Securities Lawyers Blog

Gana LLP is Investigating LPL Financial broker, Kenneth W. Schulz for Improper Conduct

September 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 11, 2014, FINRA, permanently barred Kenneth W. Schulz, a former broker of LPL Financial from associating with any FINRA member. According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, in June 2013, Kenneth W. Schulz directed a registered assistant to impersonate six of Schulz’s former customers in phone calls to his prior firm requesting that the customers’ accounts be liquidated so that they could invest through Schulz at his new firm Commonwealth Financial network.

Schulz informed each of his customers that their securities holdings could be transferred “in kind” to accounts with Commonwealth. The customers agreed to transfer their securities to Commonwealth and authorized Schulz to initiate the transfers.

After the customers agreed to transfer the securities, Schulz learned that the customers’ securities could not be transferred in kind because the managed funds were proprietary to LPL Financial. Rather than inform his customers that the securities had to be liquidated before their funds could be transferred, Schulz had his assistant pretend to be the customers and had the accounts liquidated without customer consent.

FINRA Updates

September 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 25, 2014, FINRA published its third quarter “Neutral Corner,” a newsletter designed to give practitioners, investors, and arbitrators updates on FINRA news. In the newsletter, FINRA officially announced the retirement of Linda Feinberg, President of FINRA Dispute Resolution. Ms. Feinberg has worked with FINRA since 1996. In addition, the newsletter highlights increased arbitrator disclosures. As of 2013, FINRA has increased its scrutiny of arbitrator disclosure by conducting internet searches of all arbitrators before having them appointed to panels.

Finally, FINRA highlights its new DR Portal – a web-based program designed to streamline the arbitration process for both attorneys and arbitrators. This is part of FINRA’s initiative to go paperless in the 21st century.

Choosing the Right Securities Arbitration Attorney

September 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

When to Call a Securities Arbitration Attorney

Securities arbitration attorneys, sometimes referred to as investment attorneys, FINRA attorneys, or securities attorneys, should be contacted whenever an investor believes he or she has been a victim of broker misconduct. An investor may have cause to retain a securities fraud attorney to file a lawsuit or arbitration claim if his or her broker failed to create a suitable investment strategy. An investor may also want to contact an attorney case if a broker made false or misleading statements about a security or omitted negative information about the risk of a security in order to persuade the investor to invest.

An investor may also want to seek legal counsel the investor’s broker bought or sold securities without prior consent (unauthorized trading) or excessively traded securities for the purpose generating commissions (churning).

FINRA Suspends and Fines Former First Allied Broker Frank N. Dettenrieder

September 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On July 15, 2014, FINRA suspended Frank N. Dettenrieder, a former financial adviser with First Allied, for twelve days and fined him $5,000 for effectuating discretionary transactions in the accounts of six customers without obtaining prior written authorization from the customers and without having the accounts accepted as discretionary accounts by First Allied in violation of FINRA Rule 2510(b). FINRA Rule 2510(b) disallows registered representatives from exercising discretionary authority in customer accounts without prior written authority.

Under FINRA Rules, financial advisors can either have discretionary accounts – accounts in which the broker has discretion to make purchases without prior approval from the investor – and non-discretionary accounts – accounts in which the broker must obtain prior approval before purchasing securities. In any event, to create a discretionary account the broker must obtain the investors written consent.

FINRA also explained that Mr. Dettenrieder’s conduct violated FINRA Rule 2010. FINRA Rule 2010 requires that all registered representatives “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”

LPL Financial Fined For Failure to Properly Supervise Variable Annuities Transactions

September 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial was recently fined $2 million and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for violations pertaining to variable annuity exchanges. This settlement, which was reached with the Illinois Securities Department, resulted from LPL’s inadequate maintenance of books and records with regards to documenting 1035 exchanges. A 1035 Exchange is a tax-free exchange of an existing annuity contract for a new one. In order for the new contract to qualify as a Section 1035 Exchange, the policyholder must have exchanged his or her existing contract for an equivalent new contract. The annuitant or policyholder must also remain the same.

According to LPL’s BrokerCheck file, LPL “failed to enforce its supervisory system and procedures in connection with the documentation of certain salespersons’ variable annuity exchange activities.” LPL has indicated that it will seek to enhance its procedures relating to surrender charges that often result from variable annuity exchange transactions. This, LPL believes, would ensure accuracy in their books and records along with client disclosures.

The product at issue was variable annuities, which have been closely watched by regulators dues to the complexity of the product and high fee structures. Elderly investors have often been sold variable annuities, when they were entirely unsuitable, just so that brokers could earn increased commissions. Regulators have paid especially close attention to those advisors who have switched their clients from one variable annuity to another, just to enhance their commissions.

FINRA Suspends Financial Advisor Over Unsuitable Variable Universal Life (VUL) Sales Practices

September 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker James Moniz (Moniz) concerning allegations that while registered with Signator Investors, Inc. (Signator) Moniz made unsuitable recommendations to a married couple that they purchase a Variable Universal Life insurance policy (VUL) on the husband’s life and use the proceeds of a reverse mortgage to purchase a variable annuity and open a managed investment account. According to FINRA, after the insurance company questioned the VUL application, Moniz caused the application to be re-submitted with changed or added information without first informing the customers of his actions. FINRA found that Moniz also inaccurately represented the source of funds for the variable annuity and managed account.

VUL are complex dual part 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. The other part of the investment is the life insurance policy where the policies monthly charges 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 selected investments. However, customers must be careful in purchasing VULs because the policy terminates, or lapses, if at any time the net cash surrender value is insufficient to pay the monthly cost deductions. When the policy terminates 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. While an investor may be able to afford the initial purchase price of the policy it may be too expensive for the client to continue to make premium contributions over time causing the policy to lapse.

FINRA Alleges that Former Waddell & Reed Employee, Jeffrey Meyer, Engaged in 37 Private Placement Transactions without Proper Notice

September 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 21, 2014, Richard A. March, Senior Regional Counsel of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Jeffrey Meyer, a financial advisor in Lake in the Hills Illinois who was formerly associated with Waddell & Reed, Inc. The complaint alleges that while employed at Waddell & Reed and WRP Investments, Inc. Mr. Meyer acted outside the scope of his employment with those firms by participating in 37 private securities transactions totaling more than $1.5 million, without providing prior written notice to the firms of his proposed roles in the transactions. FINRA alleges that as a result of the foregoing, Mr. Meyer violated FINRA Rule 2010. FINRA Rule 2010 states that “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”

Mr. Meyer entered the securities industry in January 2000 as an investment company products and variable contracts representative with Franklin Financial Services, Corp. In February 2001 he became a general securities representative with Focused Investments, LCC. According to FINRA, United Private Capital, Inc. was a corporate entity that was established as an investment vehicle for FOREX currency trading. Between November 2008 and September 2009, United Capital sold corporate guarantees totaling $1 million to 20 investors and Mr. Meyer participated in each of the private securities transactions. Mr. Meyer, in some instances collected checks from customers and assisted them in preparing documents to effectuate the transactions. Furthermore, on at least one occasion, Mr. Meyer presented sales material to an individual who subsequently invested at United Private Capital.

In addition, according to FINRA, Mr. Meyer participated in private securities transactions related to commercial loans through Strategic Lending Solutions, LLC as well. Those promissory notes totaled approximately $300,000 with 13 investors. Mr. Meyer received a 2% payment based on the amount of the promissory note.

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.

Broker Ismail Elmas Terminated Over Outside Business Activities

September 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to broker Ismail Elmas’ (Elmas) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records the representative was recently discharged from CUSO Financial Services, LP (CUSO Financial) concerning allegations that the broker “converted client funds for personal use as well as participated in an unauthorized outside business activity involving investments without the firm approval…” Previously Elmas was associated with CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc.

Shortly thereafter, a customer filed a complaint against Elmas alleging that the broker took the client’s variable annuity contract, surrendered it, and sent the proceeds to a third-party – which the client says was unauthorized activity. In addition, since Elmas was terminated from CUSO Financial authorities have been unable to locate the broker. In articles, officials say that Elmas, 49, has been missing since July 29^th and have warned that Elmas may be armed and should not be approached. According to reports Elmas was last seen leaving his home in his gray 2008 Toyota Prius.

The allegations against Elmas are consistent with a “selling away” securities violation. Selling away occurs when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies or promissory notes that were not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. Under the FINRA rules, a brokerage firm owes a duty to properly monitor and supervise its employees. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each registered representative to achieve compliance with the securities laws. Selling away often occurs in environments where the brokerage firms either fails to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fails to actually implement that system and meet supervisory requirements.

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.”