Investor Lawyers Blog

Texas Broker-Dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial is Expelled by FINRA Hearing Officer Over Allegedly Fraudulent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Private Placements of Oil and Gas

Published on: April 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a default decision, San Antonio broker-dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial, Corp. has been expelled by a FINRA hearing officer for Texas securities fraud. The company’s president Brian Alfaro has also been barred. The financial firm and its head are accused of running a boiler room, engaging in the fraudulent selling of unregistered securities and private placements for gas and oil, and making numerous misrepresentations related to these investments. Alfaro is also accused of taking some of the investors’ money to pay for personal spending and unrelated business costs. The default decision was issued after Alfaro failed to show up at the FINRA panel hearing.

It was a year ago that FINRA issued an indefinite suspension against Alfaro and Pinnacle for not complying with a temporary order to cease and desist from making fraudulent misrepresentations. The two parties, however, allegedly kept making them, in addition to omissions related to the sale and offering of specific oil and gas joint interests.

According to the hearing officer, the Texas securities firm and its president operated the boiler room between August 2008 and March 2011. 10 brokers made cold calls numbering in the thousands to draw in investors for drilling investments involving gas and oil that was controlled or owned by Alfaro. They were able to get over 100 investors to put in more than $10 million.

Allegedly, between January 2009 and March 2011, Alfaro misused some of these monies, which investors thought were going toward well production and drilling, to cover some of his personal spending and other businesses. The misrepresentations and omissions that they are accused of purposely making in numerous private placements about a number of matters, include those involving inflated natural gas prices, cash flow, gross returns, and projected returns for natural gas. For example, they allegedly gave out a document claiming that over $14 million had been distributed to investors when, in fact, that figure was closer to under $1.5 million. Alfaro and Pinnacle also supposedly got rid of unfavorable, key information from well operator reports and gave investors maps that didn’t show undesirable wells that were located close to sites where drilling was supposed to take place.

To make restitution, Pinnacle and Alfaro will have to rescind the contracts of those that invested in the fraudulent offerings. They also must pay back the sales commission to clients who don’t ask for rescission.

FINRA Hearing Officer Expels Pinnacle Partners Financial Corp. and Bars President for Fraud, MarketWatch, April 25, 2012
Texas broker-dealer expelled by FINRA hearing officer, Reuters, April 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: US Supreme Court Turns Down Ex-Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling’s Appeal to Have His Criminal Conviction Overturned, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 18, 2012
Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 20, 2012
Three Oil Service Executives Face SEC Charges in Texas Court For Allegedly Bribing Nigerian Customs Officials, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 22, 2012 Continue Reading ›

H & R Block Subsidiary Option One Mortgage Corporation to Pay $28.2M to Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Investors

Published on: April 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

H & R Block (HRB) subsidiary Option One Mortgage Corporation has agreed to pay $28.2 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it misled investors in over $4B in residential mortgage-backed securities when it failed to let them know that the company’s financial health was deteriorating. According to the SEC, Option One, which is now called Sand Canyon Corporation, promised these investors that it would replace or buy back mortgages that breached warranties or misrepresentations, even though it was unlikely that the mortgage lender would be able to fulfill these obligations.

Leading up to the 2007 fiscal year, Option One had originations of $40 billion during the year prior and was among the country’s largest mortgage lenders, originating and selling subprime loans through whole loan pool sales and market securitization in the secondary market. During this period, to be able to fulfill its buyback commitments and margin calls, it needed for H & R Block to give it financing under a credit line. However, Block wasn’t obligated to give Option One this funding, which is a fact that the mortgage lender neglected to tell its RMBS investors. When its revenues started to drop and it sustained substantial losses as the subprime mortgage market began to fail during the summer of 2006, Option One’s creditors started to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars in margin calls. (The SEC also claims that the mortgage lender’s losses were a threat to H & R Block’s credit rating while the tax service provider was negotiating its sale. Option One was sold by H & R Block to Wilbur Ross for about $1 billion.)

To settle the SEC allegations over RMBS fraud, Option One will not only pay the $28.2 million (A $10 million penalty, $14,250,558 in disgorgement, and $3,982,027 in prejudgment interest), but also, it has consented to a permanent order entry enjoining it from Securities Act of 1933 Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) violations. The mortgage lender isn’t, however, denying or admitting to the charges.

Commenting on this RMBS case, SEC Division of Enforcement’s Structured and New Products Unit Chief Kenneth Lench spoke about the Commission’s commitment to act against parties that neglect to reveal pertinent facts that up an investment’s risk, even if the risks never becomes a reality. The SEC has been pursuing those believed to engaged in misconduct related to RMBS and other complex financial instruments.

The SEC isn’t the only one to sue Option One. In 2011, the mortgage lender settled Massachusetts securities charges against it by agreeing to pay $9.8 million in restitution and $115 million in loan modifications.

Read the SEC’s complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group Brings Federal Investigators and State Law Enforcement Officials Together to Investigate How MBS Abuses Contributed to 2008 Financial Crisis,

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

FINRA Proposal Giving Collective Actions Exemption from Arbitration Gains SEC’s Accelerated Approval

Published on: April 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has given accelerated approval to a proposed rule change by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The proposal modifies FINRA’s Dispute Resolution’s Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes exempts collective actions from arbitration. The SEC decided to approve the proposed rule change after determining that it is consistent with not just the Exchange Act’s requirements, but also with regulations and rules applicable to a national securities association.

While class actions have been exempt from arbitration, small and large customers claims, employee disagreements, and complex cases have not. However, with the increase in collective actions, FINRA now believes that it is better to hear such actions submitted under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the courtroom.

“This seems to be a reversal of FINRA’s earlier goals to expand their arbitration system to perhaps even include class action cases,” said FINRA Securities Lawyer William Shepherd. “Noting that FINRA is really just a trade association of all securities dealers, the suspicions are that legislators and courts have become so friendly to Wall Street lately that they no longer need their own dispute forum to avoid responsibility for their misdeeds.”

Commodities/Futures Round Up: CFTC Cracks Down on Perpetrators of Securities Violations and Considers New Swap Market Definitions and Rules

Published on: April 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) are calling on the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to crack down on excessive energy market speculation. They believe that this type of speculation on oil that is “based on world events” is “abusive” and has been creating difficulties for Americans.

In their released statement, Murphy said that such speculation ups the price of a gallon of gas by 56 cents. The two lawmakers want the futures and option markets regulator to swiftly implement rules that have already been passed to curb excessive speculation.

In other commodities/futures trading news, last month the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered two men and their company Total Call Group Inc. to pay over $4.8 million for allegedly producing false customer statements and making bogus solicitations related to an off-exchange foreign currency fraud. In CFTC v. Total Call Group Inc., Thomas Patrick Thurmond and Craig Poe will pay $1.62 million and $3.24 million, respectively. Per the agency, between 2006 through late 2008, the two men solicited about $808,000 from at least four clients for trading in foreign currency options.

Earlier this month, another company, registered futures commission merchant Rosenthal Collins Group LLC, consented to pay over $2.5 million over CFTC allegations that it did not adequately supervise the way the firm handled an account linked to a multibillion dollar Ponzi scam. The account, held in Money Market Alternative LP’s name, experienced “significant change” between April 2006 and April 2009 in how much money it took in. For instance, the CFTC says that even though the account at inception reported a $300,000 net worth and a $45,000 yearly income, deposits varied from $2 million to $14 million a year. RCG is also accused of failing to look into and report excessive wire activity involving the account. As part of the CFTC securities settlement, the financial firm consented to pay a $1.6 million fine and disgorge $921,260, which is how much RCT made in account fees.

Just three days before, the CFTC announced that its swaps customer clearing documentation rule packaging will expand open access to execution and clearing, enhance transparency, lower cost and risks, and generate competition. The rules will not allow arrangements involving swap dealers, designated clearing organizations, major swap participants, and futures commission merchants that would limit how many counterparties a customer can get into a trade with, impair a client’s ability to access a trade execution on terms reasonable to the best terms that already exist, limit the position size a customer can take with an individual counterparty, and not allow compliance for specified time frames for acceptance of trades into clearing. Also, the CFTC is thinking about adopting definitions for swap dealers, major security-based swap participant eligible contract participant, security-based swap dealer, and major swap participant. These entities were created under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Meantime, MF Global Inc. (MFGLQ.PK) liquidation trustee James Giddens reportedly believes that he can make claims against certain company employees. Possible claims again such persons could include allegations of customer funds segregation requirement violations and breach of fiduciary duty. Although MF Global had told regulators that it was unable to account for customer funds of up to $900 million when it filed for bankruptcy protection, investigators are now saying that this figure is closer to somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion.

Commodities Futures Trading Commission

Trustee May Sue MF Officials, NY Times, April 12, 2011
CFTC Orders Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, a Registered Futures Commission Merchant, to Pay More than $2.5 Million for Supervision and Record-Production Violations, CFTC, April 12, 2012
CFTC v. Total Call Group Inc.

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Says RBC Took Part in Massive Trading Scam to Avail of Tax Benefits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 12, 2012
Texas Man Sued by CFTC Over Alleged Foreign Currency Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2012
CFTC and SEC May Need to Work Out Key Differences Related to Over-the-Counter Derivatives Rulemaking, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC Institutional Round Up: Whistleblower Bounty Program May Be Reviving Internal Fraud Reporting Mechanisms and Investor Advocacy Group Wants Ban on Accounts Allowing Dually Registered Advisers and Brokers to Give Advice

Published on: April 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Per BDO Consulting and Network Inc.’s Quarterly Corporate Fraud Index, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new whistleblower bounty program may be indirectly leading to a resurgence in corporate internal reporting mechanisms. The index recently reported that during 2011’s fourth quarter, there was a jump in internal reports from employees about fraud incidents. This represented about 21.6% of all compliance issues that are reported internally.

Reports related to fraud involve possible asset misuse, audit and accounting improprieties, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Network CEO Luis Ramos told BNA that these high reporting numbers may be a result of overhauled processes that the organizations implemented in the wake of the establishment of the whistleblower bounty program, which was mandated by the the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated. Changes have included revisions to anti-retaliation policies and better communication with the employees making the complaints. Many organizations also have now implemented predetermined investigative templates and processes, which allow them to more swiftly respond to a complaint.

Fear of punishment by an employer is one reason many employees prefer to report alleged wrongdoing to an outside source rather than internally. Also, the whistleblower bounty program aims to reward 10-30% of monetary penalties to the person who filed the initial report when the penalty against the offending party is greater than $1 million, which is proving to be additional incentive for going to the SEC. However, it is not a good idea to attempt to pursue your whistleblower case on your own. Our whistleblower recovery lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP will be happy to provide you with a no obligation consultation. You can also visit our SEC Whistleblower Recovery Center online today.

Silicon Valley Man Faces SEC Securities Fraud Charge After Allegedly Bilking Internet Start-Up Investors of the “Next Google” of Millions

Published on: April 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Benedict Van with investment fraud. The San Jose, California man is accused of making false promises to get investors to put their money into two of his Internet companies that he claimed would become the “next Google.”

The names of the start-ups: eCity, Inc. and hereUare, Inc. Van allegedly falsely told prospective investors that the companies were to go public soon, which would result in millions of dollars in fast returns. However, according to the SEC, Van had no intention of taking his companies public and he used the money given to him by investors to stay in operation. About 100 investors gave funds to Van.

The Silicon Valley local would allegedly travel to cities in Northern California to visit potential investors in their own homes. Per the Commission’s complaint, investors gave Van over $6.2 million in 2007 and 2008 for hereUare. He was able to collected $880,000 in investor funds for eCity.

Texas Securities Fraud: US Supreme Court Turns Down Ex-Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling’s Appeal to Have His Criminal Conviction Overturned

Published on: April 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, the US Supreme Court decided not to hear the most recent appeal filed by Enron Corp’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling to have his criminal conviction overturned. The justices offered no comment for why they decided not to review the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that turned down Skilling’s legal challenge.

A Houston jury had convicted Skilling in 2006 on 19 criminal counts for his role in orchestrating the massive corporate fraud crime that led to the demise of the energy trading giant. Over 4,000 company employees found themselves out of work when Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Many of them lost their life savings. Meantime, investors sustained losses in the billion of dollars. (In 2008, Enron investors and shareholders received their respective shares of over $7.2 billion from financial institutions accused of playing a part in the company’s collapse. Some 1.5 million entities and people were eligible.)

Prosecutors had accused Skilling of taking part in a scam to inflate Enron’s share price by concealing the company’s true financial shape from the public. They claimed that he engaged in accounting tricks, “hocus-pocus, trickery… half-truths… and outright lies.” Although Skilling was convicted of securities fraud, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, conspiracy, and other crimes, he maintains that he didn’t commit any crimes. He also contends that he never attempted to profit from Enron’s collapse. Skilling is currently serving a sentence of over 24 years in prison.

REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors

Published on: April 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Many investors of Retail Properties of America, Inc. (RPAI) suffered huge losses after the real estate investment trust’s IPO opened with an $8 offering price. Formerly known as Inland Western REIT, Retail Properties not only made its public debut at an offering price below the expected $10-$12 pre-offering price, but also some reverse-stock-split engineering had to happen for the price to even hit $8. Also, for investors that originally bought the REIT at $10/share almost 10 years ago, the split-adjusted value of the stock was under $3. These results could cause nontraded REITs that have been thinking of going public to have second doubts about making such a move. Real Properties is the third biggest shopping center REIT in the United States.

An IPO is usually good news for an nontraded REIT. Unfortunately, in this case, Retail Properties’ longtime investors will need a lot of assistance from the public markets in order to get a good return on their original investment. Our stockbroker fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP are currently investigating claims involving Retail Properties Inc./Inland Western REIT.

Although Real Properties saw its shares leap 9% soon after trading started on April 5, a huge rally will have to happen for original investors to break even. This can be attributed in part to the complicated formula of reverse stock splits for this IPO. That same day, the stock closed at $8.76.

The Real Properties IPO had gone for a 10-for-1 reverse stock split plus a recapitalization of existing common stock that created a 2.5-for-1 reverse stock split. The company also offered just a quarter of the shares during the initial offering. Three follow-up stock sales are to take place over the next year and a half.

Following the IPO, Real Properties CEO and president Steven Grimes sent a letter to shareholders talking about how the economy has done damage to the real estate market and he doesn’t know when/if recovery will happen. According to Investment News, problems with this particular REIT started to come up as early as 2005, when the fund stopped bringing in capital. The subsequent market crash didn’t help, which was when Real Properties discovered that there were properties in the portfolio were overpriced and overvalued. Debt maturity problems and legacy issues were also matters of concern.

Investors of the illiquid nontraded REIT had no choice but to stay the course—even two years ago when dividend yields were reduced to 1% from 6.4% down. That figure is now at 2.5%.

Last September, Real Properties, then known as Inland Western, submitted its filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the filing, the company said its share value was $6.95. This is 140% more than its IPO’s split-adjusted value and 30.5% under its original $10 price.

REIT’s market debut a big dud, Investment News, April 8, 2012

More Blog Posts:

David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011

SEC Chairman Says Commission Shouldn’t Impose Industry-Wide Bars On Offenders that Committed Misconduct Before Dodd-Frank Statute’s Enactment

Published on: April 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Speaking at the Rocky Mountain Securities Conference in Colorado a few days ago, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Daniel Gallagher said that the imposition of an industry-wide bar, which is authorized under Section 925 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, shouldn’t be applied to misconduct that happened before the financial reform statute was enacted. He talked about how many of the cases that have been brought to the agency for consideration under Section 925 involve “pre-enactment” conduct.

Gallagher said this raised the question of “basic fairness.” He believes that imposing an industry bar on conduct that took place before the legislation was passed is unfair. He said that choosing not to apply the Dodd-Frank provision to “pre-enactment” conduct would show that the SEC is here to not just prevent bad behavior and protect investors and markets, but also to “afford procedural fairness” so that any SEC enforcement action that a party is subject to is “legitimate.” He noted that while there are many defendants that undoubtedly deserve to have the SEC enforce actions against them, there should be limits, such as not subjecting them to sanctions that didn’t exist at the time that their conduct occurred. During his speech, Gallagher was clear to note that the views he is expressing are his alone and not the SEC’s.

Commenting on Gallagher’s statements, Institutional Investment Fraud Attorney William Shepherd said, “When assessing past behavior in the securities markets and whether certain sanctions against wrongdoers is or is not appropriate, does Wall Street really want to rely on this standard: ‘we face a question of basic fairness?’”

AARP, Investment Adviser Association, Among Groups Asking the SEC to Make Brokers Abide by 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s Fiduciary Duty

Published on: April 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Several industry and consumer groups have written a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking it to put into effect a uniform fiduciary standard for both investment advisers and broker-dealers. The groups are AARP, National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, Fund Democracy, Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., Consumer Federation of America, Financial Planning Association, and the Investment Adviser Association. They want the SEC to extend the duty as it exists under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act to brokerage industry members and not just investment advisers.

“This has been my position since the subject arose. No new definition of ‘fiduciary duty’ is warranted. For hundreds of years laws and legal decisions have fully defined the term,” said stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. ” Why should this not simply apply to Wall Street as it does the rest of us, including lawyers?”

Currently, broker-dealers have to abide by the “suitability” standard, which is considers a less strict standard of care. For example, under the suitability standard, brokers don’t have to reveal the majority of conflicts of interest to a client to get out of any obligation to control investment expenses.