Articles Tagged with UDF

shutterstock_64859686-300x300The investment fraud attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc. (Ausdal Financial) broker Gerald Repasz (Repasz). According to BrokerCheck records, Repasz has been subject to 5 customer disputes, one of which still pending. The majority of these investments concern the unsuitable recommendation of alternative investments.

Most recently, in October 2017, a customer alleged that Repasz placed customers into UDF III, UDF IV, and Behringer Harvard REIT investments which were unsuitable to the customer’s investment objectives. The customer is requesting $62,000 in damages. This dispute is currently still pending.

In September 2016, a customer alleged that from 2005 to 2010, Repasz placed the customer in alternative investments that were unsuitable for the customer and misrepresented the material facts of the investments. The dispute was settled at $20,000.

shutterstock_174858983The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investors that were recommended to invest in non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) or publicly traded shares of United Development Funding (UDF) funds. Based upon the investor’s investment objectives and other information such investments may have been unsuitable for the investor.  Recently, UDF IV, a publicly traded REIT, plummeted about 50% in value after allegations arose claiming that UDF runs its REIT programs like a Ponzi scheme.

As a background, according to UDF’s website the company was founded in 2003 and purports to provide investors with an opportunity to diversify their portfolios with “fundamentally sound investments in affordable residential real estate.”

However, allegations have been made that UDF IV made false or misleading statements and omissions about its business. It has been alleged that UDF IV failed to disclose that: (1) subsequent UDF REIT companies provide significant liquidity and capital to earlier UDF companies which allows those companies to repay earlier investors; (2) if funding from retail investors to the latest UDF company were halted the earlier UDF companies would not be capable of continuing operations; (3) UDF IV provided liquidity to UDF I, UMT and UDF III, as part of an investment scheme; (4) UDF IV was being operated in a manner similar to a Ponzi scheme where new capital is being used to pay prior investors; (5) UDF IV failed to disclose that the company was being investigated by the SEC for its practices; and (6) UDF IV’s business prospect representations were false and misleading.

Contact Information