Investor Lawyers Blog

New Hampshire Investment Adviser Focus Capital Wealth Management Accused of Elder Financial Fraud to Pay Exchange Traded Fund Victims $2.4M

Published on: March 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Focus Capital Wealth Management and its owner Nicholas Rowe are now barred from having a license to serve as either an investment adviser or a broker-dealer in New Hampshire. Rowe and his financial firm are accused of elder financial fraud. Per the settlement with the state, they must pay $2.4 million in client restitution.

The Bureau of Securities Regulation acted against Rowe last year following complaints from clients claiming they’d lost significant amounts of money in risky investments of leveraged exchange-traded funds, which are also known as ETFs. According to the bureau, these investments are not for clients who have a low or medium tolerance for risk. Rowe also allegedly misrepresented his credentials and charged investors unreasonable fees, claiming that these were going to third parties with close Wall Street ties, when, actually, he was keeping part of that money.

Rowe eventually consented to FINRA arbitration over claims filed by a number of his former clients, who alleged civil fraud and negligence. One of the arbitrator’s panels ruled against him for $1.8M in restitution.

Two Oppenheimer Investment Advisers Settle for Over $2.8M SEC Fraud Charges Over Private Equity Fund

Published on: March 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Oppenheimer Alternative Investment Management and Oppenheimer Asset Management, which are two Oppenheimer & Co. investment advisers, with misleading customers about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund under their management. To settle the allegations, Oppenheimer will pay over $2.8M. It has also resolved the related action that was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

According to the SEC, from 10/09 to 6/10, the two Oppenheimer investment advisers put out marketing collaterals and quarterly reports that were misleading and claimed that Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I L.P.’s holdings in private equity funds had values that were determined according to the estimated values of the underlying manager. In truth, contends the regulator, Oppenheimer’s portfolio manager actually valued the largest investment of the fund, Cartesian Investors-A LLC, at a markup that was considerable to the underlying manager’s estimated value. This discrepancy made it appear as if the fund’s performance was much better, per its internal rate of return. For example, at the conclusion of the quarter ending on June 30, 2009, the markup of the investment upped the internal return rate from 3.8% to 38.3%

Among the alleged misrepresentations made by ex-OAM employees to potential investors were:

Financial Industry Representatives Settle FINRA Cases Over Securities Fraud

Published on: March 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

These financial representatives have settled the Financial Industry Regulatory turned in their Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent in the securities cases made against them by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. By consenting to the sanctions described and the entry of findings, this does not mean they are denying or admitting to the allegations.

New York Registered Principal Accused of Making Misrepresentations and Missions

Neftali Mercedes must pay $97,000, in addition to interest as restitution to customers. He is accused of intentionally making material omissions and misrepresentations about the risks related to speculative securities and an issuer’s financial state.

Financial Firms Settle with FINRA: ES Financial Services Resolves Solicitation of Non-US Investors Allegations and Lincoln Financial Securities Consents to Entry of Findings Alleging Inadequate Supervision

Published on: March 11, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

ES Financial Services Resolves Solicitation of Non-US Investors Allegations

E.S. Financial Services, Inc. has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, Consent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority over allegations that it acted as a placement agent and solicited specific non-US investors to get involved in a commercial paper program that a foreign-based affiliate was offering. The firm is accused of providing misrepresentations in certain materials, including that like other commercial products, the program was a cash component of the customer’s portfolio, and also, that the investment was a low-risk, conservative proposition.

ES Financial is also accused of not sufficiently describing the risks involved and for close to four years failing to conduct the proper due diligence for the commercial paper program sales. FINRA’s findings note that the financial firm did not adopt, implement, or enforce written due diligence procedures customized for these instruments. Fortunately, investments were paid back in a timely manner and no investor lost funds. However, this does not mean that ES Financial succeeded in conducting a proper investigation into various issues.

US Courts & Securities Roundup: Arbitration Award in Citi’s Favor is Approved & Investors’ Claims Against An Oppenheimer Private Equity Fund Are Dismissed

Published on: March 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

District Court Approves Citigroup’s Arbitration Award in Securities Case Against the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority

A judge held that a tribunal did not behave in manifest disregard of the law and that its refusal to provide two documents that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority had asked for did not make the proceedings “fundamentally unfair.” The court confirmed an award issued in Citigroup Inc.’s (C) favor, which found that the ADIA did not succeed in showing that the arbitration panel’s New York choice of law decision and evidentiary rulings warranted that the award be vacated.

The securities case is Abu Dhabi Investment Authority v. Citigroup Inc.

Plaintiffs Can Pursue Narrowed Claims Against Private Equity Firms

Published on: March 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs should be able to pursue narrowed claims against large private equity firms accused of colluding to keep competition away. In Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners LLC, Judge Edward Harrington noted that although the bulk of the securities lawsuit focused on PE firm’s routine business practices, there was evidence that showed an inference of conspiracy in regards of some of the claims.

Also, Harrington refused to grant an “omnibus” motion for summary judgment requested by several of the defendants, including Bain Capital Partners LLC, Carlyle Group LLC, and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP. JPMorgan Chase and Co.’s (JPM) own motion for summary judgment, however, was granted, on the grounds that evidence did not support that the financial firm had taken part in the alleged “narrowed overarching conspiracy.”

The plaintiffs previously owned shares in different public companies that private equity firms later acquired. They contend that between 2003 and 2007, the defendants were involved in an “overarching” conspiracy to artificially manipulate securities prices in specific transactions. The plaintiffs believe that the private equity firms knew that by working together they could keep the competition down and prevent prices from going up.

Harrington, however, decided to narrow the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that a lot of the lawsuit had to do with practices in the industry that were considered “appropriate” and “established.” He noted that rather than depicting a portrait of an “overreaching conspiracy,” the evidence of transaction appears to demonstrate interactions among defendants that were “ever-rotating and overlapping.”

Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners LLC https://www.securities-fraud-attorneys.com(PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Investment Fraud Lawsuit Against BlackRock Over Exchange-Traded Funds Could Shed More Light on Securities Lending, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 18, 2013

Texas Courts Show Preference for Arbitration to Resolve Securities Fraud Claims and Other Business Disputes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 15, 2013

Financial Representatives Settle with FINRA Over Allegations Related to Excessive Commissions, Elder Financial Fraud, and Funneling Client Funds for Personal Gain

Published on: March 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Without denying or admitting to the allegations, the following financial representatives have turned in their Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent in the securities cases made against them by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority:

New York Registered Rep. Fined $7,500 for Charging Excessive Commissions

Enver Rahman Alijaj has been suspended for two months from associating with any member of FINRA. He is accused of charging excessive commissions in equity security trades that took place in a member firm’s client account. The trades involved the buying of common stocks. The commissions for them ranged from 4.3% to 4.9% per trade.

Texas Securities Fraud: IMS Securities Settles FINRA Case Alleging Inadequate Supervision of Wholesale Representatives

Published on: March 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

IMS Securities Inc. has settled a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority case accusing the Houston-based brokerage firm of inadequately overseeing its wholesale representatives. Per the SRO’s claims, IMS Securities allegedly failed to customize its supervisory system to its business in a manner that could allow it to be in compliance with securities laws and FINRA rules. However, despite agreeing to the $100,000 fine and censure, the financial firm is not admitting to or denying the findings.

Per FINRA, IMS Securities failed to supervise several wholesale representatives for nearly the first four years of their employment and had insufficient WSP’s detailing the steps for assessing certain securities products (even though the financial firm sold number of direct participation plans and privately-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs)). The regulator also said that there was one year when the financial firm did not conduct annual audits at two of its OSJ branches, and, for close to two years IMS Securities failed to properly maintain sales/purchase blotters, checks forwarded/received blotters, and other receipts and financial records.The SRO believes that not only did IMS Securities’ wholesale representatives send securities business-related electronic communications through outside email addresses but also, the firm did not keep the emails.

Texas Securities Fraud

NASAA Wants Investment Advisers To Be Banned From Forcing Clients Into Mandatory Arbitration

Published on: March 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrations Association Inc. wants Congress to put into place a law to bar investment advisers from making clients go through arbitration to resolve their securities claims. They also want lawmakers to make either the SEC propose a rule that would get rid of the pre-dispute arbitration clauses currently found in broker firm contracts or push for similarly purposed legislation. The association recently unveiled its legislative priorities, which includes getting a discourse going about a recent FINRA panel ruling that found that the self-regulatory organization could not prevent Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) from using agreements that include mandatory pre-arbitration clauses to bar clients from taking part in class action securities cases.

NASAA President Heath Abshure has spoken about how giving investors options when it comes to settling claims is key to making them feel more confident about the financial markets. He said that when seeking relief they should have the option of going to the forum of their choice. The association also wants there to be legislation that would let the SEC impose user fees when investment advisors take exams (The group’s members believe this would enhance adviser oversight), as well as a law that would let crowdfunding victims file class action securities lawsuits. Crowdfunding involves using the Internet to sell securities in small batches to nonaccredited investors.

NASAA is hoping that the significant turnover that occurred in both the House and the Senate will give the organization a chance to generate new support.

Securities Roundup: Venecredit Fined $25K for Working with Foreign Finders, Ex-Merrill Lynch/LPL Financial Rep. Faces Fraud Charges, & BrokersXpress Broker is Suspended Over Private Placement-Related Misconduct

Published on: March 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Venecredit Fined $25K for Working with Foreign Finders to Generate Retail Investor Business

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Venecredit Securities must pay a $25,000 fine for allegedly using foreign finders to get new retail investor business. The financial firm has now been censured for two years.

The SRO says that the foreign finders served as the primary contacts between Venecredit and the clients and had access to account information via the clearing firm’s platform. These finders worked for a foreign brokerage firm that shares directors and officers with Venecredit and its wholly owned entity. FINRA contends that not only did Venecredit fail to create and put into effect proper supervisory measures that would have allowed it to look at customer complaints about the employees at the foreign brokerage firm, but also it failed to keep electronic correspondence from both the foreign traders and the personal email accounts of its registered representatives.