Articles Posted in FINRA

FINRA Wants Brokers Selling Regulation D Private Placements to Take Part in Tougher Due Diligence Process

Published on: June 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is calling on broker-dealers that sell high-risk Regulation D private placements to step up their due diligence efforts, including “pushing and pulling” for information about the financial products. FINRA chief executive and chairman Robert Ketchum says that although granted, levels of due diligence will not be the same for each deal, broker-dealers still need to play an active role when examining a Reg D offering.

Due diligence related to the sale of private placements has become a focus of attention since the Provide Royalties LLC and Medical Capital Holdings Inc. deals collapsed and the Securities and Exchange Commission charged them with fraud. With both deals, many of the broker-dealers that sold them depended on third-party firms to write the due diligence reports about the offerings. Yet, despite not doing any due diligence of their own, these broker-dealers still received a 1% “due-diligence fee” as part of the sale.

Ketchum says that attending a “canned information session” or just reading a document is not enough when part of one’s job is to actively sell or offer advice about private placements. He even suggested that in certain instances, such as when selling gas and oil well partnerships, broker-dealers should visit some of the key production areas.

Regulation D Private Placements
Regulation D Private Placements are usually sold to “accredited” investors” and a limited number of non-accredited investors. In addition to investigating Regulation D private placements before selling them, a broker-dealer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the investment is suitable for each customer and that each client fully comprehends the risks involved in investing.

Related Web Resources:
Finra’s Ketchum: B-Ds must ‘push and pull’ for Reg D details, Investment News, June 8, 2011
FINRA Sets Regulatory Guidance for Investigating Private Placements, FINRA, April 20, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Ameriprise to Sell Securities America Even as it Finalizes Securities Settlement with Investors of Medical Capital Holdings and Provident Royalties Private Placements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 26, 2011
Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 26, 2009 Continue Reading ›

District Court Wants to Know Why FINRA Arbitration Panel Denied Freecharm Ltd.’s Securities Fraud Claim Against One Atlas Financial Group LLC

Published on: May 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is asking why a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel denied Freecharm Ltd.’s breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims against Atlas One Financial Group LLC. Cooke wants to know about the panel’s reasoning so it can make a ruling regarding the parties’ conflicting motions to modify, confirm, or vacate the award.

The court says that, Freecharm Ltd. began arbitration proceedings against associated entity Atlas One Financial Group LLC and three individuals in 2009. Freecharm accused Atlas of committing Florida statutory violations, breach of fiduciary, fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoings linked to the alleged excessive and/or unauthorized trading in a number of securities accounts.

After the FINRA panel entered an award denying Freecharm’s claims “in their entirety,” Freecharm then submitted a motion to modify or vacate, while Atlas put forward its own motion to have the award confirmed.

Freecharm is claiming that the panel went beyond its powers, exhibited partiality, ignored the law and the facts, and was prejudiced in refusing to see that Atlas allegedly concealed discovery documents. Freecharm is also challenging the credibility of certain witness testimony and discovery documents.

Although the district court has acknowledged that the FINRA panel’s decision deserves “considerable deference,” it also has found that in this instance the award does not “expressly state” the reason Freecharm’s claims were entirely denied. The court says that it needs more information so it can identify the possible evidence for the panel’s logic, as well as determine what principal of law the arbitrators allegedly disregarded. District courts are authorized to remand a case to an arbitration panel for the purpose of getting clarification about the panel’s intent when “in making an award evidences a manifest disregard of the law.”

Related Web Resources:
In Weighing Motion to Confirm, Court Asks Arbitrators to Clarify Basis of Award, Alacra Store, May 25, 2011 Atlas One Financial Group, LLC et al v. Freecharm Limited, Justia Dockets

More Blog Posts:
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011
SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 12, 2011
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 1, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Court Refuses McGinn Smith & Co. Owners’s Request that It Stay the FINRA Disciplinary Proceedings Until The Related SEC Civil Action Against Them Ends

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

A district court has denied the bids of Timothy McGinn and David Smith that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority disciplinary proceedings against them be stayed until after the conclusion of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s related civil action. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over this stay request. While noting that the judicial review of this type of FINRA proceeding is vested in the federal courts of appeal, the district court said that it did not believe that transfer, rather than dismissal, was “in the interest of justice” because the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their claim’s merit and had not shown that they would be irreparably harmed because of the FINRA proceedings.

McGinn and Smith are part owners of McGinn Smith & Co, Inc., as well as stockbrokers. Last year, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement submitted a complaint accusing them and their firm of taking part in four fraudulent securities offerings between September 2003 and November 2006. FINRA asked the SEC to look into the matter because it believed that the plaintiffs had violated securities law.

The SEC began its own formal probe and went on to sue the plaintiffs and their securities firm for securities fraud and other violations. A receiver was appointed by the federal court to seize control of McGinn Smith & Co. and its assets.

While a FINRA officer did stay proceedings against the financial firm, it refused to do so against the two men, who then filed their case requesting that the court stay the FINRA proceedings until the SEC case has concluded. The plaintiffs believe that the SRO violated their constitutional rights when it acted as a proxy for the SEC.

SEC seeks shutdown of McGinn and Smith venture, TimesUnion.com, November 4, 2010

More Blog Posts:

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 12, 2011

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery

Published on: May 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is fining Wells Fargo Advisors LLC $1 million over the allegations that the financial firm did not deliver mutual fund prospectuses within the three days (as required by federal securities laws) and delays in the updating of material information about former and current representatives. Wells Fargo has agreed to the fine.

Per FINRA, about 934,000 clients who bought mutual funds two years ago were affected when Wells Fargo did not deliver prospectuses within three days of the transactions. Prospectuses were given to clients anywhere from one to 153 days late. The SRO contends that even after a 3rd provider notified the broker-dealer about the delay, Wells Fargo allegedly did not take corrective action to remedy the problem.

FINRA also says that the financial firm did not abide by the SRO’s rules when it wasn’t prompt in reporting required information about its representatives, both past and present. Securities firms must make sure that the information on their representatives’ applications for registration on Forms U4 are current in FINRA’s CRD (Central Registration Depository). Termination notices, known as Forms U5, must also be updated. Financial firms have 30 days from finding out about a “significant event” to update the forms. Examples of such events are customer complaints, formal investigations, or an arbitration claim against a representative. FINRA says that Wells Fargo did not update 7.6% of its Forms U5 and about 8% of its Forms U4 between 7/1/08 and 6/30/09. This resulted in almost 190 late amendments.

By agreeing to settle, Wells Fargo is not denying or admitting to the securities charges. The broker-dealer has, however, consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Wells Fargo Advisors $1 Million for Delays in Delivering Prospectuses to More Than 900,000 Customers, FINRA, May 5, 2011
FINRA fines Wells Fargo $1M for prospectus delays, Forbes/AP, May 5, 2011
CRD, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
AG Edwards & Sons (Wells Fargo Advisors) to Settle Securities Charges it Sold Variable Annuities that Lacked Proper Documentation to Elderly Client, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 4, 2011
Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011
Wells Fargo to Pay $30M in Compensatory Damages to Four Nonprofits for Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 30, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses

Published on: April 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In what is being called the largest award that a major Wall Street broker-dealer has been ordered to pay individual investors, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered Citigroup to pay $54.1 million to investors Suzanne Barlyn and Randall Smith over investment losses they sustained on high risk municipal bond funds that lost 77% of their value during the financial crisis.

Richard Zinman, formerly of Citi’s Smith Barney unit, was the broker for Murdock, a venture capital investor, and Hosier, a retired patent lawyer. Zinman left Citi soon after the funds blew up. During the arbitration hearing, he testified on behalf of the two men, saying that Citi did not tell its brokers how risky and volatile the funds in fact were. Zinman now works for Credit Suisse Group.

Citigroup has been under fire for awhile now over its municipal bond funds. Geared towards wealthier clients, investments were a minimum of $500,000. The bond funds were supposed to deliver returns a few percentage points above that of municipal bonds by borrowing up to $7 for every $1 invested. The proceeds were placed in mortgage debt and municipal bonds. Unfortunately, the municipal bond funds’ value dropped when the mortgage market started to fail. After Citi brokers complained, however, the financial firm offered share buybacks that lowered investor losses to approximately 61%.

As part of this case, Citi must pay $17 million in punitive damages, $3 million in legal fees, and $21,600 for the hearing free expense, which is normally divided between the parties involved. Prior to this award, the largest one Citi was ordered to pay against a bond-fund claimant was $6.4 million.

Related Web Resource:
Citigroup Loses Muni Case, The Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2011
Muni bonds hit by more selling on default fears, Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011
Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 22, 2011
Federal Judge to Approve Citigroup’s $75M Securities Settlement with SEC Over Bank’s Subprime Mortgage Debt Reporting to Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 29, 2010 Continue Reading ›

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes

Published on: April 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining UBS Financial Services, Inc. $2.5 million and ordering it to pay $8.25 million in restitution for allegedly misleading investors about the “principal protection” feature of 100% Principal-Protection Notes. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. issued the PPNs Holdings Inc. before it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

FINRA contends that even as the credit crisis was getting worse, between March and June 2008 UBS advertised and described the notes as investments that were principal-protected while failing to make sure clients knew that they PPNs were unsecured obligations of Lehman and that the principal protection feature was subject to issuer credit risk. UBS also allegedly failed to:

• Properly notify its financial advisers of the impact the widening of credit default swaps was having on Lehman’s financial strength
• Sufficiently analyze how appropriate the Lehman-issued PPNs were for certain clients
• Set up a proper supervisory system for the sale of the Lehman-issued PPNs
• Provide proper training or appropriate written supervisory procedures and policies
• Provide adequate suitability procedures for determining who should invest

FINRA also says that UBS developed and used advertising collateral about the PPNs that misled certain clients, such as the suggestion that a return of principal was certain as long as clients held the product until it matured. FINRA claims that the reason that some UBS financial advisers gave incorrect information to customers was because they themselves didn’t fully understand the product.

FINRA says that because UBS’s suitability procedures were inadequate and certain PPN’s lacked risk profile requirements, the product was sold to investors who were not willing or shouldn’t have been allowed to take on the risks involved. More often than not it was these investors who were likely to depend on the Lehman PPNs’ “100% principal protection” feature that were “risk averse.”

By agreeing to settle, UBS is not denying or admitting to the charges.

UBS to shell out $10.75M to settle Lehman-related row, Investment News, April 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 5, 2010

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

FINRA Will Customize Oversight to Investment Adviser Industry if Chosen as Its SRO

Published on: April 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority CEO and Chairman Richard Ketchum says that if the SRO is chosen to regulate investment advisers, it will tailor its oversight to that industry. At a compliance conference run by the Financial Market Association and the Securities Industry last month, Ketchum said that advisers’ concerns that FINRA would not comprehend the IA model are “simply wrong.”

FINRA oversees some 4,560 brokerage firms. Ketchum says that the SRO would set up a separate affiliate that would supervise investment advisers, who would not be subject to the same rules as broker-dealers. He stressed the needs for more examinations to discourage securities fraud and check on compliance as two of the reasons why FINRA should become the regulatory agency over investment advisers.

Per a Securities and Exchange Commission study mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the agency’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations only examines about 9% of the investment adviser industry each year. On average, an adviser is examined by the SEC once every 11 years. The study offered recommendations:

• The creation of a new SRO for investment advisers
• Giving FINRA jurisdiction over investment advisers • Using user fees to fund the SEC’s exam program

Many investment advisers do not want FINRA to become their SRO and are pushing for lawmakers to increase SEC funding. Also opposing FINRA as the advisers’ SRO is the Investment Adviser Association, which alleges lack of accountability, transparency, and a bias toward the broker-dealer model.

Our investment fraud lawyers represent clients that have suffered financial losses because of investment adviser misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA: We Understand Investment Advisers, OnWallStreet, March 27, 2011
FINRA, if Empowered to Regulate Advisers, Will Tailor Oversight to Industry, Chair Says, BNA Broker/Dealer Compliance Report, March 30, 2011
FINRA

More Blog Posts:
SEC Needs to Keep a Closer Eye on FINRA, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2011
SROs Immune from Broker-Dealer’s Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes Related to Creation of FINRA, Says Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 7, 2011
FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 19, 2010
FINRA CEO Ketchum’s Speech, FINRA, March 22, 2011 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Panel Orders Wedbush Securities to Pay $233,000 in Securities Fraud Damages

Published on: March 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel says Wedbush Securities Incorporated must pay Karen E. Ray $233,000 in damages. Ray had accused the brokerage firm of numerous causes of action, including negligence, purposely negligent misrepresentations, and violating FINRA Rules of Fair Practices.

Rays case isn’t the first one against the broker-dealer. FINRA’s broker report on the financial firm noted that Wedbush has been at the center of a number of customer complaints and over 40 regulatory inquiries brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FINRA (previously NASD), the NYSE Division of Enforcement, as well as regulatory bodies in Colorado, Washington, New Jersey, Georgia, Idaho, and Oregon.

Among the allegations are those involving supervisory failures and market timing. The broker report also noted that Wedbush had received over 40 securities arbitration claims by customers alleging unsuitability, negligence, excessive margin, churning, misrepresentation, and/or breach of fiduciary duty. Their cases involved different kinds of securities, such as mutual funds, bonds, stocks, municipal securities, annuities, and options.

FINRA Wants Amerivet Securities Inc.’s Lawsuit Seeking to Inspect the SRO’s Records Dismissed

Published on: March 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority wants the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reverse the D.C. Superior Court’s decision to not dismiss Amerivet Securities Inc.’s lawsuit against the SRO. The broker-dealer wants to inspect FINRA’s records and books.

Amerivet Securities filed its complaint in August 2009 under the Delaware General Corporation Law’s Section 220, which lets a shareholder examine a company’s records and books for “any proper purpose.” The broker-dealer says it needs to inspect FINRA’s books and documents in order to expose the corporate wrongdoing related to the SRO’s 2008 investment losses and and allegedly inflated executive pay practices.

When our securities fraud attorneys covered this case more than a year ago, we noted that Amerivet had accused FINRA of failing to supervise and regulate a number of its larger member firms, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc., Bear Stearns and Co, and Stanford Financial Group. The broker-dealer also claimed that FINRA recklessly pursued high-risk investment strategies that were not appropriate for preserving capital. (Read our previous Stockbroker Fraud Blog post to find out more.) Last month, Judge John Mott ruled in favor of Amerivet and noted that pursuant to Section 220, the broker-dealer had asserted a proper purpose for wanting to make its inspection.

FINRA Chief Ketchum Says Securities Regulators Worried Whether Investors Betting on High-Yield Corporate Bonds Really Know What They Are Getting Into

Published on: March 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

At a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fixed income conference earlier this month, FINRA CEO and Chairman Rick Ketchum says securities regulators are questioning whether investors looking at risky investment, including high-yield corporate bonds, fully understand what they are getting into when they delve into the high-yield market. Last year, approximately $200 billion in high-yield debt were sold-a significant increase from the $49 billion that were sold in 2008. Also, during the first six weeks of 2010, about $6.7 billion in junk bond mutual funds were sold.

However, with all this activity in the past year, Ketchum says regulators are asking if registrants are fully familiar with the risks and complexities of the products they are selling and whether clients’ understand the risks involved. For example, he asked, “In a lower interest rate environment, are investors chasing yield, or being led to chase yield?”

As a result of such concerns, FINRA, for its compliance programs, is focusing on the areas of commodity-based exchange-traded funds, municipal securities, disclosure practices, and investor suitability. Ketchum says to expect several formal actions that will tackle “deficient procedures for disclosing material information” and other actions related to “failure to deliver official statements during the primary offering disclosure period” and insufficient “time-of-trade disclosures of material information.”

Ketchum also says that in addition to taking a closer look at municipal bond underwriters to ensure the fairness of new-issue pricing practices and fees, regulators will be checking for any inappropriate efforts by ratings agency officials to favorably affect how municipal securities issues are rated.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent clients who were inappropriately advised about where to put their funds and as a result sustained significant investment losses.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA

FINRA looks into muni-bond practices, Chicago Breaking Business News/Reuters, March 7, 2011 Continue Reading ›