Investment Advisers

Investor Fraud: Alleged $100M Future Income Payments Fraud, Capital Investment Group to Pay One Elderly Investor $400K, and Tech Fund Adviser is Now Facing Fraud Charges

Published on: August 24, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Over 1000 Investors May Be Victims of Alleged Future Income Payments Fraud

Dozens of stockbrokers, financial planners, financial advisers, and insurance agents are now the defendants of investor fraud lawsuits over an alleged $100M scam that may have bilked over 1000 investors. Many of these investors were retirees, which means that elder investor fraud may have been involved.

InvestmentNews reports that according to the plaintiffs, the advisers breached their fiduciary obligation and were negligent when they sold them structured cash flows offered by Future Income Payments, LLC. At least 370 investment intermediaries in the US are believed to have sold these investments to investors, with the representatives receiving 6-10% in commissions upfront.

Ex-Wells Fargo Advisors Claim Bank Pressured Them to Sell Products That Charged Higher Fees to High-Net Worth Investors

Published on: August 23, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Yahoo Finance, a number of Wells Fargo (WFC) advisors who used to work for the Private Bank’s wealth management unit are claiming that the firm pushed them to place client funds in investments that charged higher fees to clients. The ex-bank employees contend that they were pressured to cross-sell products and bill clients for fees that they would not have had to pay otherwise.

Yahoo Finance reported that there are internal company documents verifying the former employees’ claims. The media outlet said that it conducted interviews with a number of these former advisors.

The ex-Wells Fargo advisors were reportedly encouraged to place clients’ funds in complex products and separately managed accounts. The advisors claim that they were told that if they did not meet sales quotas for certain products, their compensation would suffer.

Chicago Investment Adviser Daniel Glick Is Sentenced For Senior Investor Fraud

Published on: April 23, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Daniel Glick, a Chicago-Based investment adviser who bilked clients, including older investors, of $5.2M, has been sentenced to 151 months in prison. He also has to pay $5.2M in restitution. Glick’s Ponzi-like fraud took place between 2011 and 2016.

Glick, who is the owner of Glick Accounting Services Inc., Financial Management Strategies Inc., and Glick & Associates Ltd., pleaded guilty earlier this year to wire fraud. He told clients that not only would he invest their funds but also that he would pay their bills for them. He sent them account statements that were “false and misleading.”

Glick’s own family, including his wife’s parents, were among his victims. He defrauded them of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another family paid him $700K in fees while he misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars. Clients’ funds were also used to pay two business associates.

SEC Proposes “Regulation Best Interests” that Would Prevent Brokers from Merely Calling Themselves Investment Adviser

Published on: April 20, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing a rule that would keep registered representatives and brokers from also referring to themselves as investment advisors. In almost 1,000 pages of new proposals, the regulator articulated that it wants brokerage firms to make sure that the investing public knows that while brokers can sell investment products they are not trusted fiduciary advisors—nor is it their role to continue to offer advice after a sale has been made. Under the proposed rule, brokers would no longer be allowed to call themselves a trusted “advisor” or “adviser.” They can, however, take steps to become a registered investment adviser.

Addressing the proposed package, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said that “investor confusion” about what differentiates broker-dealers from investment advisers is what prompted these latest initiatives. While both can give retail investors advice regarding possible investments, the two have different kinds of relationships with them. Clayton also noted that retail investors can suffer harm if they don’t know that certain conflicts of interest may be involved when working with either broker-dealers or investment advisers. Investors also may be giving more authority over their finances to a broker or investment adviser than they should.

In a 4-1 vote this week, the SEC’s ”Regulation Best Interests” measures for brokers was moved forward. Under the new measures, brokers would be obligated to place clients’ best interests before their own when it comes to recommending investment strategies or products. Brokers would have to set up and enforce written procedures and polices that would identify, expose, get rid of, or avoid conflicts of interest that might involve a financial incentive. While the existing broker standard requires that they recommend investment products that are suitable to each client, brokers are still allowed to endorse the products that gives them the greater financial payday.

Investigation Underway of Asset Management Fund’s (“AMF”) Ultra Short Fund (AULTX) and the Role of Shay Asset Management

Published on: March 15, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

When investors placed funds in The Ultra Short Fund (Nasdaq: AULTX), managed by The Asset Management Fund (“AMF”), they believed their funds were safely on the sidelines in a money market alternative. Later surprised by substantial losses in this fund, many now seek legal representation.

On its website, AMF describes itself as a no-load mutual fund complex managed by Shay Assets Management, Inc., a privately-held investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The AMF Funds are distributed by Shay Financial Services, Inc., a member of FINRA and SIPC. Shay Asset Management’s corporate headquarters are located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Ultra Short Fund’s objective is listed as “current income with a very low degree of share-price fluctuation.” However, the fund has declined more than 15% year to date. For investors seeking modest income and very low degree of price fluctuation, such losses are unacceptable, said Kirk G. Smith, a partner of the law firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP (SSEK).

Investor Fraud: Strong Investment Management Faces Allegations of Cherry Picking, a $2.5M Financial Scam Leads to Convictions, and a Former Investment Adviser Is Sentenced to Serve Prison Time

Published on: February 22, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Accused Investment Adviser of Profiting from Cherry Picking

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil fraud case against Strong Investment Management, which is a California-based investment adviser, and its president/owner Joseph B. Bronson. The regulator is accusing them of running a cherry picking scam that defrauded the firm’s clients.

The Commission contends that Bronson used Strong’s omnibus account to trade securities but would wait to see how they performed during the day before distributing them to certain client accounts. Meantime, Bronson purportedly made healthy profits at cost to clients by cherry picking the trades. He is accused of giving himself trades that were profitable while sending unprofitable ones to firm clients.

The SEC’s complaint contends that in Forms ADV, Bronson and Strong misrepresented trading and allocation practices by falsely stating that every trade would be allocated according to the terms of pre-trade allocation statements with no preference granted to any account. Bronson’s brother, ex-Strong chief compliance officer John B. Engebreston, is accused of not fulfilling his job by failing to make sure that Strong’s policies and procedures for trade allocation were followed. He also is accused of “repeatedly” ignoring “red flags” when it came to Strong’s allocation practices.

Securities Cases: Massachusetts Accuses Scottrade of Running Sales Contests and Targeting Retirees, Wife of Investment Adviser Must Pay $500K in Fraud Case, and Hedge Fund Manager and His Firms Are Ordered to Pay Almost $30M for Diverting Investor Money

Published on: February 21, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Scottrade is Accused of Improper Sales Practices Involving Retirement Accounts

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin has filed a complaint against Scottrade accusing the brokerage firm of engaging in improper sales practices that it knew violated the US Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule regarding impartial conduct standards. Under the rule, advisors and their firms are obligated to act in a fiduciary capacity when making investment recommendations, as well as act in their clients’ best interests.

In his complaint, Galvin is contending that Scottrade employed a culture that includes “aggressive sales patterns,” and that the firm and its agents failed to abide by its duty to Massachusetts retirees between 12/2015 and 6/2016 when it ran a number of national call nights that included the incentive of raffle tickets for those who cold called customers. Scottrade also conducted quarterly sales contests offering at least $490K in prizes. This included the “Q3 Win and Retain Sales Contest “that offered $285K and paid out $2500/agent to the top 25 branches according to percentage increase in new net assets brought in.

Massachusetts Securities Regulator Charges Investment Advisor with Defrauding Investors, including Seniors, in 26-Year-Long $1M Real Estate Scam

Published on: February 15, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin has filed charges against investment adviser Thomas Riquier for allegedly defrauding investors of at least $1M in a real estate scam that has gone on for more than a quarter of a century. According to the administrative complaint, Riquier solicited funds from people, mostly older investors (some of them his firm’s clients), to buy property that was then to be sold at a profit. His employer, United Planners Financial Services of America, is charged with failure to supervise.

In its investment adviser fraud case, the regulator claims that investors’ money was used instead to buy property already belonging to Riquier. The property has yet to be improved or sold. It has not rendered any returns for investors. The state regulator notes that because the alleged scam has been going on for so long—26 years—a number of investors have passed away. The rest of them have yet to make money from the venture.

Riquier is also accused of soliciting over $830K in private loans from clients. Galvin said that this violates federal and state laws.

US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge Against SEC Over In-House Judges

Published on: January 12, 2018 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of an investment adviser who is challenging the liability findings against him in a securities fraud case presided over by a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative law judge. Raymond Lucia, also a former radio host, was accused of misleading prospective investors about his “Buckets of Money” investment strategy by claiming the methodology he used was back-tested when that was not the case. This created a false sense of security especially among retirees who were told that their money would grow.

An SEC ALJ found him liable for fraud, including that he violated the Investment Advisers Act. Lucia was not only barred from the securities industry but also ordered to pay a $300K fine. He appealed the ruling.

Lucia also questioned whether it was constitutional for the SEC to hire administrative law judges and if they should instead be appointed rather than brought in through human resources. In 2016, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned down Lucia’s appeal, finding that contrary to his contention, SEC judges are not officers with the power to make decisions but are, in fact, employees. Also, the Commission has to approve their rulings.

Securities Fraud: FINRA Bars Two Ex-Wells Fargo Brokers Over Unsuitable Securities Sales, Pennsylvania-Registered Representative is Accused of $2.35M Ponzi Scam, and Digital Display Ad Company Allegedly Stole Over $2M from Retail Investors

Published on: December 13, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Wells Fargo Brokers Barred Over Unsuitable Energy Securities Sales
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has barred brokers Charles Lynch and Charles Frieda for making unsuitable recommendations to investors, resulting in substantial financial losses to the latter. Lynch and Frieda are former Wells Fargo (WFC) representatives who were based in Southern California. Both Lynch and Frida were fired from the firm. Previous to working at Wells Fargo, both men worked at Citigroup (C) and Morgan Stanley (MS).

According to the self-regulatory organization, between 11/12 and 10/15, the former brokers recommended an investment strategy revolving around certain speculative energy stocks to over 50 customers. These securities were volatile. Because investors became very concentrated in these energy securities, they were placed at risk of substantial losses.

FINRA contends that the two brokers did not do a proper job of making sure these investments were suitable for the customers to whom they were recommending these securities.