Articles Posted in Yield Enhancement Strategy

Francis Amsler and Marc Lobarde Were the UBS Financial Brokers of Record

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel has awarded a Houston, Texas, couple $3.9 million in their claim against UBS Financial Services (UBS). The couple alleged losses from the firm’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES). 

Now, UBS must pay these former YES investors almost $4 million to compensate the investors for their losses. This includes $2.9 million in compensatory damages and approximately $1 million in legal fees and other costs.

YES Claimants’ FINRA Arbitration Case Alleged Misrepresentations and Negligence

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel has awarded two investors $1.2M (plus 6% interest from June 28, 2019, through March 7, 2022) over losses they sustained in the UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy (UBS YES). This options overlay strategy, also known as the iron condor strategy, is exclusive to UBS. 

The claimants contend that UBS YES was misrepresented and not in line with their investment goals and risk tolerance level. They accused the broker-dealer of fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitability, and other violations. 

FINRA Arbitration Ruling Grants Largest UBS YES Award to Date  

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel has awarded a deceased investor’s family trusts $1.857M in their securities case against UBS Financial. The broker-dealer had involved the late Irving Siegel’s QTIP Trust and generation-skipping transfer trust in its UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy. This is the largest award to claimants over UBS YES losses to date. 

Siegel passed away in 2013. He left the trusts for his family. The trusts accused the broker-dealer of misrepresentation, negligence, and fraud in their investor claim. A FINRA arbitration panel in Boca Raton, Florida, awarded Siegel’s QTIP trust $1.171M and his generation-skipping trust $517K. The rest of the award was for prejudgment interest and other fees. 

UBS Financial Services is Also a Defendant in New Class Action Lawsuit

If you are a UBS Financial Services customer who invested in the firm’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (UBS YES) at the recommendation of New York financial advisor, William Montgomery Cerf, you are not alone.

According to BrokerCheck, William Cerf is named in six pending customer disputes. The claimants are collectively requesting $16.5M in damages. He is also one among many UBS brokers who marketed and sold UBS YES as a low-risk way to generate modest income. This options overlay strategy has ended up costing wealthy investors millions of dollars.

Claimants Are Seeking Over $4M in Damages Over UBS YES Strategy

If you suffered investment losses while working with UBS Financial Services broker and investment advisor Roderick K. Von Lipsey, you may have grounds for filing a FINRA arbitration claim to recover damages. 

In the last 2.5 years, between September 2019 and January 2022, the Washington DC financial advisor has been named in four pending customer disputes over alleged losses sustained in the UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy (UBS YES).

YES Strategy Investors Suffer Losses, Say Risks Were Misrepresented

Another Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration claim has been filed against UBS Financial for losses sustained in its Yield Enhancement Strategy. The claimants contend that their financial advisors at the broker-dealer unsuitably recommended this iron condor strategy that was misrepresented to them as low risk. 

The investors say that they worked with UBS brokers Brian Jay Donaldson and Frank Frederick Baldwin. According to BrokerCheck, this is Baldwin’s first customer dispute and Donaldson’s second. The first one involving Donaldson is also over UBS YES losses with that claimant seeking $600K in damages.

FINRA Arbitration Panels Award Damages To UBS YES Claimants

Two Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) panels have ordered UBS Wealth Management (UBS) to pay investors over $1.1 million for losses they sustained from the firm’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES). 

This complex options trading strategy that promised investors stable, incremental returns has cost wealthy UBS customers significant losses. Many of them are now contending that misrepresentations and omissions were made about the degree of risk involved. Additionally, these investments were unsuitable for their investment accounts. 

$400K UBS YES FINRA Arbitration Awarded to Investors in Baltimore, Maryland  

In one of the first in-person arbitration in the last 18 months, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel has awarded two investors $405K in their UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy claim against UBS Financial (UBS).  

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas (SSEK Law Firm at investorlawyers.com) represented these UBS YES strategy investors in their FINRA arbitration case, which was heard in Baltimore, Maryland. 

FINRA Panel’s Ruling is UBS Financial’s Third Loss Involving Yield Enhancement Strategy

In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration ruling, UBS Financial Services (UBS) must pay an Ohio couple $371K for financial losses they sustained from the brokerage firm’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES). 

This is the third UBS Yes Strategy arbitration claim that the broker-dealer has lost, including one award for $1M to two Denver investors this year. The first award against UBS over its Yield Enhancement Strategy, for $90K, was granted to an investor in December. 

Florida Arbitration Panel Refuses To Expunge Advisors’ Record of Options Overlay Case

In December, a  Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel in Boca Raton, Florida awarded a UBS Wealth management client and retiree $89,675 in his UBS Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES) claim over significant losses he sustained in the brokerage firm’s options overlay strategy. 

The award was for his unsuitability claim against UBS Financial Services. He also alleged negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, omissions, failure to supervise, and breach of contract.

Contact Information