Articles Posted in FINRA

FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits

Published on: February 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has filed a complaint against Charles Schwab Corp. The SRO says the online brokerage is in violation of FINRA rules because it makes clients waive their rights to pursue class actions against it.

Per a new provision added to over 6.8 million customer account agreements, Charles Schwab clients are now not allowed to begin or join class-action complaints against the financial firm. Customers must also agree that arbitrators won’t be given authority to consolidate claims from different parties, as this would set up a class-action situation.

Over 50,000 clients have opened accounts with the financial firm since it implemented this new limitation. Now, FINRA wants an expedited hearing. The SRO is concerned that the class action waiver will cause millions of Schwab clients to mistakenly think they cannot bring or take part in an already existing class action complaint against the brokerage firm. Also, FINRA has specific rules about the conditions that financial firms can place on clients, and the SRO says this provision is a definite violation.

FINRA Investor Education Foundation and NFL Player Join Forces To Protect Pro Football Players from Investment Fraud

Published on: January 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an effort to help incoming National Football League members from getting their careers started on solid financial ground, the NFL and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation are working with each other to help educate players and their families about investment fraud. The joint efforts come in the wake of professional players finding themselves the target of financial scams.

At events held during the East/West Shrine Game in Florida last month, the NFL and FINRA Foundation planed to reach participants through video presentation and other resources regarding:

• Selecting the right financial professionals • Checking these represenatives’ backgrounds • Becoming educated about debt.

FINRA Tells Financial Firms to Heighten Supervision of Complex Products

Published on: January 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has put out a formal notice to stockbrokers to let them know that complex financial products must come under the focus of heightened supervision. According to the SRO, a complex product is one with numerous features that can impact its investment returns depending on different scenarios-especially if the average retail investor can’t be expected to easily comprehend what these features are and how they can lead to an investment return.

Examples of complex products:

• Investments linked to the way the markets perform, such as certain exchange-traded products that can expose investors to the volatility of the stock market and products that create leveraged or inverse exposure.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses

Published on: January 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith must pay a $1M fine because it didn’t arbitrate employee disputes about retention bonuses. Registered representatives that took part in the bonus plan had signed promissory notes stating that should such disagreements arise, they would go to New York state court and not through arbitration to resolve them. FINRA says this agreement violated its rules, which requires that financial firms and associated individuals go through arbitration if the disagreement is a result of the business activities of the associated person or the firm.

It was after merging with Bank of America that Merrill Lynch set up a bonus plan to keep high-producing registered reps. The financial firm gave over 5,000 registered representatives $2.8B in retention bonuses that were structured as loans in 2009. By agreeing that they would go to state court, the representatives were greatly hindering their ability to make counterclaims. FINRA also says that because Merrill Lynch designed the bonus program so that it would seem as if the money for it came from MLIFI, which is a non-registered affiliate, the financial firm was able to go after recovery amounts on MLIFI’s behalf in court, which allowed Merrill Lynch to circumvent the arbitration requirement. After a number of registered representatives did leave the financial firm without paying back the amounts due on the promissory notes in 2009, Merrill Lynch filed more than 90 actions in state court to collect these payments.

Since September 14, 2009, FINRA has been expediting cases involving claims made by brokerage firm over associated persons accused of not paying money owed on a promissory note. Such disputes are supposed to be resolved through arbitration.

The SRO has also been known to get involved in other types of financial firm-employee disputes. For example, in another recent FINRA proceeding, an arbitration panel ordered Citigroup to pay a former investment advisor team and their administrator $24M for not fairly compensating them for transactions involving an institutional client that they brought with them when they moved from Banc of America Securities. Robert Vincent Minchello, his brother James Bryan Minchello, and Martha Jane Sullivan claimed that Citigroup only partially compensated them for a few of the transactions before cutting them out of that business relationship.

Merrill fined $1 mln for failure to arbitrate, Reuters, January 25, 2012

SEC Approves Rule Establishing Expedited Procedures for Arbitrating Promissory Note Cases, FINRA, September 14, 2009

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Unsealed Documents in $54.4M FINRA Arbitration Case Reveal that Citigroup Did Not Disclose Municipal Bond Risks to Investors

Published on: January 21, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last month, a US judge refused Citigroup‘s request to overturn a $54.1M arbitration award that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel had ordered the financial firm to pay investors Gerald D. Hosier, Jerry Murdock Jr. and Brush Creek Capital. The award was the largest amount ever granted to individuals in a securities arbitration proceeding.

Following Citigroup’s request that a United States district court toss out the award, details from what were confidential proceedings have been unsealed. According to the New York Times, documents viewed by the arbitrators show that on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 signifying the highest risk (usually only assigned to products that potentially carried the risk of an investor losing everything), Citigroup rated these investments as having a 5 rating for risk. Is it no wonder then that investors could and would go on to lose 80% of what they had investments.

The investments, which were municipal arbitrage portfolios, are known as ASTA/MAT. Citigroup Global Markets sold them through MAT Finance LLC.

Per internal e-mails, after the investments began declining in value in early 2008, when Citigroup wealth management head Sallie Krawcheck asked for the MAT’s risk rating,” She was told that it was “3-5.” Also, customers were never told about the 5 rating that their investments were previously given. The Times also reported that during a conference call involving brokers whose clients had sustained losses, the portfolio manager was directed to not discuss internal guidelines, which contained different information than what was in the prospectus that investors had received.

Citigroup eventually would offer to buy back the investments at a discount price but only if investors agreed to not file a securities fraud lawsuit against the financial firm. (Brokers have said they felt pressured by Citigroup to get investors on board with this. For example, a memo with the heading “Fund Rescue Options “noted that if the broker’s client let Citigroup repurchase the instruments, this would not be noted in his/her U-5 regulatory record. If, however, the client chose to sue, then this would appear in the broker’s U-5.)

In their securities fraud case, Claimants accused Citigroup of failure to supervise, fraud, and unsuitability. After the FINRA arbitration panel ordered them to pay the investors, Citigroup argued that panel members had ignored the law and contended that despite verbal statements made to investors, the latter had signed agreements acknowledging that the risk of losing everything was a possibility. Judge Christine Arguello would go on to affirm the FINRA panel’s decision. While the majority of the award was compensation for the claimants’ investment losses, about $17 million was for punitive damages.

Secrets of a Sales Machine, NY Times, January 14, 2012
Citigroup Slammed With $54 Million Award by FINRA Arbitrators in MAT/ASTA Case, Forbes, April 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 27, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Settles for $725,000 FINRA Fine Over Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 20, 2012
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Settles for $725,000 FINRA Fine Over Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

Published on: January 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Citigroup Global Markets will pay a fine of $725K for not disclosing specific conflicts of interest during public appearances made by research analysts and in research reports. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the charges although it has, however, consented to an entry of the findings.

According to the SRO, in research reports published between 1/07 and 3/10, the financial firm did not disclose possible conflicts of interest that existed in certain business connections, including the facts that the financial firm and its affiliates:
• Received revenue or investment banking from certain companies • Had an at least 1% or more ownership in companies that were covered • Managed public securities offerings • Made a market in certain covered companies’ securities
Also, FINRA says that Citigroup research analysts did not reveal these same conflicts when bringing up the covered companies during public appearances.

As a result of these alleged failures to disclose, FINRA contends that Citigroup kept investors from knowing of possible biases in the research recommendations that it made. FINRA says that such disclosures are essential in order to make sure that investors are given all of the information they need when making decisions about investments.

The SRO said that the reason Citigroup did not provide the required information is that the database for identifying and creating disclosures experienced technical difficulties and/or was inaccurate. FINRA also cites a lack of proper supervisory procedures that could have prevented such inaccuracies and disclosure failures. However, Citigroup did self-report a number of the deficiencies and has taken remedial steps to remedy them.

A financial firm can be held liable when failure to disclose key facts about an investment leads to an investor sustaining financial losses. In many instances, such omissions are made to hide or diminish the risk involved in the investment. While some omissions are intentional, others can occur due to inadequate supervision or the lack of proper systems and procedures to make sure such failures to disclose don’t happen.

It is a broker’s obligation to fairly disclose all the risks involved in a potential investment. (Misrepresenting material facts is another way that risks are concealed and investors end up losing money.

It doesn’t matter whether malicious intent was involved. If a broker-dealer concealed OR failed to disclose key information related to your investment and you suffered financial losses on your investment, you may have a securities fraud case on your hands that could allow you to recover your losses.

Citi settles with Finra over alleged conflicts at its brokerage, Investment News, January 20, 2012
Finra Fines Citigroup $725,000 For Alleged Research Violations, The Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2012
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2011
Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Citigroup Involving Mortgage-Related Risk Results in Mixed Ruling, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 30, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes

Published on: January 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association wants the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The promissory notes provide money for retention and recruiting incentives, and as long as a broker agrees to stay with a financial firm for an agreed up on time, they are structured as forgivable notes.

Many brokers obtained such deals following the economic crisis. Since then, financial firms have gotten more active about submitting arbitration claims to get brokers to pay them back. In 2011 alone, 778 promissory note cases were filed. 1,152 such cases were filed the year before. In most cases, it is the financial firm that ends up winning.

When a broker won’t pay an arbitration award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. However, if the broker demonstrates that he/she can’t pay it, then suspension may be avoided.

Many SIFMA members believe that FINRA should take more aggressive measures to get brokers to pay up. The trade group wants the SRO to prevent brokers from being able to claim that they cannot pay when slapped with a case from an industry claimant.
Such a move would likely mean that if a broker were unable to repay a promissory note, he/she would likely be suspended or have to file for bankruptcy. SIFMA also wants enhanced disclosure of awards that brokers don’t pay, because it believes that the consequence of having this failure made public is incentive for the broker to make good on the matter.

In a letter to FINRA that it sent last November, SIFMA voiced members’ concerns that the inability-to-pay defense was being abused and that not only was this resulting in compliance and regulatory risks, but also it was creating an unnecessary risk to investors. SIFMA claimed that FINRA Rule 9554 discriminates against industry claimants, who aren’t given the same protections as customer claimants, who don’t have to contend with the inability-to-pay defense from a broker. The trade organization noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission obligates FINRA to take appropriate disciplinary action against defendants that use this defense in bad faith.

SIFMA, Finra clash over deadbeat brokers, Investment News, January 15, 2012

FINRA Rules

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Offers Up Best Practices for How Financial Firms Can Interact with Expert Networks, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 16, 2011

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011

Micah S. Green, Expected New CEO of Largest Securities Industry Group, Resigns During Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2007

Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel

Published on: January 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered Oppenheimer & Co. to repurchase the $5.98 million in New Jersey Turnpike ARS that it sold Nicole Davi Perry in 2007. The investor reportedly purchased the securities through Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (OPY).

Perry, who, along with her father, filed her ARS arbitration claim against the financial firm in 2010, accused Oppenheimer of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She and her father, Ronald Davi, were reportedly looking for liquidity and safety, but instead ended up placing their funds in the auction-rate securities. They contend that they weren’t given an accurate picture of the risks involved or provided with a thorough explanation of the securities’ true nature.

Oppenheimer disagrees with the panel’s ruling. In addition to buying back Perry’s ARS, the financial firm has to cover her approximately $134,000 in legal fees.

It was just in 2010 that Oppenheimer settled the ARS securities cases filed against it by the states of New York and Massachusetts. The brokerage firm consented to buy back millions of dollars in bonds from customers who found their investments frozen after the ARS market collapsed and they had no way of being able to access their funds.

Oppenheimer is one of a number of brokerage firms that had to repurchase ARS from investors. These financial firms are accused of misrepresenting the risks involved and inaccurately claiming that the securities were “cash-like.” A number of these brokerage firms’ executives allegedly continued to allow investors to buy the bonds even though they already knew that the market stood on the brink of collapse and they were selling off their own ARS.

ARS
Auction rate securities are usually corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and preferred stock with long-term maturities. Investors receive interest rates or dividend yields that are reset at each successive auction.

ARS auctions take place at regular intervals—either every 7 days, 14 days, 28 days, or 5 days. The bidder turns in the lowest dividend yield or interest rate he or she is willing to go to purchase and hold the bond during the next auction interval. If the bidder wins at the auction, she/he must buy the bond at par value.

Failed auctions can happen when there are not enough bidding buyers available to acquire the entire ARS block being offered. A failed auction can prevent ARS holders from selling their securities in the auction.

There are many reasons why an auction might fail and why there is risk involved for investors. It is important that investors are notified of these risks before they buy into the securities and that they only they get into ARS if this type of investment is suitable for their financial goals and the realities of their finances.

Oppenheimer settles with Massachusetts, NY, Boston, February 24, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge

Published on: December 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A US judge has denied Citigroup’s request that the $54.1M Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration award issued to investors that sustained losses in municipal bond funds be overturned. This is one of the largest securities arbitration awards that a broker-dealer has been ordered to pay individual investors. Brush Creek Capital, retired lawyer Gerald D. Hosier, and investor Jerry Murdock Jr. are the award’s recipients. However, these Claimants are not the only investors to come forward contending that they were told the funds were suitable for investors that wanted to preserve their capital.

The investor losses were related to several leveraged municipal bond arbitrage funds that saw their value significantly drop between 2007 and 2008. Citigroup Global Markets had sold the municipal bond funds through MAT Finance LLC. Proceeds were invested in longer-term muni bunds while borrowing took place at low, short-term rates. The strategy proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in investors losing up to 80% of their money.

According to The Wall Street Journal, when it issued its ruling the arbitration panel appeared to reject three defenses that financial firms usually make:

• The financial crisis, and not the financial firm, is to blame for the losses.
• Sophisticated, rich investors should have known what risks were involved.
• The prospectus had warned in advance that investors could lose everything.

The Claimants alleged fraud, failure to supervise, and unsuitability. They had sought no less than $48 million in compensatory damages, fees, lost-opportunity costs, commission, lawyers’ fees, and interest.

The FINRA arbitration panel awarded $21.6 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Hosier, $3.9 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Murdock, Jr, and $8.4 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Brush Creek Capital LLC.

All Claimants were also awarded $3 million in lawyers’ fees, $17 million in punitive damages, $33,500 in expert witness fees, $13,168 in court reporter expenses, and $600 for the Claimant’s filing fee.

Following the FINRA ruling, Citigroup contended that the arbitration panel had ignored the law when arriving at the award. The brokerage firm also claimed that investors could not have depended on verbal statements that the financial firm had expressed about purchases because the clients had acknowledged through signed agreements that they could lose everything they invested. By denying Citigroup’s request to throw out the arbitration award, Judge Christine Arguello, however, said that the court found Citigroup’s “argument wholly unpersuasive.”

A Crack in Wall Street’s Defenses, New York Times, April 24, 2011

Citigroup Slammed With $54 Million Award by FINRA Arbitrators in MAT / ASTA Case, Municipal Bond, April 12, 2011

Citigroup loses suit to overturn $54-million ruling, Reuters, December 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Well Fargo Advisers to Pay $2 Million to Settle Claims that Broker Sold Unsuitable Reverse Convertible Securities to Seniors

Published on: December 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority securities fraud allegations against one of its brokers, Wells Fargo Advisers will pay a $2M fine, as well as repay an unspecified amount to elderly clients that were defrauded. Over 21 senior investors were reportedly targeted by Alfred Chi Chen, who sold them reverse convertible notes even though the majority of them were retired and/or had never invested in this type of complex instrument. A number of investors were in their 80’s and 90’s.

FINRA says that Chen made over $1M in commissions even as the investors sustained losses. He also is accused of not giving discounts on Unit Investment Trust (UIT) transactions even when clients were eligible. As part of its settlement, Wells Fargo will pay restitution to those that should have but did not get the discounts and those that were sold unsuitable investments.

FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett said that Wells Fargo did not review the reverse convertible transactions to make sure that they were suitable and that investors were harmed as a result. The SRO also determined that Wells Fargo did not give certain clients that were eligible breakpoint and rollover and exchange discounts when they bought UITs because the financial firm’s procedures and systems were not sufficient to properly monitor unsuitable reverse convertibles and ensure that clients got the discounts for which they were eligible. (Discounts should be offered on UIT sales when purchases go beyond certain thresholds or involve termination or redemption proceeds from another UIT during the initial offering period.)

By agreeing to settle, Wells Fargo is not admitting to or denying FINRA’s allegations.

The SRO has filed a separate complaint against Chen, who allegedly exposed clients to risks that were not in line with their investment profiles. As of June 2008, 172 of the accounts he worked with held reverse convertibles. 148 accounts had concentrations over the 50% of their total holdings. 46 accounts had concentrations of over 90%.

Reverse Convertibles
These interest-bearing notes involve repayment of principal connected to an underlying asset’s performance. The specific terms of reverse convertibles may vary. An investor risks loss if the underlying asset’s value drops under a certain maturity level or during the reverse convertible’s term.

It is important for many elderly investors that their investments not expose them to too much risk. For an elderly senior to lose his/her life savings because a financial firm or broker behaved irresponsibly, committed securities fraud, or made an avoidable mistake is unacceptable.

Wells to pay $2M to settle claims broker sold unsuitable investments to seniors, Investment News, December 15, 2011
Wells Fargo Fined by Finra Selling Structured Notes to Aged, Bloomberg, December 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 28, 2011
RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010
Wells Fargo Settles for $148M Municipal Bond Bid-Rigging Charges Against Wachovia Bank, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, December 8, 2011 Continue Reading ›