Securities Lawyers Blog

Broker Stephen Campbell Sanctioned Over Churning Claim

October 31, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Stephen Campbell (Campbell) concerning allegations that the broker engaged in churning in a client account. Campbell has been a broker since 1978. From November 12, 2004 through November 12, 2013, Campbell was registered with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer).

Investment churning is trading activity characterized by purchasing and selling activity that is excessive and serves no practical purpose for the investor. Brokers engage in churning solely to generate commissions without regard for the client’s interests. In order to establish a churning claim the investor must show that the trading was first excessive and second that the broker had control over the investment strategy. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

In Campbell’s case, FINRA found that one of his customers was a 55 year old single mother who initially opened an account with Campbell in 2000. FINRA alleged that from January 2009, through September 2011, while exercising control over her accounts, Campbell excessively and unsuitable traded her accounts inconsistently with her investment objectives, financial situation and needs. FINRA determined that the trading activity resulted in an annualized turnover ratio of 15 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 59% in her IRA account, and an annualized turnover ratio of 21 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 120% in her individual account. During this period, FINRA determined that Campbell’s improper trading resulted in a collective loss of approximately $62,000, while generating total gross commissions of approximately $64,000.

Why Wall Street Fights Against the Fiduciary Standard

October 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, the Dodd-Frank legislation authorized the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to pass a fiduciary duty rule that would apply to brokers, as opposed to only financial advisors. Most investors do not realize and are usually shocked to learn that there broker only has an obligation to recommend “suitable” investments, and not to work in their client’s best interests. Currently, the fiduciary duty rule only applies to financial advisors (and brokers under certain circumstances) – more commonly recognized by the public as advisors who charge a flat fee for their services as opposed to commissions.

The fact that the investing public has absolutely no clue how crucial the fiduciary duty is to protecting their retirement futures and holding Wall Street accountable for mishaps has prevented any serious public debate to combat the millions of dollars the industry has and will spend to kill this part of the law. True to form, recently the House of Representatives passed a budget that would prevent the SEC from imposing a fiduciary standard on brokers during the upcoming federal fiscal year beginning in October.

What’s the big deal you may ask? Why is the fiduciary standard important to me? Well there are many reasons but maybe one story will highlight how the brokerage industry is currently allowed to operate to put their interests ahead of their clients. As recently reported in Bloomberg and InvestmentNews, an undercover U.S. Labor Department economist exposed how brokerage firms sought out federal workers to roll over their 401(k)’s with the government to IRAs with the brokerage firm even though the result could increase the client’s annual costs by as much as 50 times!

Regulator Finds that Center Street Securities Made Unsuitable Recommendations of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures Part II

October 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our story on the allegations made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street). As previously reported, FINRA sanctioned the firm concerning a multitude of rule violations in the sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures, an illiquid and high-risk private placement investment.

FINRA found that in order to purchase the GWG Debentures, Center Street customers were required to complete an account application, GWG subscription forms, and a “Compliance Alternative Investment (Non-Reg D) Suitability.” FINRA found that the compliance form required brokers to obtain information about customers’ existing assets, the concentration of the alternative investment as percentage of net worth, the customer’s age, and the customer’s investment objectives. Once completed, FINRA alleged that these documents were submitted to Center Street’s compliance department for supervisory and suitability review.

FINRA found that these forms were the only items the firm relied upon in reviewing and assessing Debenture sales. FINRA determined that Center Street had three employees of in their compliance department who conducted supervisory and suitability review of all transactions recommended to customers. FINRA alleged that the primary employee responsible for conducting the review of GWG Debenture received no training from the firm regarding the unique characteristics and risks of the GWG Debentures. The employee was also unaware of the firm’s guidelines concerning concentration of alternative products as well as state specific suitability requirements.

FINRA Sanctions Center Street Securities Over Sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures Part I

October 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) concerning allegations that: 1) between approximately March 2012, and August 2013 Center Street, through multiple brokers, made unsuitable recommendations to customers to purchase GWG Renewable Secured Debentures, an illiquid and high-risk private placement investment; 2) Center Street failed to maintain an adequate supervisory system and adequate written supervisory guidelines to reasonably supervise the sales of GWG debentures; 3) between approximately February 2012, and November 2012, Center Street also distributed an inaccurate GWG sales brochure to over 100 customers; and 4) certain Center Street customer account forms contained inaccurate information about customer net worth or other information, and thus the firm failed to maintain accurate books and records.

Center Street Securities is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, has been a FINRA member since 1991, has approximately 67 branch offices and approximately 84 registered representatives. This is not the first time that FINRA has brought regulatory action concerning the actions of Center Street representatives. See Center Street Securities Broker David Escarcega Investigated Over GWG Debenture Sales; FINRA Sanctions Michael Wurdinger and Anil Vazirani Over GWG Debenture Sales (FINRA sanctioned brokers associated with Center Street Securities, Inc.).

The notes are issued by GWG Holdings, Inc. (GWG) which purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to the face value of the insurance policies. GWG pays the policy premiums until the insured dies and GWG then collects the insurance benefit making a profit, hopefully, by collecting more upon the maturity of the policies than the payment of the policy and servicing of the premiums. The Debentures have varying maturity terms and interest rates ranging from six-month at an annual interest rate 4.75% to seven years at 9.50%. The prospectus for GWG stated that the investments were speculative and involve a high degree of risk, including the possibility of risk of loss of the entire investment. An investment in the GWG Debentures, as a private placement, is illiquid and investors will not have access to their principal prior to maturity.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Toni Chen Over Failure to Respond to Inquiries Relating to a Pyramid Scheme

October 27, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker Toni Chen (Chen) concerning allegations that during the course of FINRA’s investigation into whether Chen was involved in a pyramid scheme that may also constitute “selling away” activities. Chen failed to respond to FINRA’s requests.

On October 18, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a Form U6 with FINRA regarding Chen’s activities disclosing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order for an asset freeze and other emergency relief against Chen and other defendants. The SEC restraining order is in connection with an ongoing worldwide investment pyramid scheme targeting members of the Asian-American Community. Thereafter, FINRA commenced its own investigation into whether Chen while registered with a FINRA firm or had engaged in any violations of the securities laws. Until April 2012, Chen was registered with World Group Securities, Inc. Thereafter, and until August 2012, Chen was associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica).

FINRA alleged that it made numerous requests seeking information and testimony from Chen. In spite of FINRA’s numerous requests, Chen failed to provide testimony and certain information requested by staff. Due to Chen’s failure to provide documents, FINRA brought the instant complaint.

FINRA Sanctions Financial America Securities and John Rukenbrod Over Supervisory Failures

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Financial America Securities, Inc. (Financial America) and John Rukenbrod (Rukenbrod) concerning allegations that between August 2009, and May 2011, the firm, acting through Rukenbrod, failed to adequately supervise the business being conducted out of one of the firm’s branch offices. FINRA found that the firm: 1) failed to conduct any inspection of the branch office; 2) failed to review any incoming or outgoing e-mails of the three registered representatives operating out of the branch; 3) failed to adequately supervise private securities transactions engaged in by two of the registered representatives; 4) failed to ensure that all electronic communications were captured and retained; 5) failed to create and maintain a written report of inspections of the branch as required; and 6) failed to ensure that the firm’s securities business was supervised by a licensed securities principal.

Financial America has been a FINRA firm since 1970, employs 31 registered representatives, has two branches, and engages in a general securities business. Rukenbrod entered the securities industry in 1966 and cofounded Financial America in 1970.

FINRA alleged that two of Financial America’s representatives initialed “PC” and “CM” engaged in a securities business primarily in the sale of private placement offerings and Rukenbrod was the firm’s designated supervisor. In April 2010, FINRA found that Rukenbrod attended an investor presentation at PC and CM’s branch for a private placement offering. Rukenbrod turned down the offering and stated that the firm would not participate in the offering until certain due diligence procedures were agreed upon.

FINRA Bars Broker Joseph Pappalardo Over Allegations of Sales of Coast-2-Coast Properties Securities to Customers

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Joseph Pappalardo (Pappalardo) concerning allegations that between August 2008, and August 2012, Pappalardo, while associated with Financial Network Investment Corporation (n/k/a Cetera Advisor Network LLC), made fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations to a customer in the sale of private securities, converted customer funds for his personal use, engaged in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), failed to disclose several outside business activities, and failed to amend his U4.

Pappalardo joined Financial Network Investment Corporation in 2008 and was required to complete a several questionnaires including disclosures of outside business activities. In 2008, FINRA alleged that Pappalardo disclosed on the questionnaire that he had previously been involved with a real estate company he formed in 2003 called Coast-2-Coast Properties (C2C) that was in the business of buying, renovating, and selling houses but that the company was no longer in business. FINRA alleged that Pappalardo’s statement was false. In fact, FINRA found that Pappalardo was involved in several outside business activities that he failed to disclose to Cetera including ongoing involvement in C2C and its marketing arm Prosperity Financial Estate Planning and Insurance Services (Prosperity Financial).

Thereafter, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited customers to invest in these businesses. In one instance, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited the sale of a $100,000 investment in Prosperity Financial which Pappalardo converted for his personal use. In total, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited C2C to at least 6 customers and purported to offer investors 12% interest returns on profits generated by the business. FINRA found that the investors did not actually own any portion of the real estate properties held by C2C but instead were to receive interest returns on profits from Pappalardo and the business. FINRA found that by engaging in the C2C private securities Pappalardo violated the FINRA rules.

FINRA Fines Feltl & Company $1 Million Conerning the Firm’s Penny Stock Business

October 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned brokerage firm Feltl & Company (Feltl) and fined the firm $1,000,000 concerning allegations that the firm, between January 2008, and February 2012. failed to comply with the suitability, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements for broker-dealers who engage in penny stock business. FINRA alleged that Feltl did not provide some customers with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) risk disclosure document two days prior to effecting a penny stock transaction in the customers’ accounts. failed to sufficiently supervise penny stock transactions for compliance with applicable rules and regulations, and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures for its penny stock business.

Feltl has eight branch offices located in Minnesota and Illinois, and approximately 113 registered representatives and has been a FINRA member since 1975.

The term “penny stock” generally refers to securities that trades below $5 per share, issued by a small company. Penny stocks often trade infrequently making it difficult to sell and price. Due to the size of the issuer, the market cap, the liquidity issues, and other reasons penny stocks are generally considered speculative investments. Consequently, the SEC requires broker-dealers effecting penny stock transactions to make a documented determination that the transactions are suitable for customers and obtain the customers’ written agreement to those transactions.

Non-Traded REITs Sales Grow As Shown in Second Quarter 2014 Rankings

October 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Since the financial crisis the non-traded real estate investment trust (REIT) market has been a financial boon for the brokerage industry. A REIT is a security that invests typically in real estate related assets. Generally, REITs can be publicly or privately held. While publicly held REITs can be sold on an exchange, are liquid, and have lower commissions and fees, non-traded REITs are sold are private, are speculative, illiquid, and often charge fees of over 10%. Nonetheless, non-traded REITs have become a darling product of the financial industry, mostly because of the fat fees brokers earn for recommending these speculative products.

Brokers selling these products sometimes claim that non-traded REITs offer stable returns compared to the volatile stock market. As the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have recently noted, these products may not be as safe and stabile as advertised.

InvestmentNews recently ranked non listed REITs by second quarter 2014 invested assets. As shown below, investment in these funds are substantial and continues to grow each quarter

Company	2Q invested assets ($M)	Original share price	Current share value	Original distribution rate	Current distribution rate	2Q14 FFO 2 payout ratio
Inland American Real Estate Trust	$10,128.5	$10	$6.94	6.20%	5.00%	75%
Corporate Property Associates 17 Global	$4,564.7	$10	$9.50	6.50%	6.50%	81%
Apple Hospitality	$3,960.0	$11	$10.10	8.00%	7.25%	83%
Industrial Income Trust	$3,747.6	$10	$10.40	6.00%	6.00%	100%
Tier REIT	$3,455.8	$10	$4.20	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
CNL Lifestyle Properties	$3,343.4	$10	$6.85	6.25%	4.25%	108%
Griffin-American Healthcare REIT II	$3,056.2	$10	$10.22	6.50%	6.65%	143%
Monogram Residential Trust	$2,879.1	$10	$10.03	7.00%	3.50%	189%
Cole Credit Property Trust IV	$2,833.0	$10	$10.00	6.25%	6.25%	145%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II	$2,714.1	$10	$10.29	6.50%	6.50%	98%
Cole Corporate Income Trust	$2,606.3	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.50%	94%
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,422.1	$10	$6.40	6.00%	2.90%	88%
American Realty Capital Trust V	$2,233.5	$25	$25.00	6.60%	6.60%	86%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,058.0	$10	$4.45	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
Landmark Apartment Trust	$1,889.4	$10	$8.15	6.00%	3.00%	38%
Phillips Edison – ARC Shopping Center	$1,846.9	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.70%	129%
Steadfast Income REIT	$1,592.7	$10	$10.24	7.00%	7.00%	165%
Strategic Storage Trust	$731.5	$10	$10.79	7.00%	6.50%	120%
Signature Office	$676.4	$25	$25.00	6.00%	6.00%	83%
Lightstone Value Plus REIT	$643.2	$10	$11.80	7.00%	7.00%	69%

Many brokerage firms have come under fire for their non-traded REIT sales practices. For instance LPL Financial in particular has been accused by several regulators of failing to reign in their broker’s sales practices concerning alternative investments. On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise its brokers’ marketing of nontraditional investments. LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision in the sale of certain alternative investment products, including REITs, oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, and managed futures.

LPL Financial also paid a $500,000 fine to the Massachusetts Securities Division and was ordered to pay $4.8 million in restitution for supervisory and suitability related violations concerning non-traded REITs. In total six firms paid $11 million in restitution and fines related to REIT sales. The other firms including Ameriprise Financial Inc., Lincoln National, Commonwealth Financial Network, Royal Alliance Associates, and Securities America.

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are experienced in representing investors to recover their financial losses through the misrepresentation of non-traded REITs. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.

Top 10 Signs of Investment Fraud

October 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Every year dozens of investors contact our firm seeking to recover losses due to sham or bogus investments. Only a fraction of those defrauded people were fortunate enough to working with a licensed broker who wasn’t being properly supervised by their brokerage firm and have recourse to avenues of redress. The other investors are often left with little to no recourse other than to spend additional sums of money on the off chance for recovery.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission published its “10 Red Flags That an Unregistered Offering May Be a Scam” Most investors do not realize that each and every investment out there must be registered with the SEC or offered through a registration exemption to be legally sold to investors. Yet, billions of dollars are continually pumped into fraudulent and unregistered offerings. The SEC published these top 10 red flags that every investor should be on the look out for.

Claims of High Returns with Little or No Risk – A classic red flag that high returns are around the corner with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and if your advisor can’t point that out to you, then you need to find another broker.