excessive commissions

Broker Investigation: Financial Advisor Salvatore Pizzimenti

November 3, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Salvatore Pizzimenti (Pizzimenti) has been the subject of at least 4 customer complaints. Customers have filed complaints against Pizzimenti alleging securities law violations including claims of churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, excessive commissions, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud among other claims. In 2013, a customer complained that Pizzimenti churned their account causing $500,000 in damages. In August 2012, another customer also complained that Pizzimenti recommended a high risk private placement and also charged excessive fees causing $1,000,000 in damages.

Pizzimenti entered the securities industry in 2004. From January 2007, until January 2009, Pizzimenti was registered with Pointe Capital, Inc. From January 2009, until February 2010, Pizzimenti was associated with National Securities Corporation. From February 2010, until August 2011, Pizzimenti was a registered representative of J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. Since August 2011, Pizzimenti has been associated with Legend Securities, Inc. out of the firm’s New York, New York office location.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Broker Investigation: Aegis Capital Financial Advisor Michael McDonald

November 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Michael McDonald (McDonald) has been the subject of at least 5 customer complaints. Customers have filed complaints against McDonald alleging securities law violations including claims of churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, excessive commissions, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud among other claims. In 2011, a customer complained that McDonald recommended a private placement leading to $450,000 in damages. In 2008, another customer also complained that McDonald recommended a private placement called Xyience, Inc which caused $450,000 in damages.

McDonald entered the securities industry in 1993. From November 2005, until February 2011, McDonald was registered with JHS Capital Advisors, Inc. Since February 2011, McDonald has been associated with Aegis Capital Corp. out of the firm’s Maitland Florida office location.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Broker Spotlight: Claims Against Broker John Lopinto

October 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker John Lopinto (Lopinto) has been the subject of at least two customer complaints. The customer complaints against Lopinto allege securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, excessive commissions, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud among other claims. One complaint alleged that Lopinto caused $4,000,000 in damages. In another claim filed the customer alleged $1,000,000 in damages as a result of high risk private placements and account churning.

Lopinto entered the securities industry in 2002. From January 2007 until January 2009, Lopinto was associated with Pointe Capital, Inc. From January 2009 until February 2010, Lopinto was associated with National Securities Corporation. Thereafter, from February 2010, until August 2011, Lopinto was associated with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. Finally, since August 2011 onward Lopinto has been associated with Legend Securities, Inc. out of the firm’s New York, New York office location.

Churning is investment trading activity in the client’s account that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted solely to profit the broker. The elements to establish a churning claim, which is considered 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. 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.

Regulators Sanction Broker Edward Segur Over False Statements

October 30, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Edward Segur (Segur) has been the subject of at least 2 customer complaints, 3 judgements or liens, 1 criminal matter, and 2 regulatory actions. Customers have filed complaints against Segur alleging securities law violations including excessive commissions and unauthorized trades among other claims. In addition, Segur has had difficulty managing his own finances and had a tax lien of $125,687 imposed in February 2015. Tax liens and judgements are often a sign that the broker cannot manage their own personal finances and may be tempted to recommend high commission products or strategies to clients in order to satisfy debts.

Finally, two state regulators have brought actions against Segur. The state of Arkansas alleged that in January 2013, Segur cold called a resident of the state to recommend the purchase of Sandridge Energy, Inc. (Sandridge). At that time Sandridge was trading at about $7 per share and that Segur stated that he had information that the stock would rise to $12 in less than three months because a new chief executive officer would take over Sandridge causing the stock price to increase. The state of Arkansas found that such statements were unjustified and violated the state’s securities laws. In addition, the state of New Hampshire alleged that Segur cold called one of its residents even though the resident was on the state’s do not call list.

Segur entered the securities industry in 1998. An examination of Segur’s employment history reveals that Segur moves from troubled firm to troubled firm. The pattern of brokers moving in this way is sometimes called “cockroaching” within the industry. See More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities, The Wall Street Journal, (Oct. 4, 2013). In Segur’s 16 year career he has switched firms 22 times even returning to several firms on different occasions. Many of the firms have been expelled by FINRA including John Thomas Financial which was run by Anastasios “Tommy” Belesis who recently agreed to be banned from the securities industry when the SEC accused him of defrauding investors in two hedge funds. In addition, John Thomas faced allegations of penny-stock fraud by FINRA after the firm reaped more than $100 million in commissions over its six-year history before it closed in July. According to new sources trainees at the firm earned as little as $300 a week to pitch stocks with memorized scripts.

FINRA Investigates Broker Craig Taddonio Over Supervision and Churning

October 29, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Craig Taddonio (Taddonio) has been the subject of at least three customer complaints, three judgements or liens, and one regulatory investigation. The Customer complaints against Taddonio alleges securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, securities fraud, and excessive commissions among other claims. The most recent complaint filed in April 2015, alleges losses of $900,000. In addition, in May 2015, a customer was awarded $338,454 in an arbitration claim including Taddonio where the panel assessed $107,944, $9,871, and $220,639 in compensatory damages against Taddonio and others jointly and severally and also a finding of punitive damages against Taddonio and others jointly and severally under New York law.

In addition to customer complaints Porges is subject to several liens including a massive $574,055 tax lien in February 2015, a $57,735 tax lien in September 2014, and a $48,607 tax lien in September 2014. Tax liens and judgements are often a sign that the broker cannot manage their own personal finances and may be tempted to recommend high commission products or strategies to clients in order to satisfy debts.

Finally, the brokercheck record also states that on September 29, 2015, FINRA initiated an investigation into Taddonio conduct. The investigation relates to false statements and testimony, violations of FINRA’s supervisory rules and churning.

FINRA Investigates Broker Brent Porges Over Supervision and Churning

October 28, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Brent Porges (Porges) has been the subject of at least four customer complaints, six judgements or liens, and one regulatory investigation. The Customer complaints against Porges alleges securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, securities fraud, and excessive commissions among other claims. The most recent complaint filed alleges losses of $900,000. In addition, in May 2015, a customer was awarded $338,454 in an arbitration claim including Porges where the panel assessed $107,944 against Porges and others jointly and severally and also a finding of punitive damages against Porges and others jointly and severally under New York law.

In addition to customer complaints Porges is subject to numerous liens including a $7,500 tax lien in March 2015, a $9,000 tax lien in February 2014, a $64,000 tax lien in August 2013, a $5,200 tax lien in December 2012, among other liens. Tax liens and judgements are often a sign that the broker cannot manage their own personal finances and may be tempted to recommend high commission products or strategies to clients in order to satisfy debts.

Finally, the brokercheck record also states that on September 29, 2015, FINRA initiated an investigation into Porges conduct. The investigation relates to false statements and testimony, violations of FINRA’s supervisory rules and churning.

Managed Futures Funds Erase Investor Gains with Excessive Fees

November 5, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

From January 2003 through the end of 2012, Morgan Stanley enticed over 30,000 customers to invest $797 million collectively into a managed-futures fund called Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Technical L.P. The prospectus for Spectrum Technical fund characterized the fund as potentially profitable “when traditional markets are experiencing losses” and recommended the fund as a way to diversify beyond traditional stocks and bonds. The prospectus boasted that over a twenty-three year period, people who invested ten percent of their assets in managed futures outperformed portfolios comprised only of stocks and bonds.

The Spectrum Technical fund earned $490.3 million in trading gains and money-market interest income from 2003 through 2012. However, investors who remained in the fund during this period did not receive any of the returns because the commissions, expenses, and fees paid to fund managers and Morgan Stanley totaled $498.7 million. Thus, Spectrum Technical investors lost $8.3 million simply because the fees charged to the fund were greater than the gains.

Morgan Stanley advertised to clients that its managed futures funds performed well when the stock market was hit hard in 2000 and late 2007 and even gained 22.5 percent after fees in 2008. The firm further stated that it only sells these funds to qualified investors, and that it clearly defines the risks and fees for customers. Although these disclosures may provide insight as to the effect of fees on investor gains, information regarding fund managers’ conflicts of interest is often buried deep in the fund’s prospectus or regulatory filings.

What is Churning?

September 1, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

“Churning” is essentially investment trading activity that serves little useful purpose or is inconsistent with the investor’s objectives and is conducted solely to generate commissions for the broker. Churning is also a type of securities fraud.

Recently, the National Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”) provided a detailed description of the elements and factors evaluated in determining a claim of churning. The NAC affirmed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) finding that Alan Jay Davidofsky (Davidofsky) engaged in unauthorized trading, excessive trading, and churning in a customer’s account. The panel barred Davidofsky from the financial industry for the unauthorized trading, imposed a separate bar for the excessive trading and churning, and ordered Davidofsky to pay a fine of $11,741 as disgorgement of the financial benefit earned through the misconduct.

As the NAC ruling explained, NASD Rule 2110 requires brokers to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” NASD Rule 2310(a) provides that in recommending securities, a member shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for such customer based upon the customer’s financial situation and needs. Included in this rule is the obligation of “quantitative suitability,” which focuses on whether the number of transactions within a given timeframe is suitable in light of the customer’s financial circumstances and investment objectives.

Karl Hahn Ordered by FINRA to Pay An Investor $11 Million

August 28, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Former Merrill, Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch), Deutsche Bank Securities (Deutsche Bank), Inc., and Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer), broker Karl Edward Hahn (Hahn) was ordered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to pay former clients over $11 million for misconduct in April 2013. Hahn was accused of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentations, and breach of fiduciary duties.

Hahn worked at Merrill Lynch from 2004 until 2008, at Deutsche Bank from 2008 to mid-2009, and at Oppenheimer from 2009 to early 2011. Hahn allegedly recommended various unsuitable investments to customers including covered calls, a premium financed life insurance policy, and $2.3 million fraudulent real estate financing project “involving East Coast” properties. Hahn allegedly recommended the life insurance policy for the the large commissions he stood to earn. Hahn also allegedly pocketed the money that was supposedly going to finance the East Coast properties.

Other claims made against Hahn include churning of investment accounts. Churning is a type of financial fraud where the broker engages in excessive trading in a client’s account for the purpose of generating commission but does not provide the investor with suitable investment strategy.