Investment Attorney

FINRA Sanctions Polar Investment Over Penny Stock Transactions

July 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Polar Investment Counsel, Inc. (Polar Investment) concerning allegations from 2011 and 2012, a firm advisor of Polar recommended various low-priced securities (penny stocks) received a total of 14 purchase orders for those securities. FINRA alleged that the representative marked eight of the orders as “unsolicited,” meaning that the customer instructed the advisor to purchase the security without any prompting from the advisor. FINRA found that the unsolicited marking was incorrect given that the advisor had brought the securities to the customers’ attention. FINRA found that the mismarked orders caused the firm’s books and records to be inaccurate. In addition, FINRA determined that Polar Investments did not permit brokers to recommend penny stock transactions and mistakenly assumed that all 14 transactions were unsolicited and did not conduct a sufficient supervisory review of those transactions.

Polar Investment has been registered with FINRA since 1997, its main office is in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, and is also registered as an investment advisor with the SEC. Polar Investment has 18 registered representatives operating out of 12 branch locations.

FINRA alleged that throughout 2011 and 2012, Polar Investment’s written supervisory procedures prohibited representatives from recommending penny stocks to the firm’s customers. As a consequence, Polar Investments presumed that all penny stock transactions were unsolicited and the firm did not subject advisors to adequate supervisory review. Instead, FINRA found that the firm had the customer sign a penny-stock disclosure form. FINRA found that between June 2011 and April 2012, a Polar Investment advisor by the initials “MV” brought various penny stocks to the attention of some of his customers. The advisor’s actions, according to FINRA, resulted in at least 14 orders to buy those securities.

Moloney Securities Fined Over Supervisory Failures Concerning Non-Traditional (Leveraged) ETFs

July 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Moloney Securities Company, Inc. (Moloney Securities) concerning allegations Moloney Securities failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written policies, regarding the sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) that was reasonably designed to meet the requirements under the securities laws.

ETFs attempt to track a market index, sector industry, interest rate, or country. ETFs can either track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns. For example, a leveraged ETF with 300% leverage attempts to return 3% for every 1% the underlying index returns. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark. In general, Leveraged ETFs are used only for short term trading. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned investors that most Non-Traditional ETFs reset daily and are designed to achieve their stated objectives in a single trading session. In addition to the risks of leverage, Non-Traditional ETFs held over the long term can differ drastically from the underlying index or benchmark during the same period. FINRA has also acknowledged that leveraged ETFs are complex products that carry significant risks and ”are typically not suitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for more than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.”

FINRA found that from January 2011, through December 2012, Moloney Securities allowed its representatives to recommend and sell Non-Traditional ETFs to customers. At this time, FINRA found that Moloney’s written supervisory procedures did not address the sale or supervision of Non-Traditional ETFs. In addition, FINRA alleged that Moloney Securities did not conduct due diligence of Non-Traditional ETFs before allowing financial advisors to recommend them to customers. Despite the unique features and risk factors of Non-Traditional ETFs that FINRA has noted, FIRNA found that Moloney Securities did not provide its brokers or supervisors with any training or specific guidance as to whether and when Non-Traditional ETFs would be appropriate for their customers. FINRA also found that Moloney Securities did not use any reports or other tools to monitor the length of time that customers held open positions in Non-Traditional ETFs or track investment losses occurring due to those positions.

Gilford Securities Fined by FINRA Over Deficient Supervisory Procedures

July 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Gilford Securities, Inc. (Gilford Securities) concerning allegations that from April 2010 through March 2012, Gilford Securities failed to: (i) make certain disclosures in research reports; (ii) have approval of certain research reports; (iii) implement written supervision policies reasonably designed to comply with NASD Rule 2711; (iv) establish and enforce written supervisory control policies concerning the supervision of producing managers; and (v) implement a reasonably designed Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program (AMLCP).

Gilford Securities has been a FINRA member since January 1980, has eight branch offices, and 78 registered representatives. Gilford Securities’ principal place of business is New York, New York.

FINRA rules require disclosure of any material conflict of interests of the research analyst of which the research analyst knows or has a reason to know in the publication of the research report. FINRA found that from April 2010, through March 2012, Gilford Securities published 503 research reports. FINRA found that each of those reports failed to disclose that the research analyst received compensation of commissions on transactions the analyst’s customers made in the securities covered in violation of the FINRA Rules.

Dawson James Securities Sanctioned Over Alleged Supervisory Failures

June 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Dawson James Securities, Inc., (Dawson James) concerning allegations that the firm did not provide for supervision reasonably designed to comply with certain applicable securities laws and regulations.

FINRA has stated that at a minimum, written supervisory procedures should describe: (a) identification of the individual responsible for supervision; (b) supervisory steps and review procedurals to be taken by the supervisor; (c) the frequency of reviews; and (d) the documentation of reviews. FINRA found that the Dawson James’ written supervisory procedures failed to provide for one or more of the four above-cited minimum requirements for adequate written supervisory procedures for conduct concerning: (1) disclosure of potential conflicts of interests to clients; (2) trading in the opposite direction of solicited customer transactions; (3) certain broker sales practice concerns such as unauthorized trading, suitability, excessive trading, and free-riding; (4) concentration of securities in clients’ accounts; (5) the sharing of profits and losses in clients’ accounts; (6) wash transactions; (7) coordinated trading; and, (8) the review of representatives’ electronic communications, among other violations.

FINRA alleged that the firm failed to investigate numerous ”red flags” relating to the activities of one registered representative referred to by the initials “DM”, including: (1) numerous exceptions generated on the firm’ s supervisory reports which included commissions charged to DM’s clients; (2) high concentrations of one security in DM’s clients’ accounts; and, (3) numerous cancel rebill requests for DM’s clients’ accounts. FINRA also found that James Dawson failed to enforce its written supervisory procedures that required electronic correspondence be reviewed on a daily basis. FINRA also found that from January 2007 through February 2008, the firm failed to ensure that the firm’s Head Trader, referred to as the initials “AE” carried out his delegated supervisory responsibilities relating to proprietary trading; trade reporting; clock synchronization; short sale compliance; compliance with the manning rule; mark ups and mark downs; and, compliance with inventory guidelines.

Carolina Financial Fined by FINRA Over Private Placement Due Diligence

June 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Carolina Financial Securities, LLC (Carolina Financial) concerning allegations that the firm failed to conduct proper due diligence on private placements sold by the firm.

Carolina Financial has been FINRA member since 1997 and operates out of Brevard, North Carolina. The firm has 12 registered representatives and derives generates revenues through the sale of private placements. The firm has two other prior disciplinary actions including a FINRA action in July 2010, concerning allegations that Carolina Financial failed to ensure that an escrow account was established for a contingent offering.

NASD Rule 3010 requires brokerage firms to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to comply with the securities laws and the FINRA rules. As part of a brokerage firm’s responsibility includes conducting due diligence on its securities products in order for the firm to understand the risks of these products and to have a reasonable basis to believe these products are suitable for at least some customers. FINRA stated in its complaint that due diligence is especially important for alternative investments such as private placement offerings under Regulation D where there is no registration of the securities with the SEC.

The Failure to Protect the Public From Securities Fraud – Part II

June 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As discussed in Part I, the primary defense to preventing securities fraud is has been to “bar” the person from the industry and to instruct the criminal to stop committing fraud. Despite the evidence that the slap on wrist approach has been ineffective, some lawmakers continue to think barring individuals and educating the public is the best way to stop securities fraud.

Yet, according to Futures Magazine, during the hearing Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) stressed the importance of “consumer education” to prevent future scams. If only we could convince senior citizens to spend their golden years reading CFTC and SEC news releases and memorize the names of hundreds of barred fraudsters each year maybe we can turn the tide in this fight – right. Great game plan. At least Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) understood the disservice the education alone approach would provide the investing public by stating that “The first line of defense is not consumer education,” but rather “putting the crooks in prison.”

The hearing also featured testimony of a former fraudster, Karl Spicer. Spicer was convicted for ripping off investors in a metals scam. Spicer’s testimony also clearly stated that it is government agencies failure to instill fear into fraudsters that has resulted in no progress in investor protection. Without real world consequences, criminals merely go from scam to scam and will unapologetically continue to swindle. Spicer stated that “With all due respect to the civil authorities, the people that I have encountered…don’t really respect the civil authority bans.” In fact, “The gentleman I was with had a CFTC ban, he cooperated; he had a ban and he still went about doing business the very next day.”

The Failure to Protect the Public From Securities Fraud – Part I

June 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

If someone broke into your home and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars of your possessions you expect that person to go to jail. But what if the consequence was merely to pay a fine and a court ordered bar from breaking into homes. Would you be alright with that outcome? Could such an approach really stop or even deter criminals? Could you imagine lawmakers arguing with you that the key to preventing more burglaries is to inform homeowners about locking their doors and windows and installing alarms – but not jail. If such an approach sounds silly then why have we accepted this approach to securities fraud.

The primary defense to preventing securities fraud is simply to “bar” the person from the securities industry and to instruct him or her to stop committing fraud. For many recidivist fraudsters, being barred from the industry is merely part of the career plan. Often times being barred from the industry merely frees the fraudster from the shackles of having to conceal their fraud within the confines of industry supervision. After being barred fraudsters are often in a perfect position to continue stealing from investors. Think about it – they have been industry trained, have spent years learning their craft, and have established many contacts and industry connections that they can now utilize for their post-industry frauds.

Yet regulators and lawmakers seemingly fail to grasp the very simple principal that those who commit securities fraud need to go to jail – period. Recently, the Senate presented findings of the Senate Special Committee on Aging concerning investigations gold investment scams targeting Florida seniors. The hearing clearly exposed how securities regulators, in this case the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has no ability to prevent securities fraud and protect the investing public.

FINRA Fines Commonwealth Financial Network Concerning Email Supervisory Failures

June 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined brokerage firm Commonwealth Financial Network (CFN) $250,000 on allegations that from December 7, 2009 to January 28, 2012, CFN’s supervisory system: (a) failed to subject about 12.6 million outgoing e-mails to daily e-mail surveillance protocol, constituting 90% of the e-mails that the firm’s registered representatives sent through doing business as (DBA) e-mail accounts; and (b) failed to survey approximately 474,380 registered representatives e-mails. FINRA also found that the firm failed to establish and maintain procedures to test its e-mail supervisory system to timely identify systemic failures.

CFN has been a member of FINRA since 1979 and the firm has approximately 4,550 associated persons operating from 1,154 branch offices. CFN’s primary office is located in Waltham, Massachusetts. CFN’s registered representatives are independent contractors and many of them operate from branch offices under one or more DBA names. Most of CFN’s brokers use non-CFN e-mail domains names.

During the period from December 2009, to January 2012, CFN used a system to archive, preserve, and supervise business related e-mails of its associated persons. FINRA found that e-mails sent through DBA email domains were automatically transmitted to CFN’s system for retention and review. CFN’s supervisory procedures required the firm’s emails to be transmitted through CFN’s server so that the firm could capture and review its brokers’ emails. CFN’s supervisory system required a daily review of its registered representatives’ e-mails including lexicon searches and a random sampling of emails.

Former MML Investors and AXA Advisors Broker Monte Miron Barred From Brokerage Industry

May 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned MML Investors Services, LLC (MML Investors a/k/a MassMutual Life Insurance Company) broker Monte Miron (Miron) concerning allegations that Miron made unauthorized trades in client accounts and that the broker failed to disclose certain tax liens on his Form U4 in a timely manner.

Miron first became registered with member firm Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. in September 1982. Miron has been registered with 11 firms between October 1998 and August 2012. From 2005 to January 2008, Miron was associated with MetLife Securities Inc. From December 2007 through September 2012, Miron was a representative with AXA Advisors, LLC.

According to Miron’s brokerage disclosures the broker has had three customer complaints filed against him. The complaints involve allegations of account manipulation, excessive trading, and a misrepresentation concerning a variable annuity.

Mislead into Investing in Tenants-in-Common (TIC) Property?

May 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The sales of Tenants-in-Common (TIC) interests grew significantly during the early 2000s from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has noted that TICs are illiquid investments for which no secondary market exists and that subsequent sales of the property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest. FINRA has also warned that the risk that the fces and expenses charged by the TIC sponsor can outweigh the potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. FINRA also instructed members that they have an obligation to comply with all applicable conduct rules when selling TICs by ensuring that promotional materials used are fair, accurate, and balanced.

According to FINRA former brokerage firm CapWest Securities, Inc., (CapWest) violated industry content standards in communications with the public. FINRA found that the communications: (1) were not fair and balanced and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating TIC investments being promoted; (2) used exaggerated and or misleading statements; (3) used prohibited statements by projecting the results of the products being promoted; and (4) used customer testimonials without proper disclosures. FINRA also found that CapWest violated supervisory standards by failing to implement effective supervisory procedures. FINRA found that all of these violations and conduct were inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.

FINRA’s investigation involved CapWest’s promotion and sales of Section 1031 Exchanges and TIC investments that started being sold in the early 2000s. CapWest made public communications to promote tax-deferred exchanges of real property under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as well as TIC investments. The IRC permits an investor to defer paying capital gains tax on the sale of real estate held for use for investment by exchanging the investment for “like-kind” property of equal or greater value.