securities attorney

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 Investors Capital Corp. Over Failing to Supervise ETF Sales

June 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined brokerage firm Investors Capital Corp. (Investors Capital) $100,000 on allegations that from at least about June 2009 through April 2011, Investors Capital failed to provide prospectuses to customers who purchased exchange traded funds (ETFs). FINRA also alleged that Investors Capital also failed to establish, maintain and enforce an adequate supervisory system concerning the sale of ETFs and the obligation to provide ETF prospectuses to customers.

Investors Capital is an independent broker-dealer offering brokerage services and financial planning to customers and has been a FINRA member since 1992. Investors Capital is headquartered in Lynnfield, Massachusetts, and employs approximately 539 registered persons, across 325 branch offices.

ETFs typically attempt to track an index such as a market index, a commodity, or an entire market segment. ETFs can be either attempt to track the index or apply leverage in order to amplify the returns of an underlying stock position. ETFs that employ leverage are called either non-traditional ETFs or leveraged ETFs. In an ideal world, a leveraged ETF with 300% leverage will return 3% if the underlying index returns 1%. Nontraditional ETFs can also be designed to return the inverse or the opposite of the return of the benchmark.

Ameriprise Broker Jeffrey Davis Barred Accused of Converting Client Funds

June 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred Ameriprise Financial Services (Ameriprise) broker Jeffrey Davis (Davis) concerning allegations that the broker committed securities fraud by converting client funds. FINRA alleged that from May 2012, through June 2013, Davis converted $116,976 from five Ameriprise customers for his personal use and benefit. According to FINRA, Davis initiated 71 unauthorized electronic Automated Clearing House (ACH) payments from the customers’ brokerage accounts to personal credit card accounts held in Davis’ name. FINRA found that these transfers converted customer funds and violated FINRA Rules 2150 and 2010.

Davis entered the securities industry in June 1998. Davis became associated with Ameriprise in September 2000 and remained with the firm until he was terminated on July 19, 2013. In a Form U5 Uniform Termination Notice dated July 24, 2013, Ameriprise reported that Davis was terminated for misappropriating customer funds to ‘pay personal credit cards.

FINRA Rule 2150(a) prohibits members or person associated with a member from making improper use of a customer’s funds. Improper use of customer funds constitutes conversion of the client’s funds when there is an intentional and unauthorized taking of or exercise of ownership by one who neither owns the property nor is entitled to possess it.

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.

Wall Street Wants to Sell Private Equities to Average Joes

May 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

We now have the answer to what they will think up next. According to a New York Times article, one of Wall Street’s most exclusive investment products, sold to the wealthy, is moving toward the mainstream investor. Private equity funds. These vast pools of capital that buy and sell companies will become accessible to smaller investors if supports have their way under a plan being contemplated by the Nasdaq stock exchange.

The plan calls for a market where investors in private equity funds can sell their interests to individuals whose net worth falls short of the usual requirements for such investments. Today, private equity funds are limited by the Investment Company Act of 1940 limits their investors to “qualified purchasers,” or individuals with at least $5 million in investments.

Other rules that stand in the way of the sale of alternative investments to the masses include Regulations D. Under Regulation D, private placements can only be sold to “accredited investors.” Under Rule 501 an “accredited investor” is any person who has a net worth in excess of $1,000,000 — excluding residence — or has an annual income in excess of $200,000 in two most recent years.

FINRA Drops Bid to Regulate Investment Advisors – For Now

May 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Most people do not realize that there is a big distinction between brokers and investment advisors. Many people think, they both recommend securities. While that is true, that is pretty much where the similarities end.

A broker is regulated by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) a self-regulatory organization (SRO) as provided for under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On the other hand investment advisors are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as provided under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (IAA).

A broker is more akin to salesman. A broker’s obligation is to make sure that his or her recommendation is suitable and appropriate for the investor given the investors objectives and other information. However, an investment advisor is more like an appraiser of securities, his or her job is not only to make recommendations that are not only suitable but to continually monitor the investors account to ensure that the investor has a viable financial plan over time. Consequently, a broker is compensated on a transactional basis while an investment advisor is paid a percentage of the assets managed by the advisor.