Securities Lawyers Blog

JP Turner Supervisor Sanctioned Over Failure to Supervise Mutual Fund Switches

March 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As we have reported, claims of churning, excessive trading, and failure to supervise have plagued J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner) brokers, among other misconduct. Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposed sanctions against Herman Mannings (Mannings), a JP Turner supervisor, concerning allegations that from February 2009, through October 2011, Mannings failed to reasonably supervise the activities of a registered representative to prevent unsuitable mutual fund switching.

On August 20, 2002, Mannings became registered with JP Turner. On February 10, 2003, Mannings was registered as a General Securities Principal at JP Turner. FINRA’s supervisory rule provides that each brokerage firm must establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business it engages in. Supervision of registered representatives, registered principals, and other associated persons must be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations.

FINRA found that from February 2009, through October 2011, Mannings was an Area Vice President for JP Turner and his responsibilities included the supervision of at least 30 branch offices and as many as 60 representatives. According to FINRA, a registered representative referred to as only by the initials “LG” was one of the representatives that Mannings supervised. FINRA found that LG effected approximately 335 unsuitable mutual fund switches in the accounts of 54 customers without having reasonable grounds for believing that such transactions were suitable for those customers.

Silver Oak Securities Fined Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales

March 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Silver Oak Securities, Inc. (Silver Oak) concerning allegations from January 2009, to December 2010, Silver Oak failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws regarding the sale of leveraged and inverse Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs). Silver Oak has been a FINRA member since 2007 and is in Jackson, Tennessee, and employs 122 registered individuals at 28 branch offices.

Non-Traditional ETFs have grown significantly in popularity since 2006. By 2009, over 100 Non-Traditional ETFs had been issued with total assets under management of approximately $22 billion. A leveraged ETF seeks to deliver two or three times an index or benchmark return the ETF tracks. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be “inverse” or “short” returning the opposite of the performance the index or benchmark. Non-Traditional ETFs contain significant risks that are not found in traditional ETFs. Non-Traditional ETFs have risks associated with a daily reset, use of leverage, and compounding.

In addition, the performance of Non-Traditional ETFs over long periods of time tend to differ significantly from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark the fund tracks. For example, between December 2008, and April 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while a leveraged ETF that tracked the index’s daily return fell six percent. Another related leveraged ETF seeking to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent. These risks, among others, prompted FINRA to issue a Notice to Members clarifying brokerage firm obligations when selling Non-Traditional ETFs to customers.

FINRA Bars Gary Chackman Over Allegations of Unsuitable Non-Traded REIT Sales

March 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposed a permanent bar against Gary J. Chackman (Chackman) concerning allegations that he recommended unsuitable transactions in the accounts of at least eight LPL Financial, Inc. (LPL) customers by over-concentrating the customers’ assets in real estate investment trusts (REITs). Additionally, FINRA found that Chackman falsified LPL documents to evade the firm’s supervision by submitting dozens of “alternative investment purchase” forms that misrepresented customers’ liquid net worth. FINRA found that by submitting falsified documents Chackman increased his customers’ accounts’ concentration in REITs and other alternative investments beyond the firm’s maximum allocation limits.

From December 2001, through March 2012, Chackman was registered through LPL. On March 2012, LPL filed a Uniform Termination Notice for (Form U5) stating that Chackman was terminated for violating firm policies and procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments. From March 2, 2012 through April 3, 2013, Chackman was registered through Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. (Summit). In April 2013, Summit filed a Form U5 terminating Chackman stating that the broker was operating a business out of an unregistered location. According to Chackman’s BrokerCheck there have been at least five customer complaints filed against the broker. Many of the complaints involve allegations of unsuitable REITs

According to FINRA, from July 2009 to February 2012, Chackman recommended REITs and other alternative investments to at least eight of his LPL customers. FINRA found that Chackman purchased the REITs at periodic intervals in each of their accounts. For example, in one customer’s account Chackman made seven purchases of a particular REIT, each for $75,000 over six months. After twelve months, FINRA found that 35% of the customer’s assets and more than 25% of her liquid net worth were invested in REITs and other alternative investments. In order to evade LPL’s limitation on the concentration of alternative investments in customers’ accounts, FINRA found that Chackman misidentified his customers’ purported liquid net worth on LPL forms. FINRA found that over sixteen months and on seventeen alternative investment purchase forms Chackman tripled the customer’s purported liquid net worth.

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%.

Sterne Agee Financial Services Fined Over Failing to Supervise Excessive Trading or “Churning” Activity

March 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined SAL Financial Services, Inc. dba Sterne Agee Financial Services, Inc. (Sterne Agee) concerning allegations that Sterne Agee failed to implement reasonable supervisory procedures to detect and prevent excessive trading activity, otherwise known as churning, in client accounts.

Sterne Agee has been a FINRA member since 1986 and the firm’s main office is located in Birmingham, Alabama. Sterne Agee has 137 branch office locations and employs 304 registered representatives.

FINRA alleged that from August 2009, through November 2010, Sterne Agee failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and enforce written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to identify and prevent unsuitable excessive trading and churning in customer accounts. Specifically, FINRA found that Sterne Agee relied solely on a single exception report with inadequate parameters to identify active accounts with patterns of unsuitable and excessive trading. FINRA alleged that Sterne Agee had access to its clearing firm’s additional exception reports but that Sterne Agee failed to use those reports. Consequently, FINRA concluded that Sterne Agee failed to identify at least thirty-nine accounts where thirty of the instances came from the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida office.

FINRA Alleges Royal Securities Company Failed to Supervise the Sale of Church Investments – Part II

March 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues the findings of The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that led to sanctions against Royal Securities Company (Royal Securities) concerning allegations Royal lacked adequate supervision and controls in several areas. FINRA found that from 2009 through 2011, Royal Securities failed to establish adequate supervisory systems to ensure due diligence, training, and fair pricing of church bonds and funds sold by its representatives.

FINRA alleged that Royal Securities acted as the lead underwriter for three churches who were issuing church bonds. From May 2009, through October 2011, according to FINRA Royal Securities sold approximately $4.3 million in church bonds to customers. FINRA also found that Royal Securities was also involved in the sale of secured certificates of participation in a fund that raised capital for Christian churches. The church fund was sold primarily by another broker-dealer but FINRA found that Royal Securities had a secondary clearing arrangement with the broker-dealer where 151 church fund sales occurred in 65 accounts with a total of approximately $2,908,000 in sales.

FINRA found that Royal Securities failed to adopt reasonable written supervisory procedures and supervisory controls to govern church bonds and church funds lines of business. Specifically, FINRA found that Royal Securities procedures did not address specific suitability considerations, particularly supervision of issues, or any required due diligence of church bonds underwritten.

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.

Merriman Capital Sanctioned Over Private Placement and Supervisory Failures

March 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Merriman Capital, Inc. (Merriman) concerning allegations that for more than three years Merriman’s written supervisory procedures were not reasonably designed to achieve compliance the FINRA rules. FINRA alleged that Merriman’s written supervisory procedures failed to describe the specific procedures to be followed and the persons responsible for carrying them out. In addition, according to FINRA, between May 2009, and September 2013, Merriman Capital raised more than $16 million for its parent company through several private offerings of securities even though Merriman did not have written procedures related to the sale of private placements.

Merriman has been a FINRA member since November 1986 and its business is focused on offerings of growth companies and institutional investors. Merriman is headquartered in San Francisco, California and employs fifty-five registered persons.

FINRA alleged that Merriman Capital’s written supervisory procedures, at fifteen pages long, listed legal rules and regulations that had to be complied with but failed to describe the specific procedures to be followed by the firm or how compliance with the procedures would be documented. Further, FINRA found that until June 2011, Merriman written supervisory procedures failed to address private placements even though the selling private placements was a substantial portion of the firm’s business. FINRA found that Merriman failed to address private placements in the firm’s supervisory manual even though Merriman Capital raised more than $16 million for its parent company through several private offerings.

FINRA Alleges Royal Securities Company Had Numerous Supervisory Deficiencies – Part I

March 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Royal Securities Company (Royal Securities) concerning allegations Royal lacked adequate supervision and controls in several areas. FINRA alleged that Royal Securities failed to properly supervise two of its registered representatives, one of which utilized a unitary investment strategy for virtually all of his customers. FIRNA also found that other representative made unsuitable recommendations in three customer accounts.

FINRA alleged that between January 2010 and May 2012, representatives of Royal Securities recommended nontraditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to customers without having a reasonable basis to do so. Further, FINRA found that Royal Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and training regarding the sale of Non-Traditional ETFs that was reasonably designed to comply with FINRA rules.

Royal Securities has been a FINRA member since September 1982 and the firm’s business lines include hedge funds, an investment advisory business, and a traditional brokerage business. Royal Securities has approximately 41 registered persons operating out of nine offices.

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.