Articles Tagged with GPB investment attorney

shutterstock_20354401-300x200Advisor Joseph Roop (Roop), formerly employed by Kalos Capital, Inc. (Kalos) has been subject to at least seven customer complaints and one bankruptcy during the course of his career.  According to a BrokerCheck report some of the customer complaints concern alternative investments such as direct participation products (DPPs) like non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, and annuities.  The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented hundreds of investors who suffered losses caused by these types of high risk, low reward products.

In addition, brokers at Kalos have been accused of selling millions in fraudulent GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments.  GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officier being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation.  Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships.  While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice.  In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future.  The firm has admitted that it has never been profitable and has merely returned investor capital in the past in order to fake a successful business model.  In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto.  By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

In July 2019 a customer complained that Roop violated the securities laws by alleging that Roop engaged in sales practice violations related to unsuitable investments in alternative securities (REITS, etc.) during the time period from 2012 through 2017. The claim alleges $450,000 in damages and is currently pending.

In October 2018 a customer complained that Roop violated the securities laws by alleging that Roop engaged in sales practice violations related to unsuitable investments and sale of securities when not properly registered in the State of Alabama from January 2011 through July 2014.  The claim alleges $100,000 in damages and was settled for $90,000.

Continue Reading

shutterstock_155271245-300x300Advisor John Hoidas (Hoidas), formerly employed by Uhlmann Price Securities, LLC (Uhlmann Price) has been subject to at least four customer complaints and one judgment or lien during the course of his career.  According to a BrokerCheck report some of the customer complaints concern fraudulent GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments.

GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officer being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation.  Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships.  While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice.  In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future.  The firm has admitted that it has never been profitable and has merely returned investor capital in the past in order to fake a successful business model.  In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto.  By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

In November 2019 a customer complained that Hoidas violated the securities laws by alleging that Hoidas engaged in sales practice violations related to a claim with FINRA regarding GPB Holdings II investment which client wants to rescind. The claim was settled for $26,470.

In October 2019 a customer complained that Hoidas violated the securities laws by alleging that Hoidas engaged in sales practice violations related to investment from September 2013 through July 2019 by misrepresenting the investments. The claim was settled for $158,823.

Continue Reading

shutterstock_145123405-200x300Advisor Steven Netzel (Netzel), formerly employed by Kalos Capital Inc. (Kalos Capital) has been subject to at least one customer complaint, one regulatory action, and one financial disclosure during the course of his career.  According to a BrokerCheck report the customer complaint concerns alternative investments such as direct participation products (DPPs) like non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, annuities, and equipment leasing programs.  The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented dozens of investors who suffered losses caused by these types of high risk, low reward products.

One private placement that a large number of clients of Kalos Capital were sold is GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments.  GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officer being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation.  Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships.  While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice.  In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future.  In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto.  By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

Continue Reading

shutterstock_57938968-200x300According to a compliance officer with Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, Inc., (Purshe Kaplan) the firm continued to sell securities offered by GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) after she had reported misgivings as to the entities business model and recommended that the firm not sell the product.  According to court documents, the compliance officers responsibilities included reviewing new product offerings, regulatory disclosures, and conducting monthly and quarterly compliance reviews among other duties.

In January 2016, the compliance officer raised concerns about GPB Capital and did not recommend that the product be added to the Purshe Kaplan platform based upon her finding that members of senior management at the sponsor of the product were using investor funds for personal business interests.  However, Purshe Kaplan dismissed her concerns and re-reviewed GPB Capital without the compliance officer’s input.  Further, Purshe Kaplan instructed the compliance officer not to raise concerns about the product before it was offered to purchasers.  Moreover, it was alleged that less experienced personnel were given the role to evaluate GPB Capital.  If these allegations are true Purshe Kaplan may have intentionally withheld material information from all of its investors concerning GPB Capital.

One private placement that a large number of clients of Purshe Kaplan were sold is GPB Capital related investments.  GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officer being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation.  Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships.  While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice.  In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future.  In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto.  By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

Continue Reading

shutterstock_168478292-300x222Our firm represents multiple clients who have collectively lost millions in the sale of fraudulent GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments.  Our firm has analyzed the GPB Capital offerings and believe that brokerage firms did not review these offerings in any significant detail.  Any serious due diligence would have revealed that GPB Capital was an investment fraud scheme.

Advisor Robert Smith (Smith), according to BrokerCheck records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), has been accused of selling GPB Capital.  Smith is currently registered with member firm Concorde Investment Services, LLC (Concorde Investment).  In addition, Smith disclosed four total customer complaints. If you have been a victim of Smith’s alleged misconduct our firm may be able to assist you in recovering funds.

Our firm’s investigation has found that brokerage firms failed to conduct due diligence and investigate multiple aspects of GPB Capital’s business including its senior management, fantastical business claims, and intra-fund lending practices.  For instance, with respect to GPB Capital’s senior management the company was founded by David Gentile (Gentile).  Had brokerage firms investigated GPB Capital’s senior manager it would have found that prior to founding GPB Capital, Gentile’s experience was as a CPA and company advisor with the accounting practice his family ran at Gentile Pismeny & Brengel, LLP (GP&B) in New York.  Nonetheless, GPB’s PPMs claimed expertise in these areas.   GPB Holdings II, LP, PPM, pg. 9 (Apr. 13, 2015) (“GPB’s senior management have a great deal of experience investing in the Automotive Retail, Managed IT Services and Life Sciences sectors.”).

Continue Reading

shutterstock_103681238-300x300At Gana Weinstein LLP, we often hear from investors who were recommended by their advisors to purchase high risk private placement investments and suffered substantial – often crushing losses as a result.  Our firm regularly represents these investors in disputes with the advisors and brokers who sold these products without adequate disclosure.  Brokers have a responsibility to conduct due diligence on all private placement offerings.  Due diligence includes an investigation into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, issuer, history, and other relevant factors.

Private placements are bond, equity, or other debt instruments issued in reliance on a statutory or rule-based exemption from the registration requirements administered by the (SEC).  The private placement industry was created based upon the reasoning that exempting private placements from registration is appropriate where purchasers have the economic ability, sophistication, and the professional advice necessary to do without the regular protection afforded by the disclosures required through registration.  According to sources, a total of $33.5 billion was raised in 647 transactions through the third quarter of 2018.

Recently FINRA put out an announcement that called out the shortcomings it observed in the industry when it comes to due diligence. FINRA found that firms “failed to conduct reasonable diligence on private placements and failed to meet their supervisory requirements.”  FINRA stated that firms that performed “reasonable diligence conducted meaningful, independent research on material aspects of the offering; identified any red flags with the offering or the issuer; and addressed and resolved concerns that would be relevant to a potential investor.”  Firms should have a due diligence process such as “creating a due diligence committee (at larger firms) or otherwise formally designating one or more qualified persons (at smaller firms), and charging them with investigating and determining whether to approve the offering for sale to investors.”  The crucial ingredient is for “firms independently verified information that was key to the performance of the offering…”

Continue Reading