Securities Lawyers Blog

Wedbush Securities Plagued by Numerous Regulatory Actions Part II

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our examination of the numerous regulatory actions against Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects.

In November 2014, the SEC’s case was settled with Wedbush and two of its top officials have for market access violations. Wedbush settled by admitting wrongdoing in its actions, paying a $2.44 million penalty, and retaining an independent consultant. Wedbush’s former executive vice president Jeffrey Bell (Bell) and senior vice president Christina Fillhart (Fillhart) settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. Bell and Fillhart agreed to pay a combined total of more than $85,000 in disgorgement and penalties. The SEC order found that Wedbush had inadequate risk controls in place before providing customers with access to the market including some anonymous overseas traders.

In a statement, Andrew Ceresney, director of the SEC Enforcement Division stated that “Wedbush acknowledges that it granted access to thousands of overseas traders without having appropriate safeguards in place.”

Wedbush Securities Supervisory Failures Exposed in Numerous Regulatory Actions Part I

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

In a slew of regulatory actions, Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) has the firm under fire for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects. These complaints were recently capped off with an affirmation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) appeals body, the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), decision imposing more than $300,000 in fines and a month-long suspension of top executives for failures in their reporting duties. Decision Here.

Wedbush is a brokerage and investment banking firm founded by Edward Wedbush (Mr. Wedbush) and another individual in 1955. Wedbush registered with the NASD in 1955 and NYSE in the early 1970s. At present the firm employs approximately 900 employees. Mr. Wedbush joined the securities industry in 1955 when he formed the firm and has been registered as a general securities principal and representative since the firm’s inception.

A company’s culture is set at by those at the top running the company. And judging by the recent decision, Wedbush’s supervisory culture calls into question the handling of its client’s assets. The recent regulatory woes and saga first started on October 4, 2010, when FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a five-cause complaint alleging that during various periods between January 2005, and July 2010, Wedbush failed to properly report 81 disclosable events resulting in 38 Form RE-3 reporting violations, 113 Form U4 and U5 violations, and nine statistical reporting violations concerning customer complaints. FINRA also alleged that the firm and Mr. Wedbush failed to supervise the firm’s regulatory reporting.

FINRA Fines 10 Brokerage Firms $43.5 Million For Conflicts of Interests in Toys “R” Us IPO

January 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The merry go-round of Wall Street fraud continues. After the housing crisis where Wall Street sold terrible home loans to investors we’ve arrived back to dot.com era frauds of selling favorable research. Enter the recent fine imposed by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that 10 of the largest brokerage firms were fined a total of $43.5 million for allowing their equity research analysts to solicit investment banking business by offering favorable research coverage in connection with the 2010 planned initial public offering of Toys “R” Us.

FINRA fines are as follows:

Barclays Capital Inc. – $5 million

FINRA Fines Popular Securities Over Concentrated Customer Accounts in Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds and Bond Funds

January 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned Popular Securities, Inc. (Popular Securities) alleging between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2013, Popular failed to establish and enforce a supervisory system and procedures designed to identify and review concentrated securities purchases in Puerto Rico municipal bonds and Puerto Rico closed-end funds.

Popular has been a FINRA member since 1980, is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico and engages in a general securities business, including customer purchases and sales of Puerto Rico municipal securities and open and closed-end mutual funds. The Firm has approximately 120 registered representatives located in its 9 branch offices.

Puerto Rico Bond Funds were sold as providing Puerto Rico residents with various tax benefits including exemption from US. estate and gift taxes. In addition, the Puerto Rico Bond Funds offered a triple tax benefit to investors. However, in December 2012, Puerto Rico general obligation and related bonds ratings were downgraded. Then, six months later in June 2013, the Puerto Rico Power Authority (PREPA) revenue bonds ratings were also downgraded.

FINRA Bars Former Pruco Securities and MetLife Securities Broker Derek Weaver

January 14, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Derek Weaver (Weaver) alleging that Weaver failed to provide documents and information to FINRA in response to demands made to investigate the broker’s activities. On December 1, 2014, FINRA sent Weaver a request for documents concerning allegations that he participated in a Ponzi scheme. The details concerning the exact nature of the alleged Ponzi scheme and Weaver’s role are not yet fully known.

The allegations against Weaver are consistent with a potential “selling away” securities violation. In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-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 detect and prevent brokers from offering such products. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures and implement such policies in order to monitor the activities of each registered representative. 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.

In selling away cases, investors are unaware that the advisor’s investments are either not registered or not real. Typically investors will not learn that the broker’s activities were wrongful until after the investment scheme is publicized or the broker simply shuts down shop and stops returning client calls.

Brokerage Firm Spotlight: Investor Claims of Churning Against Rockwell Global Capital

January 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating Rockwell Global Capital LLC (Rockwell) after having filed a complaint on behalf of an investor. We have posted on several previous occasions that brokers at Rockwell have been alleged by dozens of investors in recent years of churning client accounts. In Three Rockwell Global Capital Brokers Accused of Securities Misconduct by Customers we wrote about three brokers, Robert E. Lee Jr. (Robert Lee), Douglas Guarino (Guarino), and Lawrence Lee (Lee) that have been the subject of at least 29 combined customer complaints. All three brokers have been accused by clients of churning their accounts and making unsuitable investment recommendations.

Recently, an arbitration panel awarded a customer and ordered Rockwell to pay $119,000 in compensation together with costs and attorneys fees due to claims that included excessive trading.

What is “churning”? This type of securities misconduct includes investment trading activity that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted in order for the broker to generate commissions. The elements that an arbitration panel will look at to establish a churning claim, a species of securities fraud, are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements.

Broker Spotlight: Calton & Associates Broker Kenneth Popek

January 11, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Broker Kenneth Popek (Popek) has had four customer complaints filed against him over his career as a financial advisor. That many claims are rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. These disclosures do not necessarily have to include customer complaints but can include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters. In Popek’s case the broker has four customer complaints and one bankruptcy.

Popek was registered with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. from December 2006 until May 2008. Thereafter, Popek was registered and still is registered with Calton & Associates, Inc.

One of Popek’s complaints went to hearing where a panel awarded the customers $342,956 concerning allegations of suitability, misrepresentations, churning, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the award the causes of action involved, in part, investments in General Motors, Lehman Brothers, and Washington Mutual stocks that all went bust.

Customers Complain Broker William Sheehan Sold Unsuitable TIC Investments

January 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating a series of complaints against broker William Sheehan (Sheehan). According to Sheehan’s BrokerCheck records the broker has been the subject of 7 investor complaints since 2010. That many claims against one broker is rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Thus the number of brokers receiving eight complaints is exceedingly small.

The complaints concerning Sheehan’s activities at several brokerage firms. From July 2004, through October 2007, Sheehan was associated with Investors Capital Corp. (ICC) Next, from October 2007 until January 2010, Sheehan was a registered representative of Omni Brokerage, Inc. Thereafter, Sheehan went back to ICC until October 2012. Finally, Sheehan is currently registered with DFPG Investments, Inc.

Many of the complaints against Sheehan involve allegations investment recommendations into real estate securities and limited partnership interests in tenants-in-common (TICs). TIC investments have come under fire by the customers and even within the securities industry. Indeed, due to the failure of the TIC investment strategy as a whole across the securities industry, TIC investments have virtually disappeared as offered investments. According to InvestmentNews “At the height of the TIC market in 2006, 71 sponsors raised $3.65 billion in equity from TICs and DSTs…TICs now are all but extinct because of the fallout from the credit crisis.” In fact, TIC recommendations have been a major contributor to bankrupting several brokerage firms. For example, InvestmentNews found that 43 of the 92 broker-dealers that sold TICs sponsored by DBSI Inc., a company whose executives were later charged with running a Ponzi scheme, a staggering 47% of firms that sold DBSI are no longer in business.

Former Cambridge Investment Broker Steven Walstad Suspended Over Unsuitable Investment Sales

January 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently suspended former Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (Cambridge) broker Steven Walstad (Walstad) alleging that Walstad recommended and effected numerous unsuitable Class A share mutual fund purchases and sales involving six customer accounts. In addition, FINRA alleged that Walstad exercised discretion in one customer’s account without the customer’s prior written authorization.

Walstad first became registered with a FINRA firm in 1996 and was associated with Cambridge from April 18, 2008, through November 30, 2012. FINRA alleged that Walstad recommended and executed 78 purchases of Class A share mutual funds in six customer accounts without a reasonable basis to believe were suitable for the customers. All financial advisors, as part of their suitability obligations, must have a reasonable basis for the investments that they recommend to customers. The reason that FINRA found that Walstad’s trades were without a reasonable basis is that the customers were charged front-end sales loads in connection with the Class A share purchases but Walstad mistakenly believed that these front-end sales loads had been waived.

Purchase of Class A shares, as opposed to purchasing Class B or C shares, is advantageous to the customers only if they held the mutual funds on a long-term basis. However, FINRA found that these customers held the Class A shares for less than thirteen months and therefore Walstad lacked a reasonable basis to believe that his recommendations to purchase Class A shares were suitable for these six customers.

Gana LLP Brings Claim on Behalf of Client Against Rockwell Global Capital

January 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint on behalf of an investor against Rockwell Global Capital, LLC (Rockwell), accusing the firm of making unsuitable recommendations and failing to properly supervise one of its financial advisers. In or around July 2013, the client alleged that he received a cold call from Rockwell financial adviser, Patrick Lofaro. A cold call is when someone solicits and individual who was not anticipating such an interaction. Cold calling is a technique used by a salesperson to contact individuals who have not previously expressed an interest in the products or services that are being offered.

It was alleged that Mr. Lofaro aggressively pursued the client’s investment related business and that Mr. Lofaro convinced him that he could build a diversified portfolio with minimal risk to the client. In reliance upon Mr. Lofaro’s assurances, the Claimant alleged that he opened an account with Rockwell in or around August 2013. Over a seven-month period, the Claimant invested a substantial sum with Rockwell which represented close to 50% of his liquid net worth. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro, rather than create a suitable portfolio, implemented a high-leverage, excessive trading strategy that generated a high amount of commissions without providing any material benefit to the Claimant.

According to the complaint, over the course of just over a year, Mr. Lofaro executed nearly one-hundred-forty (140) trades into and out of thirty-five (35) different stocks, including seventeen (17) small caps, two (2) initial public offerings (IPO’s), eight (8) penny stocks, and fifteen (15) different stocks that were more than twice as volatile as the S&P 500. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro created a portfolio laden with risk while providing no material benefit to the Claimant. Mr. Lofaro’s investment strategy ultimately cost the Claimant an estimated $837,131, while Mr. Lofaro received over $261,080 in commissions.