Articles Tagged with First Allied Securities

shutterstock_94127350The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it has fined eight brokerage a total of $6.2 million for failing to supervise sales of variable annuities (VAs).  Five of the firms were required to pay more than $6 million to customers who purchased L-share variable annuities that came with potentially incompatible, complex and expensive long-term minimum-income and withdrawal riders.

FINRA’s enforcement actions were against the following firms.

  • VOYA Financial Advisors Inc. – fined $2.75 million.

shutterstock_34872913The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker James Hayne (Hayne).  According to BrokerCheck records Hayne has been the subject of at least six customer complaints and one Judgement or lien.  The customer complaints against Hayne allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, fraud, misrepresentations, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims.

The most recent complaint was filed in February 2016 and alleged that from September 2013 until June 2014 the customer’s account was traded negligently causing $200,000.  The complaint is currently pending.  In October 2015 another customer alleged that between 2008 and 2013, excessive trading occurred in in the customer’s family trust account. The customer also alleged that the investments were unsuitable and caused $750,000.  The claim is currently pending.

When brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time.  Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities.  This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades.  Churning is considered a species of securities fraud.  The elements of the claim 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_88744093The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Kyle Harrington (Harrington). According to BrokerCheck records Harrington has been subject to 6 customer complaints, one regulatory action, one employment separation, and one financial disclosure. The customer complaints against Harrington allege securities law violations that including misrepresentations, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence among other claims.   The regulatory finding was made by FINRA which alleged that Harrington failed to disclose certain information that had to be disclosed on Harrington’s Form U4. The employment separation by Matrix Capital Group, Inc. (Matrix) also concerns allegations of failure to disclose reportable information.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

The number of events listed on Harrington brokercheck is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

shutterstock_186471755The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Daniel Grieco (Grieco) concerning allegations that Grieco made recommendations of non-traditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to various customers without having reasonable grounds to believe his recommendations were suitable.

Non-Traditional ETFs are behave drastically different and have different risk qualities from traditional ETFs. While traditional ETFs simply seek to mirror an index or benchmark, Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets, often attempting to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs are also used to earn the inverse result of the return of the benchmark.

In addition, regular ETFs can be held for long term trading, but Non-Traditional ETFs are generally designed to be used only for short term trading. The use of leverage employed by these funds causes their long-term values to be dramatically different than the underlying benchmark over long periods of time. For example, between December 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while the ProShares Ultra Oil and Gas, a fund seeking to deliver twice the index’s daily return fell six percent. In another example, the ProShares UltraShort Oil and Gas, seeks to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent over the same period.

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_54385804The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker Anthony Diaz (Diaz) concerning a host of industry violations. Diaz entered the securities industry in January 2000 and has been registered with eleven different firms over fourteen years. Diaz is currently employed by IBN Financial Services, Inc., (IBN Financial) since September 2012.

Diaz has a long and troubled history of securities related violations and misconduct. There have been at least 14 customer complaints filed against Diaz, he has been subject to 5 firm terminations, and has two judgments. FINRA also found that Diaz was fired or permitted to resign by six of the eleven member firms with which he was registered for. On or about November 21, 2002, Edward Jones fired Diaz for providing inaccurate information during a supervisory review, was terminated by Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. because it was “no longer comfortable supervising”, was permitted to resign on April 1, 2009, by First Allied Securities, Inc. because he had a history of customer complaints and administrative infractions., was fired by SII Investments, Inc. for unauthorized trading, was fired by Kovack Securities, Inc. because of complaints alleging unauthorized trades, and finally was fired by Sandlapper Securities, LLC for soliciting sales of variable annuities without being properly appointed by the issuing company.

FINRA alleged that from March 2010, through May 2011, Diaz induced approximately eighty customers to enter into variable annuity exchanges causing significant surrender charges without a reasonable basis for recommending these exchanges. FINRA found that each customer invested in the same fund, had the same subaccount allocation, and had the same rider selected. FINRA alleged that Diaz recommended the annuity exchanges without having an understanding of the features of the new product and used the same three invalid justifications for nearly all of these exchanges.

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.

shutterstock_26269225As we recently posted, our firm has covered the failures concerning the sale and recommendation of Advanced Equities private placement since the SEC brought charges against the firm. We also represent numerous clients who have unfortunately invested in these products that were alleged to have been sold as “late-stage private equities” by First Allied Securities brokers among others.

Recently, FINRA fined Advanced Equities $250,000 concerning allegations that between approximately November 1, and December 1, 2011, AEI, failed to identify material information and correct omissions of material facts made by the issuer in connection with a private placement offering.

As a background, Fisker Auto was an American automobile maker that manufactured hybrid electric vehicles. Shares in the company were sold through limited liability companies to accredited investors. In or around September 2009, Fisker Auto obtained a “loan facility” in the approximate amount of $529 million, which was overseen by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Under the terms of the loan facility agreement, Fisker Auto could seek reimbursement costs associated with the production of two cars if the company was in compliance with certain financial covenants and project milestones. Those covenants generally included milestones requiring that Fisker Auto to achieve a certain level of earnings, sell a particular number of automobiles, and complete certification requirements related to safety and environmental matters.

shutterstock_24531604Our firm has covered the supervisory and due diligence failures concerning the sale and recommendation of Advanced Equities private placement since the SEC brought charges against the firm and its principals for selling one of its products by making material misrepresentations to investors. We also represent numerous clients who have unfortunately invested in these products that were alleged to have been sold as “late-stage private equities” by First Allied Securities brokers among others. Below are posts with additional information concerning these products.

shutterstock_168737270This article continues our prior posts concerning a recent report by Bloomberg that noted the rise in rollovers from 401(k) plans into IRA accounts. The article pointed to concerns by regulatory agencies and investors concerning the suitability of the investment choices being recommended by brokers soliciting rollovers.

In another example, a mechanical engineer for Hewlett-Packard in Puerto Rico, rolled over $150,000 from a 401(k) to an IRA with UBS. His broker Luis Roberto Fernandez Diaz, recommended Puerto Rico municipal bond funds that contained a 3 percent upfront sales fee and 1 percent annual expenses. Fernandez’s brokercheck lists 17 customer disputes from 2009 through 2014. As we have reported on multiple occasions, our firm represents investors in claims against UBS concerning the firm’s practices in overconcentrating many of their client’s assets in these speculative highly leveraged bond funds. Those articles can be found here, here, and here.

In the case of an IRA, it makes little sense for a financial adviser to recommend investing in municipal bonds because the bonds main advantage is tax avoidance which already is a benefit of investing in an IRA. The investor interviewed by Bloomberg, says that the bonds plunged in value because of the deteriorating finances of Puerto Rico and are only worth $90,000.

Contact Information