Morgan Stanley

Hedge Fund Canarsie Capital Losses 99.7% of Client’s Money Leading to SEC Investigation

October 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to news sources, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are investigating how the hedge fund Canarsie Capital lost nearly all of the $60 million capital in just three weeks of trading. The fund was run by Owen Li (Li), and Ken deRegt (deRegt). Canarsie Capital was named for the Brooklyn neighborhood where Li grew up and was launched in January 2013 and had offices in midtown Manhattan, New York. Li previously worked for Raj Rajaratnam’s (Rajaratnam) Galleon Group. Rajaratnam is currently serving an 11 year sentence following his May 2011 conviction on nine counts of securities fraud and five counts of conspiracy. The claims against him relate to $63.8 million in illicit profit from 2003 to 2009 by trading in stocks such as eBay Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Google Inc. Li cofounded the Canarsie Capital with his former Stanford University roommate, Eric deRegt and Eric’s father who ran Morgan Stanley’s fixed-income business.

According to filings the minimum investment accepted from an outside investor in the fund was $1 million. At its peak, Canarsie Capital had managed around $98 million in assets and had some well-known contributors. Goldman Sachs was the fund’s prime broker and clears and settles trades for the hedge fund starting in the fall of 2014. The Goldman Sachs switch came after the fund was dropped in March 2014, by Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage over concerns with the fund’s risk practices.

On January 20, 2015, Li, wrote an apology letter to investors telling them that he “engaged in a series of aggressive transactions” during the first three weeks of 2015 that resulted in losing all but $200,000 of the fund’s capital, a 99.7% loss. According to the letter, Li engaged in aggressive trading in an attempt to recuperate prior losses the fund suffered in the fund in December 2014. At this time it’s unclear what the trading strategy was that Li engaged in January of this year. The only details in the letter concerning the securities themselves are that they included “options with strike prices pegged to the broader market increasing in value” and “some direct positions.”

FINRA Bars Former Merrill Lynch Broker Michael Highfill Over Outside Business Activities

September 28, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought and enforcement action against broker Michael Highfill (Highfill) (FINRA No. 2015045652501) resulting in a bar from the securities industry alleging that Highfill failed to provide FINRA staff with information and documents requested. The failure to provide those documents and information to FINRA resulted in an automatic bar from the industry. FINRA’s document requests related to the regulators investigation into claims the Highfill solicited and accepted a loan from an elderly customer and that he also failed to disclose an outside business activity to his member firm.

FINRA’s investigation appears to stem from Highfill’s termination from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Merrill Lynch) in May 2015. At that time Merrill Lynch filed a Form U5 termination notice with FINRA stating in part that the firm discharged Highfill under circumstances where there was allegations that Highfill solicited a loan from a client and failed to disclose outside business activities. It is unclear the nature of the outside business activities from publicly available information at this time.

Highfill entered the securities industry in 1999. From August 2005 until August 2008, Highfill was associated with Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Thereafter, from July, 2008, until May 2015, Highfill was associated as a registered representative with Merrill Lynch out of the firm’s Ridgeland, Mississippi office.

FINRA Bars Former Stifel, Nicolaus Broker Kenneth Hornyak Over Short Term Trading

September 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned and barred broker Kenneth Hornyak (Hornyak) (Case No. 2013038511901) alleging that the broker failed to respond the regulator’s requests for documents and information. FINRA’s investigation appeared to focus on claims that Hornyak engaged in potential discretionary trading, unauthorized trading, and unsuitable short-term trading in Unit Investment Trusts (UITs). On May 11, 2015, Hornyak informed FINRA that he would not appear for questioning and the regulator subsequently barred the broker.

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by FINRA Hornyak has been the subject of at least four customer complaints, one regulatory action, and two employment terminations for cause. Customers have filed complaints against Hornyak alleging a litany of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trades, churning, and excessive sales charges among other claims.

Hornyak entered the securities industry in 1998 with Morgan Stanley. From March 2006, until January 2014, Hornyak was associated with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated. In January 2014, Stifel, Nicolaus terminated Hornyak for cause alleging that Hornyak was terminated because of violation of firm policies regarding exercising discretion without written authorization.

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against RBC Capital Broker David Peirce

August 26, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker David Peirce (Peirce) has been the subject of at least four customer complaints. The customer complaints against Peirce allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, churning (excessive trading), among other claims..

Peirce entered the securities industry in 1989. From April 2004, until February 2009, Peirce was registered with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (Morgan Stanley). From June 2009 onward Peirce was associated with RBC Capital Markets, LLC (RBC).

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. Many of the claims against Peirce 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.

FINRA Sanctions Sylvester King Jr. Over Improper Loans and Private Securities Transactions

August 24, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned (Case No. 2013036262101) broker Sylvester King Jr. (King) concerning allegations that from July 2009, through November 2012, while King was registered Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (Morgan Stanley) and later Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (Wells Fargo), circumvented Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures by assisting another broker in concealing nearly $400,000 in loans to three firm customers, loaned $25,000 to a customer without permission, participated in an undisclosed private securities transaction, otherwise referred to in the industry as “selling away”, where eight customers invested more than $3 million, and provided false information to Morgan Stanley on two separate questionnaires.

King entered the securities industry in 1999. From 2006, until June 2009, King was registered with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Citigroup). From June 2009, until October 2010, King was associated with Morgan Stanley. Thereafter, from October 2011, until May 2015, King was associated with brokerage firm Wells Fargo. On April 27, 2015, Wells Fargo filed a notice of Termination Form U-5 on the same day that FINRA entered into its agreement with King in which King accepted a fine and sanctions stating that King was discharged from the firm because of the settlement with FINRA which included an 18 month suspension. Thereafter, FINRA filed a second regulatory action stating that King failed to pay the $35,000 required as part of the settlement as of July 28, 2015.

FINRA alleged that in 2009, King and his partner referred to by the initials “AP”, formed PKG, a d/b/a branch office located in Florida registered through Morgan Stanley and then Wells Fargo. PKG allegedly provided financial “concierge” services to professional athletes who played in the NFL and the NBA. FINRA alleged that King committed the violations contained in the complaint for the supposed benefit, of several of these athletes.

Broker Investigation: Churning Claims Against Mark Kaplan

August 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According 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.

Broker Spotlight: Citigroup Broker David Honingstock

August 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker David Honingstock (Honingstock) has been the subject of at least two customer complaints, two financial disclosures, and three judgments and/or liens. The customer complaints against Honingstock allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, among other claims

In addition to these claims, Honingstock declared bankruptcy in October 2014 in New York. In addition, Honingstock former brokerage firm, Morgan Stanley, initiated an action against the broker alleging a debt of $1,635,123 owed to the firm that in a compromise settlement was reduced to $218,000. Honingstock has several other debts listed on his disclosures including a hospital bill from 2013, and a New York State Tax lien for over $17,000. A broker’s inability to manage his own finances or having trouble making ends meet may suffer from potential conflicts of interests in making recommendations to his clients.

Honingstock entered the securities industry in 1986. From January 2003, until May 2007, Honingstock was registered with UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS). Upon leaving from UBS, from May 2007, through June 2009, Honingstock was associated with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Citigroup). From there, Honingstock was associated with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney form June 2009, until December 2009. Finally, Honingstock has been registered with Citigroup since 2013.

FINRA Bars Former Morgan Stanley Advisor Justin Amaral

August 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Justin Amaral (Amaral) has been barred for failing to respond to requests for information by the agency. The requests may have related to the reasons Morgan Stanley gave for terminating Amaral’s employment. Upon termination from Morgan Stanley the firm filed a Uniform Termination form (Form U5) stating that the reason for the firm’s termination of Amaral was due to allegations by the firm that Amaral became an executor and beneficiary in a client’s estate and that he used discretionary authority in several client accounts.

In addition, to the most recent FINRA action and bar, Amaral has been the subject of at least two customer complaints involving unsuitable closed-end funds and misrepresentations of investments involving mutual funds. According to FINRA, the agency made attempts to have Amaral appear for testimony concerning an unstated matter. Amaral failed to appear and was consequently barred from the securities industry.

It is important for investors to know that all advisers have an obligation and responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

SEC Charged 36 Brokerage Firms Over Municipal Bond Offerings

August 12, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced enforcement actions against 36 municipal bond underwriting brokerage firms for material misstatements and omissions in municipal bond offering documents. The SEC offered favorable settlement terms to municipal bond underwriters and issuers who self-reported securities law violations leading to the settlements.

The SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2014, 36 brokerage and financial firms violated federal securities laws by selling municipal bonds using offering documents that contained materially false statements or omissions about the bond issuers’ compliance with their obligation to disclosure. The firms were also alleged by the SEC to have failed to conduct adequate due diligence to identify the misstatements and omissions before offering and selling the bonds to their customers.

The municipal bond market is a $3.7 trillion market. Continuing disclosure provides municipal bond investors with information about the solvency and financial fitness of issuers on an ongoing basis. The SEC had previously identified issuers’ failure to comply with their continuing disclosure obligations as being a major challenge for investors seeking up to date information about their municipal bond holdings.

FINRA Sanctions Morgan Stanley and Scottrade for Failing to Supervise Customer Transfers to Third-Party Accounts

August 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a press release concerning two settlements fining Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (Morgan Stanley) $650,000 and Scottrade, Inc. $300,000 for failing to implement reasonable supervisory systems to monitor the transmittal of customer funds to third-party accounts. The settlements included allegations that both firms had weak supervisory systems after FINRA examination teams reviewed the firms in 2011, but neither took necessary steps to correct the supervisory gaps.

Brad Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, was quoted in the press release as stating that, “Firms must have robust supervisory systems to monitor and protect the movement of customer funds. Morgan Stanley and Scottrade had been alerted to significant gaps in their systems by FINRA staff, yet years went by before either firm implemented sufficient corrective measures.”

In the Morgan Stanley settlement, FINRA alleged that from October 2008, to June 2013, three Morgan Stanley brokers in two different branch offices converted a total of $494,400 from thirteen customers by creating fraudulent wire transfer orders and checks to third-party accounts. In one example, the brokers moved funds from multiple customer accounts to their own personal bank accounts. FINRA found that in these instances Morgan Stanley’s supervisory systems and procedures to review and monitor transmittals of customer funds through wire transfers were not reasonable and could not detect multiple customer account transfers to the same third-party accounts and outside entities. In sum, FINRA found that the supervisory failures allowed the conversions to go undetected.