Securities Lawyers Blog

Accredited Investor Definition Revisited By SEC Part I

November 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to an InvestmentNews article, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for the first time in 32 years, is revisiting the idea of who should qualify as an accredited investor to be eligible to invest in private placements. The current accredited-investor standard limits private placement purchases to individuals who earn at least $200,000 annually or have a net worth of $1 million after excluding the primary residence. Recently, the SEC recommended considerable revisions on who should make to the definition of an accredited investor in order to broaden the potential pool and strengthen verification that they qualify.

Under the Dodd-Frank reform law, the SEC must review the accredited investor definition every four years. Under the current rules, about 8.5 million investors currently qualify. The Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) was also established by Dodd-Frank to represent retail investors to the SEC to propose rule recommendations.

The committee stated that relying on income and net worth oversimplifies the analysis of who has the wealth and liquidity to withstand the risks of private offerings. For instance, the thresholds fail to provide adequate protection for investors whose net worth is based on an accumulated retirement savings, illiquid holdings, or maybe a lump sum settlement from a lawsuit that is supposed to replace income.

SEC Rejects Bids by Funds to List Nontransparent ETFs

November 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In a rare move of true consumer protection, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) denied applications by fund managers BlackRock Inc. and Precidian Investments to offer nontransparent exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to investors by stating that such products were not in the public’s interest. The SEC stated that the proposals could inflict substantial costs on investors, disrupt orderly trading, and damage market confidence in trading of ETFs.

The fund managers have argued that opening up actively managed ETFs to full transparency would lead to front running, a strategy where other investors trade ahead to gain a benefit. As a result, the funds argue that their trading strategies are rendered obsolete by the market’s knowledge of them. Thus, the solution the industry devised was to deprive the investing public of disclosure of fund holdings.

However, the SEC said that daily transparency is necessary to keep the market prices of ETF shares at or close to the net asset value per share of the ETF. But as usual, the industry losses a battle but will eventually win the war. Others funds such as American Funds, T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and Eaton Vance Corp. all have applications pending for similar nontransparent ETFs where the SEC could rule on various alternative proposals. In addition, Precidian’s chief executive, Daniel J. McCabe, told InvestmentNews he believed the SEC’s objections can be worked though and that it will merely take longer to get approval because the funds are not standard.

Illinois Files Churning Complaint Against James Markoski

November 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

James Markoski (Markoski) recently had a complaint filed against him from the State of Illinois, Securities Department. According to the complaint Markoski has a history of churning accounts, or engaging in excessive trading that is designed to generate huge commissions at the expense of the customer.

Markoski’ entered the financial industry in the early 1970’s and until 1991, Markoski worked for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill). Thereafter, from September 1991, through June 2010, Markoski was a registered representative of David A Noyes & Company. From June 2010, through April 2012, Markoski worked for Birkelbach Investment Securities, Inc. Finally, Markoski currently is associated with Forest Securities, Inc. Markoski has been subject to 9 customer arbitrations throughout his career. Virtually all of the customer complaints involve claims of churning and excessive trading activity in the customer’s account. It is rare for a broker to have a complaint filed against them. It is even more rare for a broker to have more than 2 complaints filed against them.

The Illinois Secretary of State alleged that Markoski alleged that Markoski has a penchant for targeting widows and senior women to engage in his fraudulent churning conduct. In one of the alleged churning instances, Markoski inherited a client’s account from one of his colleagues. The complaint alleges that upon inheriting the client’s account, Markoski began selling off the client’s bond holdings that the client was relying upon the income from. The selling of the bonds before maturity allegedly resulted in $175,000 in losses.

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.

Gemini Real Estate Advisors Risk Investor Funds in Private Legal Dispute

November 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As reported in InvestmentNews, three members of a real estate partnership that sells private placements in the real estate space are in the middle of a legal dispute that could potentially endanger millions of dollars in loans and investor capital as a result. The dispute is among the owners of Gemini Real Estate Advisors and began earlier this year when William Obeid, one of the partners, asked the other two partners, Christopher La Mack and Dante Massaro, to restructure the company to reflect certain areas of expertise. Those talks soon broke down and have now ended up in court.

Gemini Real Estate Advisors oversees a real estate portfolio of more than $1 billion and was founded in 2003. The complaint alleges that Mr. Obeid abused his position for personal gain through concealed unauthorized transfers of company funds and hiring of family members at inflated salaries. Thereafter, Mr. Obeid filed his own complaint in New York against Mr. La Mack and Mr. Massaro. alleging that the two other Gemini partners had proposed a business divorce and have acted in an effort to freeze him out in order to strengthen their negotiation position in discussions concerning a buyout of Mr. Obeid’s interest.

According to Mr. Obeid’s lawsuit, his partners’ strategy would harm Gemini and investors, by paralyzing Gemini’s operations, causing existing development projects to become distressed, and risk default on more than $97 million in loans and $15 million of investors’ equity.

Stifel Nicolaus Broker Robert Head Terminated and Barred for Unauthorized Trading

November 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) and barring former Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (Stifel Nicolaus) broker Robert Head (Head) concerning allegations that between August 2013, and October 2013, Head exercised discretion, aka unauthorized trading, in the account of a customer without obtaining the customer’s prior written consent in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010. In addition, FINRA alleged that Head recommended transactions to the same customer between January 2010, and October 2013, that were qualitatively and quantitatively unsuitable for the customer.

From August 2008, until January 2014, Head was registered with Stifel Nicolaus. Since that time, Head has not been registered with any brokerage firm. In December 2013, Head was discharged from Stifel Nicolaus for alleged violation of the firm’s policy regarding exercising discretion in a client’s account without written authorization.

According to FINRA, Head managed a Stifel Nicolaus trust account for a customer from August 2008, until October 2013. The customer was retired with an original account application listing investment objectives of “Growth and Income” and “Speculation / Active Trading / Complex Strategies.” FINRA found that in November 2009, the account’s investment objective was changed to identify only ”Speculation / Active Trading / Complex Strategies.” FINRA found that the customer never gave Head written authorization to exercise his own discretion for her account.

Broker Spotlight – Mark Johanson’s Sale of Tenants-in-Common (TIC)

November 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s BrokerCheck system, there have been four customer complaints filed against former Sigma Financial Corporation (Sigma) and current Charles Schwab broker, Mark Johanson (Johanson) stemming from unsuitable Tenants-in-Common (TIC) investments.

Sales of TICs exploded during the early 2000s from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. TICs are private placements that have no secondary trading market and are therefore illiquid investments. These products were promoted as appropriate section 1031 exchanges in which an investor obtains an undivided fractional interest in real property. In a typical TIC, the profits are generated mostly through the efforts of the sponsor and the management company that manages and leases the property. The sponsor typically structures the TIC investment with up-front fees and expenses charged to the TIC and negotiates the sale price and loan for the acquired property.

TIC investments entail significant risks. A TIC investor runs the risk of holding the property for a significant amount of time and that subsequent sales of the property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest. FINRA has also warned that the fees and expenses associated with TICs, including sponsor costs, can outweigh the any potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. That is, the TIC product itself may be a defective product because its costs outweigh any potential investment value for a customer. FINRA also instructed members that they have an obligation to comply with all applicable conduct rules when selling TICs by ensuring that promotional materials used are fair, accurate, and balanced.

Gana LLP Investigates Investor Claims of Churning at Global Arena Capital and Whitewood Group

November 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law office of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating a string of securities arbitration cases involving brokers associated or formerly associated with Global Arena Capital Corp (Global Arena) and Whitewood Group, Inc (Whitewood Group). Two such brokers include Mark Lisser (Lisser) and Benjamin Brown Jr. (Brown).

FINRA recently brought an action against Brown alleging that between October 19, 2012, and December 10, 2012, while registered with Whitewood Group, Brown effected 30 transactions while exercising discretion without written authorization in a customer’s account. From August 2011, until November 2011, Brown was associated with Global Arena. Thereafter, from February 2012, through May 2013, Brown was registered with Whitewood Group. Finally, from May 2013 until December 2013, Brown was associated with Salomon Whitney LLC. Brown has had two customer complaints filed against him, both alleged churning and unsuitable investments.

In FINRA’s action against Brown, it is against the industry’s rules for a registered representative to exercise any discretionary power in a customer’s account unless such customer has given prior written authorization and the account has been accepted by the member in writing. FINRA found that between October 19, 2012, and December 10, 2012, Brown effected 30 option transactions while exercising discretion in one customer’s account without the customer’s prior written authorization to exercise discretion to engage in discretionary trading.

Gana LLP Files Claim On Behalf of Customer Against Legend Securities for Churning and Unauthorized Trading

November 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a claim against Legend Securities, Inc. (Legend) on behalf of a customer with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) alleging that Legend and Legend broker, Michael Guilfoyle, recommended unsuitable investments while churning his account and executing unauthorized trades in violation of FINRA rules and other applicable law.

In 2013, the customer received a cold call from Guilfoyle soliciting his business. Guilfoyle assured the client that he would only invest according to his investment objectives. In reliance upon Guilfoyle’s assurances, the client transferred his money to Legend. In early 2014, Guilfoyle and Legend also coaxed the client into investing his wife’s money, which she inherited from her parents. Soon after the client transferred the funds to Legend, Guilfoyle allegedly leveraged over concentrated the portfolio and began to churning the account. “Churning” is the Wall St. vernacular when there is unnecessarily high or excessive trading activity in an investor’s account, simply for the purpose of generating commissions for the broker. This is a violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and FINRA rules.

More egregiously, Guilfoyle failed to contact the client concerning the trades being made in his account and acted without any prior authorization. Guilfoyle allegedly day-traded different stock positions earning fees for himself while providing no benefit to the client. For example, Guilfoyle concentrated the client’s account in speculative small cap stocks, such as Voxeljet AG (Voxeljet) that had only recently gone public. At the time, analysts warned that Voxeljet was a highly volatile stock, not suited for investors looking for long-term growth. Guilfoyle’s misconduct ultimately cost client nearly his and wife’s entire account value.

Why is UBS Still Selling the UBS Puerto Rico Bond Funds?

November 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” While UBS does not challenge Einstein’s theories in physics it does challenge his thoughts on insanity. According to several news sources, including Financial Advisor Magazine and Reuters, UBS has told its brokers to continue selling its extremely speculative and risky UBS Puerto Rico bond funds to investors even after some investors have lost their entire investment and many others have suffered very substantial losses. Obviously, UBS believes a different result can be achieved with these recommendations. Let’s examine the facts and determine whether UBS has any grounds for such a belief.

Recently, investors have filed more than 500 complaints against UBS concerning the sales of the UBS Puerto Rico bond fund with more cases being filed daily. UBS’ sales tactics and recommendations to its customers to invest in 23 proprietary closed-end funds has come under fire and investors claim that the firm hid the substantial risks of the funds in order to generate sales and lucrative fees. On the surface the funds’ risks include is the excessive amount of leverage the funds employ. UBS leveraged up to 100% of the funds’ investments to raise additional cash, or the borrowing of a dollar for every dollar of capital invested in the funds. U.S. based funds by contrast are not allowed to take on such large leverage risk.

UBS has claimed that these funds have provided excellent returns and tax benefits to investors for decades. These claims appear to be the support for continuing to sell and recommend the bond funds to investors. However, investigations into UBS practices regarding the bond funds reveals that UBS’ decision to continue to sell the funds may come back to haunt the firm.