Articles Tagged with Centaurus Financial

shutterstock_191231699The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Marcious Dickerson (Dickerson). According to BrokerCheck records Dickerson has been the subject of 3 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Dickerson allege securities law violations that including unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims.   Many of the most recent claims involve allegations concerning non traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs).

As a background since the mid-2000s Non-Traded REITs became one of Wall Street’s hottest products. However, the failure of Non-Traded REITs to perform as well as their publicly traded counterparts has called into question if Non-Traded REITs should be sold at all and if so should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend. See Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part I

Non-Traded REITs are securities that invest in different types of real estate assets such as commercial, residential, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, storage, and other industries. Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers, are illiquid, have no or limited secondary market and redemption options, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

shutterstock_153463763According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Robert Horning (Horning) has been the subject of at least 8 customer complaints. Customers have filed complaints against Horning alleging a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and false statements in connection with recommendations to invest in private placements such as tenants-in-common (TICs) interests, direct participation programs and limited partnerships which include investments like oil & gas, non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs), and equipment leasing programs.

Horning entered the securities industry in 1993. From November 2004, until July 2009, Horning was a registered representative with Direct Capital Securities, Inc. Thereafter, since July 2009, Horning has been associated with Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) out of the firm’s Los Angeles, California office location.

TIC investments have come under fire by many investors. 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, TICs recommendations have been a major contributor to bankrupting brokerage firms. For example, 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.

shutterstock_27786601According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Fera Shivaee (Shivaee) has been the subject of at least two customer complaints. Customers have filed complaints against Shivaee alleging a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations and false statements in connection with recommendations to invest in private placements such as tenants-in-common (TICs) interests.

Shivaee has been a registered representative with Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) since 1997.  According to FINRA records three TICs complained of include NNN River Exchange, NNN Plantations, and CORE Minneapolis.

TIC investments have come under fire by many investors. 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, TICs recommendations have been a major contributor to bankrupting brokerage firms. For example, 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.

shutterstock_182004416The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints concerning Patric Baccam (Baccam) (a/k/a Khanh Sengpraseuth) sale of promissory notes in securities transactions that appear to have been away from the firm (also referred to as “selling away”). According to The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records Baccam was registered with brokerage firm Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) from February 2002 until December 2011. According to the records Baccam’s outside business activities include flipping real estate, vending machine leasing, and health and life insurance.

Baccam has also been subject to at least five customer complaints. Some of these complaints allege that Baccam solicited clients to invest in promissory notes through The Moret Group LLC, The PR Group, and The Precision Research Group, LLC. The complaints allege fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California securities laws.

The allegations against Baccam are consistent with “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. However, even though the brokerage firm claim ignorance of their advisor’s activities, 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 investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away often occurs in brokerage firm that either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.

shutterstock_146470052This article follows up on a recent article reported in Reuters concerning Atlas Energy LP’s private placement partnerships in oil and gas. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal allows investors to participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of oil into viable prospects. In addition, Atlas promises to invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors.

In the last article we explored how the house seems more likely to win on these deals over investors. But beyond the inherent risks with speculating on oil and gas and unknown oil deposits most investors don’t realize the deals are often unfair to investors. In a normal speculative investment as the investment risk goes up the investor demands greater rewards to compensate for the additional risk. However, with oil and gas private placements the risks are sky high and the rewards simply don’t match up.

In order to counter this criticism, issuers say that the tax benefits of their deals where the investor can write off more than 90 percent of their initial outlay the year they make it helps defray the risk and increase the value proposition. First, the same tax advantage claims are often nominal compared to the principal risk of loss of the investment as seen by Puerto Rican investors in the UBS Bond Funds who have now seen their investments decline by 50% or more in some cases. Second, often times brokers sell oil and gas investments indiscriminately to the young and old who have lower incomes and cannot take advantage of the tax benefits.

shutterstock_103610648As recently reported in Reuters, Atlas Energy LP has marketed itself to investors as a way to get into the U.S. energy boom. By contributing at least $25,000 in a private placement partnership that will drill for oil and gas in states such as Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania and share in revenues generated from the wells. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal sounds good when pitched: participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of fossil fuels into potentially viable prospects and to boot Atlas will invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors. Through this method and similar deals, oil and gas projects have issued nearly 4,000 private placements since 2008 seeking to raise as much as $122 billion.

But before you take the plunge a review of the Atlas’s offering memorandum reveals some red flags and given Atlas’ past failure rate investors should think twice. First, up to $45 million of the money raised will be paid to Atlas affiliate Anthem Securities that will then be turned over to as commissions to broker-dealers who pitch the deal to investors. Up to $39 million more will be used to buy drilling leases from another affiliate. Think investors will get a fair price on the leases when Atlas controls both sides of the deal? More conflicts ahead as Atlas affiliated suppliers may also get up to $53 million for buying drilling and transport equipment. Next, an additional $8 million of Atlas’s investment is a 15 percent markup on estimated equipment costs. Finally, Atlas will pay itself nearly $52 million in various other fees and markups.

In sum, at least 40% of Atlas’s $145 million investment alongside mom and pop goes right back to the company. In addition, Atlas’ profits don’t stop there, when the venture starts generating revenue Atlas is entitled to 33% before accounting for those payments and markups. In the end, not much of a risk at all for Atlas.

shutterstock_163885049As 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.

shutterstock_94719376The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned and barred financial advisor Stephen Lard (Lard) concerning allegations that Lard recommended and sold various private-placement securities, that were speculative, high risk, and illiquid to customers three customers. FINRA alleged that Lard’s recommendations resulted in an unsuitable concentrated position for each investor of approximately 50% or greater. Such a concentration exposed each investor to a risk of loss that exceeded each investor’s risk tolerance and investment objectives. FINRA found that some of the investors did in fact suffer substantial losses and financial difficulty due to the illiquidity of the investments.

Lard entered the securities industry in 1994 and was associated with QA3 Financial Corp. (QA3) from 2000 until February 11, 2011. Thereafter, Lard was registered with Centaurus Financial, Inc.

FINRA found that between June 2007, and February 2008, one of Lard’s client’s executed suitability forms for her individual account. The forms reported an annual income of $80,000, a net worth excluding primary residence of $1,780,120, and a worth of all assets, including residence, minus all debts, of $1,852,120, and a liquid net worth of $650,000. The suitability form reflected “Moderate” as her risk exposure and “Income” as her investment objective.

shutterstock_103681238The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a securities arbitration case on behalf of a family of four investors against First Allied Securities, Inc. (First Allied) and Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) concerning allegations that their financial advisor Seyed Ahmad Hashemian (Hashemian) made unsuitable and inappropriate investment recommendations to claimants’ by recommending a near 100% concentration in illiquid, speculative, and high commission investments including variable annuities, equity-indexed annuities (EIAs), private placements, oil and gas ventures, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and Advanced Equities private placements.

Our law offices have represented over a dozen investors who alleged that they were sold the Advanced Equities private placements through the use of false and misleading advertising materials. In addition, to customer complaints both FINRA and the SEC have sanctioned Advanced Equities concerning the misleading nature of their sales practices. Customers have alleged that the products were misrepresented as “late stage equities” that were a mere 12-36 months from going public. The complaint also alleged that the investments were sold as providing “Higher near-term investment returns than the public equity markets” while providing “Greater short-term liquidity and lower risk profiles.” The complaint alleged that these representations were false and that First Allied failed to conduct even basic due diligence to verify the accuracy of these statements.

In the case of the recent complaint filed, claimants’ investments were alleged to have been made using money that was supposed to be used to replace the earnings the untimely passing of a family member. As a result, the complaint alleged that over a nearly nine year period where the broader market indexes have hit all-time highs, claimants have lost significant sums their investments. The claimants alleged that they have been deprived of the ability to generate reasonable returns by being trapped in illiquid and unsuitable investments.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned Centaurus Financial, Inc., (Centaurus) concerning allegations that Centaurus failed to supervise the business activities of five representative in the dissemination of communications concerning the risks of certain private placements.  FINRA fined the firm $25,000

Centaurus became a FINRA member firm in 1993 and is headquartered in Anaheim California.  The firm has 367 branch offices and approximately 585 registered individuals.  The firm operates as a privately held independent broker-dealer and engages in various securities businesses including corporate and municipal debt, mutual funds, direct investments, and private placements.

FINRA alleged that at various times during from February 2009, through January 2010, five Centaurus registered representatives functioned as wholesalers for an unaffiliated investment management firm. FINRA alleged that Centaurus written supervisory procedures did not address the supervision of wholesaling activities and Centaurus did not supervise the wholesaling activities of the five representatives in violation of NASD Rule 3010. FINRA found that the five representatives did not use their Centaurus e-mails for wholesaling activities and instead used the investment management firm’s email address to send communications.

Contact Information