investment fraud

FINRA Bars Broker Joseph Pappalardo Over Allegations of Sales of Coast-2-Coast Properties Securities to Customers

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Joseph Pappalardo (Pappalardo) concerning allegations that between August 2008, and August 2012, Pappalardo, while associated with Financial Network Investment Corporation (n/k/a Cetera Advisor Network LLC), made fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations to a customer in the sale of private securities, converted customer funds for his personal use, engaged in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), failed to disclose several outside business activities, and failed to amend his U4.

Pappalardo joined Financial Network Investment Corporation in 2008 and was required to complete a several questionnaires including disclosures of outside business activities. In 2008, FINRA alleged that Pappalardo disclosed on the questionnaire that he had previously been involved with a real estate company he formed in 2003 called Coast-2-Coast Properties (C2C) that was in the business of buying, renovating, and selling houses but that the company was no longer in business. FINRA alleged that Pappalardo’s statement was false. In fact, FINRA found that Pappalardo was involved in several outside business activities that he failed to disclose to Cetera including ongoing involvement in C2C and its marketing arm Prosperity Financial Estate Planning and Insurance Services (Prosperity Financial).

Thereafter, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited customers to invest in these businesses. In one instance, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited the sale of a $100,000 investment in Prosperity Financial which Pappalardo converted for his personal use. In total, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited C2C to at least 6 customers and purported to offer investors 12% interest returns on profits generated by the business. FINRA found that the investors did not actually own any portion of the real estate properties held by C2C but instead were to receive interest returns on profits from Pappalardo and the business. FINRA found that by engaging in the C2C private securities Pappalardo violated the FINRA rules.

FINRA Fines Feltl & Company $1 Million Conerning the Firm’s Penny Stock Business

October 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned brokerage firm Feltl & Company (Feltl) and fined the firm $1,000,000 concerning allegations that the firm, between January 2008, and February 2012. failed to comply with the suitability, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements for broker-dealers who engage in penny stock business. FINRA alleged that Feltl did not provide some customers with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) risk disclosure document two days prior to effecting a penny stock transaction in the customers’ accounts. failed to sufficiently supervise penny stock transactions for compliance with applicable rules and regulations, and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures for its penny stock business.

Feltl has eight branch offices located in Minnesota and Illinois, and approximately 113 registered representatives and has been a FINRA member since 1975.

The term “penny stock” generally refers to securities that trades below $5 per share, issued by a small company. Penny stocks often trade infrequently making it difficult to sell and price. Due to the size of the issuer, the market cap, the liquidity issues, and other reasons penny stocks are generally considered speculative investments. Consequently, the SEC requires broker-dealers effecting penny stock transactions to make a documented determination that the transactions are suitable for customers and obtain the customers’ written agreement to those transactions.

Top 10 Signs of Investment Fraud

October 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Every year dozens of investors contact our firm seeking to recover losses due to sham or bogus investments. Only a fraction of those defrauded people were fortunate enough to working with a licensed broker who wasn’t being properly supervised by their brokerage firm and have recourse to avenues of redress. The other investors are often left with little to no recourse other than to spend additional sums of money on the off chance for recovery.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission published its “10 Red Flags That an Unregistered Offering May Be a Scam” Most investors do not realize that each and every investment out there must be registered with the SEC or offered through a registration exemption to be legally sold to investors. Yet, billions of dollars are continually pumped into fraudulent and unregistered offerings. The SEC published these top 10 red flags that every investor should be on the look out for.

Claims of High Returns with Little or No Risk – A classic red flag that high returns are around the corner with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and if your advisor can’t point that out to you, then you need to find another broker.

Broker Edward Wendol Barred by FINRA Over Failure to Respond to Outside Business Activity Inquiries

October 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Edward Wendol (Wendol) concerning allegations that during the course of FINRA’s investigation into whether Wendol was involved in undisclosed outside business and private securities transactions, also known as “selling away”, Wendol failed to respond to FINRA’s requests. On May 29, 2014, FINRA requested that Wendol provide documents and information. On June 16, 2014, Wendol informed FINRA that he would not provide the requested documents and information or appear and provide testimony. As a result, Wendol was barred from the securities industry.

Wendol first became registered with FINRA in 1993 with South Richmond Securities, Inc. From October 1993, through October 2009, Wendol was registered with seven different FINRA member firms. On December 5, 2011, Wendol registered with Sterling Enterprises Group, Inc. (Sterling). Thereafter, from September 2013, through July 2014, Wendol was associated with WTS Proprietary Trading Group LLC.

The allegations against Wendol are consistent with a “selling away” securities violation. In such a case, the broker sells private securities away from the firm because the investment is not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. Under the FINRA rules, a brokerage firm owes a duty to properly monitor and supervise its employees. In fact, each brokerage firm is required to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each registered representative that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the securities laws. Selling away often occurs when supervisory lapse conditions exist. Supervisory lapses include either the failure to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or a failure to implement their supervisory requirements. Many times there obvious “red flags” of misconduct that are overlooked or not properly followed up on.

Broker Lorene Fairbanks Alleged to Have Made Unauthorized Trades in Client Accounts

October 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to broker Lorene Fairbank’s (Fairbank) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records the representative was recently sanctioned concerning allegations that From August 2006, through February 2012, she effected approximately 57-69 discretionary transactions for seven firm customers without written authorization from the customers or approval from the firm. In addition, Fairbanks was alleged to have mismarked approximately 54-70 order tickets as being “unsolicited” orders when the trades were “solicited” causing the firm to maintain inaccurate books and records.

Fairbanks entered the securities industry in 1996. From August 2006, to March 2012, she was registered Merrill Lynch. Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Merrill Lynch). In February 2012, Merrill Lynch terminated Fairbanks and disclosed in a filing that she was discharged for taking discretion in client accounts and mismarking client orders. Since June 2012, Fairbanks has been associated with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. In addition, at least five customer complaints have been filed against Fairbanks alleging unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and excessive trading (churning).

NASD Rule 2510 prohibits brokers from exercising any discretionary power in a customer’s account unless there is written authorization and the account has been accepted by the member. NASD Rule 3110 and FINRA Rule 4511 provide that members must preserve books and records. FINRA alleged that Fairbanks was not approved by her firm to exercise discretion in any customer accounts but nonetheless effected approximately 57-69 discretionary transactions for seven customers. Also, FINRA alleged that Fairbanks mismarked approximately 54-70 order tickets in the same customers’ accounts as “unsolicited” meaning that the customer asked the broker to make the trade, when the trades were solicited, meaning that the broker brought the investment to the client’s attention.

Center Street Securities Broker David Escarcega Investigated Over GWG Debenture Sales

October 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker David Escarcega (Escarcega) concerning allegations that Escarcega recommended unsuitable investments in Renewable Secured Debentures of GWG, Inc. (GWG Debentures). Escarcega is not the first Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) broker that has been investigated by FINRA in connection with their GWG sales or the supervision of such sales. As we have reported FINRA recently sanctioned Michael Wurdinger (Wurdinger) concerning allegations that from approximately February 2012, to February 2013, Wurdinger failed to adequately supervise sales of GWG Debentures. In a related but separate action concerning Center Street’s supervision of the sale of the GWG debentures, Anil Vazirani (Vazirani) was found to not be appropriately registered with the firm but nonetheless solicited sales of the debentures through communications with prospective customers, discussed the details of the debentures features as an investment, recommended the purchase of the product, and assisted seven customers to complete documents in order to purchase the GWG Debentures.

As a background, GWG Holdings, Inc. purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to the face value of the insurance policies. GWG then pays the policy premiums until the insured dies and GWG then collects the insurance benefit making a profit, hopefully, by collecting more upon the maturity of the policies than the payment of the policy and servicing of the premiums. According to FINRA, the company has a limited operating history and has yet to be profitable. The prospectus for GWG stated that the investments were speculative and involve a high degree of risk, including the possibility of risk of loss of the entire investment. An investment in the GWG Debentures, as a private placement, is illiquid and investors will not have access to their principal prior to maturity.

In Escarcega’s case, FINRA alleged that Between March 2012, and January 2013, Escarcega violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws as well as numerous FINRA and NASD rules while selling more than $1.8 million of GWG Debentures to his customers. According to FINRA, Escarcega made false and misleading oral and written statements to seven customers in connection with their purchases of the GWG Debentures. FINRA found that Escarcega falsely told the customers that the Debentures were safe, low-risk, liquid, or guaranteed. For example, on one form, FINRA found that Escarcega described the GWG Debentures as having “a guaranteed interest payment” and providing a “guaranteed rate of return.”

Dennis Karasik Barred by FINRA Over Diversified Energy Group Sales

October 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) permanently barred broker Dennis Karasik (Karasik) concerning allegations that from December 2010, to March 2012, Karasik participated in private securities transactions, otherwise known as “selling away” without providing prior written notice to the two firms with which he was associated. Specifically, FINRA alleged that Karasik participated in the sale of bonds issued by Diversified Energy Group, Inc. (DEG), an energy company, and that the company paid him finder’s fees from on the sales made.

Karasik was employed by a number of brokerage firms from 1986 through February 2013. During the times relevant to FINRA’s allegations Karasik was registered with Multi-Financial Securities Corp. (Multi-Financial) until December 2011, and with H. Beck, Inc. (H. Beck) until February 2013. Karasik maintained an office in Parkton, Maryland. Karasik was terminated by H. Beck for the conduct alleged by FINRA. According to Karasik’s BrokerCheck, he has had six customer complaints filed against him and also has two tax liens. Karasik was also a partner of Carrio, Karasik, & Associates (CKA).

DEG is a Florida energy company that develops oil and gas reserves in the United States. It has raised funds through private placement offerings of corporate bonds to accredited investors. FINRA alleged that between January 2010, and March 2012, Karasik and his partner in CKA participated in the sale of more than $3.2 million of DEG bonds to at least 25 investors. According to FINRA, Karasik was compensated for his role in these sales through the payment of a finder’s fee.

The NASAA Announces New Initiative to Focus on Senior Investor Abuse

October 9, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As we have reported previously, financial abuse of seniors is a significant problem in the United States. In our firm’s representation of clients, seniors comprise the vast majority of clients that seek our firm’s assistance as securities attorneys.

Recently the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced the formation of a new Board committee to address a wide range of challenges confronting senior investors. The announcement came on the heels of the agencies disclosure that at least a third of its members’ enforcement actions by state securities regulators since 2008 have involved senior victims among states that track victims by age. Of the 10,526 enforcement actions initiated between 2008 and 2013, 3,548 involved victims age 62 and older. Further, the NASAA stated that this amount is a conservative estimate since it does not include cases from states that do not report the age of victims and many senior victims simply do not come forward.

As long-time readers of this blog post know, we have frequently wrote the issue of scams and fraud targeting the elderly. See How Elderly Investors Can Protect Their Retirement Savings and The Problem of Senior Investor Abuse – A Securities Attorney’s Perspective.

An Examination of LPL Financial’s Recent Regulatory Woes

October 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial, LLC (LPL) is one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the United States employing approximately 13,840 registered reps and advisers. However, the firm’s growth has come with a host of regulatory actions focusing on the firm’s alleged supervisory failures.

Recently, InvestmentNews reported that the firm was hit with a $2 million fine, and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for failing to maintain adequate books and records documenting variable annuity exchanges. The mounting firm fines have led to flat second quarter earnings at LPL. The firm has stated that the company is instituting enhanced procedures with a view to ensuring that surrender charges incurred in connection with variable annuity exchange transactions are accurately reflected in the firm’s books and records as well as in any disclosures given to clients. The firm is also purportedly taking steps to make sure that its advisers are adequately documenting the basis for their variable annuity recommendations.

LPL has been on the radar of FINRA and several state regulators that have focused on the firm’s supervisory and other record systems as well as examining sales of investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). In February 2013, LPL settled with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to pay at least $2 million in restitution and $500,000 in fines concerning the firm’s non-traded REIT practices. In addition, in the last year, FINRA has fined LPL Financial $7.5 million for significant e-mail system failures. Moreover, we have reported on numerous LPL registered representatives who have been fined over the past year for a variety of misconduct ranging from misappropriation of funds, sales of alternative investments, selling away activities, and private placements.

Gana LLP is Investigating LPL Financial broker, Kenneth W. Schulz for Improper Conduct

September 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 11, 2014, FINRA, permanently barred Kenneth W. Schulz, a former broker of LPL Financial from associating with any FINRA member. According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, in June 2013, Kenneth W. Schulz directed a registered assistant to impersonate six of Schulz’s former customers in phone calls to his prior firm requesting that the customers’ accounts be liquidated so that they could invest through Schulz at his new firm Commonwealth Financial network.

Schulz informed each of his customers that their securities holdings could be transferred “in kind” to accounts with Commonwealth. The customers agreed to transfer their securities to Commonwealth and authorized Schulz to initiate the transfers.

After the customers agreed to transfer the securities, Schulz learned that the customers’ securities could not be transferred in kind because the managed funds were proprietary to LPL Financial. Rather than inform his customers that the securities had to be liquidated before their funds could be transferred, Schulz had his assistant pretend to be the customers and had the accounts liquidated without customer consent.