Articles Tagged with excessive trading

shutterstock_177976076The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred (Case No. 20150443048) broker Thomas Hogle (Hogle) after the broker failed to respond to a letter from the regulator requesting information. While the BrokerCheck records kept by FINRA do not disclose all the facts being investigated by the regulatory inquiry, FINRA sent Hogle a request for documents in connection with their investigation that unsuitable investment recommendations were made in an account of a 101 year-old customer. On April 15, 2015, Hogle acknowledged FINRA’s requests but refused to produce documents or information resulting in the bar from the securities industry.

According to the BrokerCheck records Hogle has been the subject of at least one customer complaint and three financial matters and liens. The customer complaints against Hogle allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims.

Hogle entered the securities industry in 1998. From April 2008, until September 2011, Hogle was associated with Nelsonreid, Inc. Thereafter, from October 2011, until May 2015, Hogle was a registered representative of B.B. Graham & Company, Inc.

shutterstock_161005310The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned five brokers formerly associated with now expelled brokerage firm HFP Capital Markets LLC (HFP Capital) (Case No. 2010024522103) including brokers Jonah Engler (Engler), Brett Friedberg (Friedberg), Jonathan Sheklow (Sheklow), Joshua Turney (Turney), and Hector Perez (a/k/a Bruce Johnson) (Perez) concerning allegations that between December 2009, and February 2011, the five brokers fraudulently sold a total of nearly $3 million worth of Senior Secured Zero Coupon Notes (MMM Notes) issued by Metals, Milling and Mining LLC in a private placement offering to 59 customers.

FINRA alleged that the brokers misrepresented material facts about the offering by promising to pay a return of 100 percent in one year by purportedly extracting precious metals from materials left over from mining operations. In reality, FINRA determined that the investors lost all of the money that they invested in the MMM Notes, with the exception of three investors who were repaid with funds from new investors in a Ponzi scheme like fashion. FINRA determined that the brokers also recklessly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, or due diligence, of the viability and legitimacy of company in the face of numerous red flags that it was a fraud.

In addition, FINRA alleged that the brokers recklessly misrepresented to customers that: (a) the MMM Notes were collateralized by certain barrels of ore concentrate; and (b) the collateral ore concentrate was of sufficient value to secure the investment in the MMM Notes. In fact, FINRA found that there was no collateral for the MMM Notes because the company did not own any ore concentrate. FINRA determined that the broker’s representations concerning the MMM Notes were recklessly and misrepresented material facts regarding the MMM Notes in willful violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the anti-fraud provision) as well as several industry rules. In sum, the brokers failed to obtain even basic information about the company necessary to the due diligence process in order to understand an investment in the company and therefore lacked a reasonable basis to recommend the MMM Notes to investors.

shutterstock_174313244According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Michael Fasciglione (Fasciglione) has been the subject of at least 11 customer complaints and two regulatory actions. The customer complaints against Fasciglione allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and churning (excessive trading), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to supervise among other claims. The customer complaints stem from 1995 through 2014 and total allegations of investor losses of multiple millions of dollars.

Fasciglione’s first regulatory action occurred in 2004, when the NYSE initiated an action for alleging that Fasciglione failed to supervise the activities of an employee related to the business of his employer; failing to supervise accounts serviced by a registered representative under his control; failing to ensure proper authorization of account designation changes, along with several other allegations. As a result, of the complaint Fasciglione was suspended for two months and required to re-take any qualifying exams before undertaking any securities supervisory positions.

Fasciglione’s latest regulatory complaint alleges that in or about March 2010, while the IRS filed a $354,752 tax lien against Fasciglione for the tax years 2007 and 2008. An amended Form U4 was filed on November 26, 2012, but FINRA found that this filing was untimely.

shutterstock_184430645According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Leonard McAbee (McAbee) has been the subject of at least three customer complaints, one regulatory action, one judgment and/or lien, and one employment separation. The customer complaints against McAbee allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and churning (excessive trading), among other claims. The regulatory action against McAbee involved allegations that McAbee made trades in an account at the direction of a third-party without a properly signed power of attorney.

McAbee entered the securities industry in 1990. From April 2011 till present McAbee has been registered as a broker with National Securities Corporation.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. Many of the claims against McAbee involving claims of unauthorized trading, churning, and excessive trading.

shutterstock_187532303The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned (Case No. 2010025835701) broker E1 Asset Management, Inc. (E1 Asset) Ron Itin (Itin), and Ahsan Shaikh (Shaikh) concerning numerous irregularities and misconduct including allegations that between July 2008, and April 2012, including the failure to conduct reasonable supervisory reviews designed to detect and prevent excessive trading, otherwise known as churning, in customer accounts.

Itin’s BrokerCheck records reveal at least 9 customer disputes. These disputes involve claims of unsuitable investments, churning (excessive trading), unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, among other claims. The claims state that among the products traded in client accounts were penny stocks, options, and other equities. In January 2015, Itin declared chapter 7 bankruptcy in New Jersey. Itin has been associated with E1 Asset Management, Inc. since 1999 and is a supervisory principal at the firm.

Shaikh’s BrokerCheck records show at least at least nine customer disputes. The disputes involve claims similar in nature to Itin’s records. Shaikh has been associated with E1 Asset Management, Inc. since 1999 and is a supervisory principal at the firm.

shutterstock_114775264According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Douglas Bevers (Bevers) has been the subject of at least five customer complaints, two regulatory actions, and one employment separation. The customer complaints against Bevers allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and churning (excessive trading), among other claims. The employment separation resulted from allegations that Bevers violated firm policies by allowing a third party to direct orders without obtaining permission from the client in writing.

Bevers entered the securities industry in 1973. From July 2003, until February 2014, Bevers was associated with Boenning & Scattergood, Inc. Thereafter, from February 2014, till present Bevers has been registered as a broker with Coastal Equities, Inc.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. Many of the claims against Bevers involving claims of unauthorized trading, churning, and excessive trading.

shutterstock_188269637According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Mark Kaplan (Kaplan) has been the subject of at least four customer complaints and one termination. The customer complaints against Kaplan allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, churning (excessive trading), unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, among other claims

Kaplan entered the securities industry in 1989. From September 2005, until June 2009, Kaplan was registered with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Citigroup). From June 2009, until April 2011, Kaplan was associated with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (Morgan Stanley). In March 2011, Morgan Stanley filed a notice of Termination Form U-5 stating that Kaplan was discharged because of a customer complaint that was made against Kaplan. The firm also stated that it had other concerns regarding activity in client accounts. In response, Kaplan stated that the allegations by Morgan Stanley were unfounded and that the firm had approved all of the activity in client accounts. Since March 2011, Kaplan has been associated with Vanderbilt Securities, LLC.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. Many of the claims against Kaplan involving claims of churning and excessive trading. When brokers engage in churning the investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted to profit the broker through the generation of commission payments. 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.

shutterstock_106111121According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Jason Klabal (Klabal) has been the subject of at least eight customer complaints six of which have been filed since 2014. The customer complaints against Klabal allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, engaged in churning (excessive trading), misrepresentations, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims.

Klabal entered the securities industry in 1997. From 1999 through October 2008, Klabal was associated with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner). Thereafter from October 2008, until January 2010, Klabal was registered with Mercer Capital LTD. From there, Klabal was associated with Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc from January 2010, until August 2011. Finally, Klabal became associated with Legend Securities, Inc. in August 2011.

Pace’s employment separation involved allegations by Global Arena Capital claiming that Pace allowed client information to be taken from the office by another person. The information was later returned to the firm.

shutterstock_170886347According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Anthony Pace (Pace) has been the subject of at least six customer complaints and one employment seperation. The customer complaint against Pace allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, engaged in churning (excessive trading), misrepresentations, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to execute among other claims.

Pace entered the securities industry in 1994. From 2005 through May 2009, Pace was associated with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner). Thereafter from May 2009, until September 2010, Pace was registered with vFinance Investments, Inc. From there, Pace was associated with Global Arena Capital Corp from September 2010, through April 2015. Finally, Pace became associated with Alexander Capital, L.P. in March 2015.

Pace’s employment separation involved allegations by Global Arena Capital claiming that Pace allowed client information to be taken from the office by another person. The information was later returned to the firm.

shutterstock_127357511Our firm has been tracking the developments related to Thomas Buck’s termination from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Merrill Lynch), now known as Bank of America, NA (Bank of America) under highly unusual circumstances.  (See Top Merrill Lynch Broker Thomas Buck Terminated Under Unusual Circumstances; Update On Broker Thomas Buck Investigation).  Now, according to records kept by FINRA, Buck has accepted a bar from the securities industry.

Buck’s downfall played out quickly.  Buck was terminated from Merrill Lynch on March 6, 2015, shocking colleagues.  At the time of his termination there was only one customer complaint against Buck steaming from a dispute in 2006.  Now, over the past four months customers have filed 11 additional complaints against him.  All of the complaints have similar allegations against Buck in that the customers allege that during a time period Buck engage in unauthorized trades in corporate debt and equities. Several of the complaints allege excessive trading and misrepresentations.

Buck’s team managed nearly $1.5 billion in investor assets and was one of the Merrill Lynch’s largest producers.  According to FINRA, Buck engaged in misrepresentations and other misconduct in the handling of customer accounts.  FINRA alleged that beginning by at least 2009, Buck used unethical and improper business practices to generate increased commissions and enhance his status as a top-producing broker.  According to FINRA, Buck held customer assets in commission-based accounts instead of fee-based accounts for the sole purpose of generating higher revenues even though he knew that some customers would have paid substantially lower fees by using fee-based accounts.  In fact, FINRA goes on to allege that Buck misled customers about the relative costs of fee-based or commission-based trading for their accounts.  In addition to these claims FINRA alleged that Buck exercised discretion in customer accounts without written or oral authorization, and made unauthorized trades in certain accounts.

Contact Information