Investor Lawyers Blog

Securities Fraud Cases: VFG Securities Settles With FINRA Over Nontraded REIT Sales, Massachusetts Seeks To Ban Trader and His Software Company, and Utah Man Who Bilked Over 5,700 in $25M Fraud Gets Prison Sentence

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Broker-Dealer Owner and His Firm Settle SEC Case Alleging Overconcentration of Investor Money In Illiquid Investments

Jason Vanclef and his brokerage firm VFG Securities Inc. have settled the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s case accusing them of not adequately supervising their brokers so that clients’ portfolios did not end up concentrated in illiquid investments. Vanclef and VFG Securities, however, are not denying or admitting to the claims made in the complaint.

According to FINRA, from 11/2010 to 6/2012, nearly 95% of the broker-dealer’s revenue came from direct participation programs (DPP) and nontraded real estate investment trusts (nontraded REIT) sales. The illiquid investments were sold retail customers.

FINRA claimed that Vanclef had used “The Wealth Code,” which was the book that he authored, as a sales tool to promote investing in DPPs and nontraded REITs and to attract potential investors. The settlement with the regulator notes that in the book Vanclef repeatedly touted both types of illiquid investments as offering capital preservation and better returns—claims that FINRA said are “inaccurate and misleading” and conflict with information that the firm offered in prospectuses for the nontraded REITs and DPPs.

Tutor Perini’s $50M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Revived

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has resuscitated Tutor Perini Corp.’s (TPC) securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC). Circuit Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson said that a district court judge made a mistake when tossing the Massachusetts and federal securities claims accusing the bank of selling the construction company millions of dollars in auction-rate securities that it knew were about to fail.

Tutor Perini, which is estimating over $50M plus interest in losses, claims that Bank of America persuaded it to purchase auction-rate securities (ARS) prior to the financial crisis, toward the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008, even though it knew that the securities were on the brink of becoming illiquid. It was in February 2008 that the dealer stopped supporting the $330B ARS market, leaving investors with debt that was illiquid—debt that they had been reassured time and again was liquid, like cash. Instead, investors were unable to access their funds.

In 2015, the district court judge dismissed Tutor Perini’s ARS fraud case, noting that Bank of America did not have the “duty” to reveal every fact about the risks involved to the construction company and that the bank had, in fact, already made a number of disclosures. Judge Thompson, however, said that because the auction-rate securities market was failing, this might have meant that Bank of America now had the duty to warn about the new risks, including those involving its earlier recommendations. Thompson noted that a jury could very well find that as the bank had sought to protect itself from the ARS market, it pushed the construction company toward greater exposure.

Edward Jones is Sued Over 401(K) Excessive Fees—Again

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Another group of plaintiffs is suing Edward Jones, accusing the firm of charging excessive fees and self-dealing in its 401(K) Plan. In the complaint, the brokerage firm and a number of its employees, including managing partner James Weddle and financial adviser Brett Bayston, are accused of breach of fiduciary duty related to their decision to choose costlier mutual funds when there were less expensive, equivalent funds available. Edwards Jones and its employees are also accused of choosing an “unreasonable” amount of risky investment choices and engaging in self-dealing.

The purported self-dealing allegedly occurred through its distribution deals with a number of fund companies, including Franklin Templeton Investments, American Funds, BlackRock (BLK), and Goldman Sachs (GS). The plaintiffs claim that the fund companies paid Edward Jones revenue-sharing fees for access to its “captive market,” which included 401(K) participants, and “shelf space” in its brokerage business that targeted retail investors. As part of the distribution relationship, Edward Jones offered the fund companies’ investment options in its Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(K) Plan.

The plaintiffs believe that these distribution relationships affected the decisions made by the fiduciaries and ended up costing participants millions of dollars in excessive fees. An Edward Jones spokesperson says that the allegations are false and that the broker-dealer would mount a “vigorous defense.”

Edward Jones is Sued Over 401(K) Excessive Fees—Again

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Another group of plaintiffs is suing Edward Jones, accusing the firm of charging excessive fees and self-dealing in its 401(K) Plan. In the complaint, the brokerage firm and a number of its employees, including managing partner James Weddle and financial adviser Brett Bayston, are accused of breach of fiduciary duty related to their decision to choose costlier mutual funds when there were less expensive, equivalent funds available. Edwards Jones and its employees are also accused of choosing an “unreasonable” amount of risky investment choices and engaging in self-dealing.

The purported self-dealing allegedly occurred through its distribution deals with a number of fund companies, including Franklin Templeton Investments, American Funds, BlackRock (BLK), and Goldman Sachs (GS). The plaintiffs claim that the fund companies paid Edward Jones revenue-sharing fees for access to its “captive market,” which included 401(K) participants, and “shelf space” in its brokerage business that targeted retail investors. As part of the distribution relationship, Edward Jones offered the fund companies’ investment options in its Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(K) Plan.

The plaintiffs believe that these distribution relationships affected the decisions made by the fiduciaries and ended up costing participants millions of dollars in excessive fees. An Edward Jones spokesperson says that the allegations are false and that the broker-dealer would mount a “vigorous defense.”

FINRA Orders Oppenheimer to Pay $3.4M Penalty For Alleged Reporting Failures and Not Giving Discounts to Mutual Fund Clients

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) must pay $3.4M in sanctions. According to the regulator, for eight years the firm was about four years late when submitting 365 filings about disciplinary actions that it brought against its brokers and in arbitration and litigation settlements. FINRA is also accusing Oppenheimer of not giving seven claimants the documentation they needed in their arbitration against Mark Hotton, an ex-registered representative, and of overcharging 825 customers more than $1M collectively for mutual fund shares over a six-year period.

The self-regulatory organization claims that the late filings to FINRA took place between 2008 and 2016 and that Oppenheimer failed to provide claimants the documentation related to the Mark Hotton allegations between 2010 and 2013. The failure to apply the appropriate fee waiver discount for mutual fund shares purportedly occurred between 2009 and 2015.

Already, Oppenheimer has paid over $6M to settle customer disputes alleging inadequate supervision of Hotton and another $1.25M to 22 customers who did not file arbitration cases but suffered losses, too. Oppenheimer also was ordered to pay a $2.5M fine to FINRA last year over the Hotton claims. The former broker, whom FINRA permanently barred from the securities industry three years ago, was sentenced sentenced to 11 years in prison for stealing client monies and excessively trading their brokerage accounts.

JPMorgan Chase Agrees to Pay Over $264M to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle civil and criminal charges alleging violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) will pay more than $264M: $130M to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, $72M to the U.S. Department of Justice, and $61.9M to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The settlements come following a probe that went on for several years into the bank’s hiring practices in Asia.

As part of the agreement, JPMorgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (JPMorgan APAC) admitted that it established the “Sons and Daughters” referral program in 2006 to give preference to job candidates with ties to upcoming client deals. According to authorities, the bank hired 100 interns and full-time employees because foreign officials referred them. Some of these referrals were relatives of these officials. In order to be hired, a candidate had to have direct ties with a “business opportunity.” The Justice Department has called the program “bribery.”

The DOJ’s release reports that among the admissions made related to the resolution was that in 2009, a Chinese government official told a senior JPMorgan APAC banker that if a certain referred candidate were hired this would “significantly influence” the role the bank would have in an upcoming IPO for a company owned by the Chinese state. The banker notified senior colleagues, who spent several months attempting to bring the candidate into an investment banking position in New York. Even though this referred candidate did not have the qualifications for the job, senior JPMorgan APAC bankers created a position for this individual, and the bank was granted a lead role in the initial public offering. JPMorgan APAC also admitted that referred candidates were given the same salary and titles as entry-level investment bankers even though their tasks were “ancillary,” such as proofreading.

Broker Fraud Cases: Former Newbridge Securities Broker Pleads Guilty in $131 Market Manipulation Scheme and FINRA Bars LPL Financial Broker for Depositing Client Funds Into His Own Account, and Lincoln Financial Securities is Fined $650K for Not Protecting Client Information

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Newbridge Securities Broker Involved in $131M Fraud Pleads Guilty
Gerald Cocuzzo, has pleaded guilty to securities fraud related to his involvement in a $131M market manipulation scam involving Forcefield Energy Inc. (FNRG). According to the U.S. Justice Department, between 1/2009 and 4/2015, Cocuzzo and others sought to bilk investors in the publicly traded company that globally distributes and provides LED lighting products. They did this by artificially manipulating the volume and price of the shares that were traded.

Meantime, Cocuzzo received kickbacks for buying Forcefield stock in his clients’ brokerage accounts. He did not tell the customers that he was receiving these payments. Instead, he and several others sought to hide their involvement.

Newbridge Securities fired Cocuzzo earlier this year following the federal indictment. Before working at Newbridge, he was registered with IAA Financial, previously called CBG Financial Group Inc.

Securities Fraud: CFP Board Suspends California Investment Adviser for Bilking Professional Athletes, SEC Orders Israeli-Based Firm to Pay $1.7M for Misleading Investors About Binary Options, and Ex-Movie Producer is Accused of Bilking Hedge Fund Investors

Published on: November 16, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Investment Adviser Who Bilked Pro Athletes Gets CFP Board Suspension
The Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards has issued a temporary suspension against Ash Narayan. The California-based investment adviser is accused of bilking professional athletes of millions of dollars.

Narayan was recently named in a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint. In June, the regulator accused him of misrepresenting his professional qualifications and misappropriating client monies when he allegedly siphoned funds from investors’ accounts and invested the money in Ticket Reserve, a flailing online sports and entertainment ticket business.

Narayan is accused of moving $33M of investor funds to the company and did not tell the athletes that he was a member of Ticket Reserve’s board, owned stock in the company, and was paid a $2M in finder’s fees for making the investments. The CFP Board called the investments “unsuitable” and not in line with clients’ objectives. The board also noted that some of the investments were made without client consent or knowledge.

SEC Awards Whistleblower $20M

Published on: November 16, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In its third highest award to a tipster since the inception of its whistleblower program, the Securities and Exchange Commission has awarded an individual $20M for coming forward right away to disclose “valuable information” that allowed the regulator to swiftly bring an enforcement action against the wrongdoers before they could spend the funds. This latest award ups the total awarded by the SEC to whistleblowers to $130M since 2012. The regulator issued its highest award to date, of $30M, in 2014 and awarded another whistleblower $22M in August.

The SEC Whistleblower Program allows the regulator to award the person who provided the tip 10-30% of monetary sanctions collected. The sanctions, however, must exceed $1M. The tip should relate to a federal securities law violation that already happened, is currently taking place, or is about to happen, and it must be unique information. More than one whistleblower may qualify to receive an award from an over $1M sanction obtained as a result of the tips provided.

Because the law protects whistleblower confidentiality, more specifics about this latest case, including who was involved or who received the award, were not disclosed.

Texas-Based Broker-Dealer Accused of Harming Elderly Massachusetts Investors Via High-Pressure Sales Tactics

Published on: November 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Secretary of State William Galvin is accusing Texas-based brokerage firm Investment Professionals of selling investment products to elderly customers even though the investments were not suitable for them. The San Antonio broker-dealer allegedly ran high-pressure sales contests at several partner community banks in the New England state between 2013 and 2016. Galvin said that the purported “sales gimmicks” were “unacceptable” and that his office would not tolerate them.

The Texas-based brokerage firm allegedly prioritized sales volume over whether or not the investments they were selling were suitable for the older customers. The customers had accounts at the local Massachusetts banks. For example, one bank customer, who was suffering from terminal cancer, saw so many of her assets placed in a variable annuity that she could not access her savings.

Galvin charged that these sales contests were not in alignment with Investment Professionals’ own procedures and policies and his office accused the firm of inadequate supervision, in particular of the Texas broker-dealer’s representatives who worked out of the Massachusetts banks. He noted that sales contests are “contrary to investor protections.”