monitor transactions in leveraged, inverse, and inverse-leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs). Non-Traditional ETFs contained risks that increase over time and in volatile markets including risks of a daily reset, leverage, and compounding. FINRA found that Salomon Whitney failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system to monitor transactions in Non-Traditional ETFs, provide adequate formal training, and observe reasonable basis suitability guidelines by failing to perform reasonable due diligence to understand the risks and features associated with the products.

Salomon Whitney has been a FINRA broker-dealer since 2008 and the firm is headquartered in Farmingdale, New York where it conducts a general securities business. Salomon Whitney has approximately 19 brokers registered with the firm.

Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on an underlining asset, class of securities, or sector index. The leverage employed by Non-Traditional ETFs is designed to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.

FINRA Sanctions Michael Wurdinger and Anil Vazirani Over GWG Debenture Sales

August 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims concerning allegations made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that Michael Wurdinger (Wurdinger), from approximately February 2012, to February 2013, Wurdinger failed to adequately supervise sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures (GWG), an illiquid and high-risk alternative investment in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rule 2010. As a result of FINRA’s investigation Wurdinger was suspended for six months.

Wurdinger was associated as a securities principal with Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) from June 2009, until April 2013, when he resigned. Since November 4, 2013, Wurdinger has been associated as with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. Center Street has 84 registered representatives and 67 branches offices nationwide.

As a background, GWG Holdings, Inc. purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to the face value of the policies. Once purchased, GWG pays the policy premiums until the insured dies. GWG then collects the face value of the insurance benefit and the company hopes to earn returns by collecting more upon the maturity of the policies than it has paid to purchase the policy and service the premiums. FINRA found that the company has a limited operating history and has yet to be profitable.

Moloney Securities Fined Over Supervisory Failures Concerning Non-Traditional (Leveraged) ETFs

July 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Moloney Securities Company, Inc. (Moloney Securities) concerning allegations Moloney Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written policies, regarding the sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) that was reasonably designed to meet the requirements under the securities laws.

ETFs attempt to track a market index, sector industry, interest rate, or country. ETFs can either track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns. For example, a leveraged ETF with 300% leverage attempts to return 3% for every 1% the underlying index returns. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark. In general, Leveraged ETFs are used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned investors that most Non-Traditional ETFs reset daily and are designed to achieve their stated objectives in a single trading session. In addition to the risks of leverage, Non-Traditional ETFs held over the long term can differ drastically from the underlying index or benchmark during the same period. FINRA has also acknowledged that leveraged ETFs are complex products that carry significant risks and ”are typically not suitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for more than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.”

FINRA found that from January 2011, through December 2012, Moloney Securities allowed its representatives to recommend and sell Non-Traditional ETFs to customers. At this time, FINRA found that Moloney’s written supervisory procedures did not address the sale or supervision of Non-Traditional ETFs. In addition, FINRA alleged that Moloney Securities did not conduct due diligence of Non-Traditional ETFs before allowing financial advisors to recommend them to customers. Despite the unique features and risk factors of Non-Traditional ETFs that FINRA has noted, FIRNA found that Moloney Securities did not provide its brokers or supervisors with any training or specific guidance as to whether and when Non-Traditional ETFs would be appropriate for their customers. FINRA also found that Moloney Securities did not use any reports or other tools to monitor the length of time that customers held open positions in Non-Traditional ETFs or track investment losses occurring due to those positions.

Infinex Investments Fined Over Unsuitable Sale of Non-Traditional (Leveraged) ETFs

July 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Infinex Investments, Inc. (Infinex Investments) concerning allegations that from April 2009, through March 2011, Infinex Investments permitted 35 registered representatives who received minimal training on inverse and inverse-leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to sell them to customers. FINRA alleged that the firm and brokers failed to perform reasonable due diligence to understand the risks and features of the product necessary in order to recommend 229 customers approximately 835 transactions in these products. In addition, FINRA also found that some of the recommendations were also unsuitable on a customer specific basis. Finally, FINRA also found that Infincx Investments also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable FINRA rules relating to the sale of Non- Traditional ETFs.

Infinex Investments has been a FINRA firm since 1994, is a full service broker-dealer with its primary business being the retail sale of mutual funds and variable annuities. The firm employs approximately 400 registered representatives located in approximately 500 branches.

As a background, ETFs attempt to track a market index. ETFs can be either attempt to track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns of an underlying stock position. A leveraged ETF with 300% leverage will attempt to return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark. Leveraged ETFs are generally used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned that most Non-Traditional ETFs reset daily and are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. In addition to the risks of leverage the performance of Non-Traditional ETFs held over the long term can differ drastically from the underlying index or benchmark during the same period. FINRA has also acknowledged that leveraged ETFs are complex products that carry significant risks that are typically not suitable for retail investors.

LPL Financial Fined by FINRA for Failing to Supervise Sales of Alternative Investments

April 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial LLC, the fourth largest broker dealer, measured by number of salespersons, was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise the way that its brokers marketed and sold nontraditional investments. The fine is one of many that have recently been imposed on LPL and other “independent broker-dealers,” firms that provide products, marketing, and regulatory services to independent brokers who are not their full-time employees.

LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision as it related to the sales of alternative investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, managed futures, and other illiquid pass through investments. FINRA found that from January 1, 2008, to July 1, 2012, LPL failed to adequately supervise the sales of theses alternative investments that violated concentration limits.

Investors often rely on professional advisors like LPL Financial, which help them to diversify their portfolio while minimizing risk. LPL, like many states, has limits in place, on the portion of a client’s portfolio that can be concentrated in these riskier, alternative investments. According to FINRA, however, LPL failed to ensure adherence to these limits. FINRA explained that between 2008 and 2012, LPL utilized a manual process that relied on outdated data to conduct suitability reviews. FINRA further stated that once LPL transitioned to a new automated review system, its database was built with faulty programming.

FINRA Investigating Newest Puerto Rico Issuance of Municipal Bonds

April 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 21, 2014, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it is investigating trading in Puerto Rico, examining secondary trades in Puerto Rico’s blockbuster $3.5 billion bond deal. FINRA is looking at possible violations of rules requiring minimum sales of $100,000. The greatest concern is that the bonds are being sold to individual investors in violation of securities regulations and FINRA Rules, including FINRA Rule 2111, which requires that a trade be suitable for particular investors. Given the prospectus’ apparent intent to make these institution-only bonds, sales to individual investors would be highly improper.

The self-governed United States territory sold the debt on March 11, 2013, in the largest high-yield offering for the municipal market. The issue provided Puerto Rico with enough cash to pay its bills through June 2015, as the island attempts to prop its budget, giving officials more time to jump-start the economy.

The FINRA investigation comes amid concerns that the new bonds—which now carry junk status after Puerto Rico was cut to junk last month—are being improperly sold to individual investors. The bonds’ prospectus provides that the debt will be issued in denominations of $100,000, absent an upgrade in Puerto Rico’s credit rating. Industry professionals have noted that making the trade size contingent on credit ratings is unusual, and suggests that the writer of the documents intentionally meant to prevent trades to small investors. However, recent trading activity has shown trades in denominations of as little as $5,000—smaller size trades that are more typical of individual investors.