Investor Lawyers Blog

Five Broker-Dealers Fined by FINRA Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Commissions as Fees to Clients

Published on: September 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has issued fines against broker-dealers Pointe Capital, Inc., John Thomas Financial, First Midwest Securities, Inc., A&F Financial Securities, Inc., and Salomon Whitney LLC for allegedly mischaracterizing part of their commission charges to clients and calling them service handling fees, This caused the amount of total commissions that clients were charged to be understated. As a result, the fees for handling-related services ended up costing clients more.

FINRA says trade commissions and fee schedules should clearly reflect the actual commission charges, which shouldn’t be disguised.

Among the sanctions issued by FINRA:

• A $60,000 fine against Salomon Whitney LLC. FINRA accused the financial firm is accused of charging clients handling service fees of up to $69.95/trade plus commission. FINRA contends that Salomon Whitney did not tell its Connecticut clients that part of the transactional handling fee was a profit to the financial firm, the fee was not determined by the costs of handing a specific transaction, and certain clients were fined lower fees. FINRA believes the handling fee charged by Salmon Whitney was unreasonable. By agreeing to settle, the financial firm is not denying or admitting to the findings.

• First Midwest Securities, Inc. was fined $150,000. The financial firm is accused of charging clients up to $99.75/trade plus commission. FINRA says that this “handling fee” was in fact a commission and not reasonably connected to any direct handling services conducted by First Midwest Securities. The SRO notes that some customers even paid handling fees that were double of what other First Midwest Clients paid. FINRA also says that First Midwest Securities committed other violations, including having inadequately written supervisory procedures and “unfair and unreasonable” markdowns and markups. The financial firm has settled the securities case but is not admitting to or denying FINRA’s allegations.

• FINRA charged A&F Financial Securities, Inc. a $125,000 fine for charging clients an up to $65/trade handling fee, as well as commission. FINRA says that A & F acted inaccurately and improperly. FINRA also accused the financial firm of failing to comply with continuing education requirements, having inadequate supervisory system and procedures, and not properly assessing its training needs or developing and executing a written training plan. A & F also admitted to the findings without denying or admitting to them.

• FINRA fined John Thomas Financial A $275,000 fine for its up to $75/trade handling fee plus commissions. The SRO is also alleging other violations, including deficiencies related to complaint reporting, supervisory controls and certifications, and branch office supervision and recordkeeping. FINRA says the broker-dealer effected key changes to its business without obtaining its approval. John Thomas Financial agreed to settle but did not deny/admit to the findings.

• Pointe Capital, Inc. was fined $300,00 for charging an up to $95//trade handling fee plus commission. FINRA contends that seeing as the “handling” charge wasn’t reasonably linked to actual handling-related services/expenses, the clients were actually charged another commission. Pointe Capital has settled the case.

FINRA Fines Five Broker Dealers for Improper Handling Fees, FINRA, September 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Tells Congress It Is Ready to Act as SRO for Investment Advisor, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2011
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Alerts Investors About Gold Stock Scams, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2011
Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

President Obama Supports Senate Bill Raising SEC Registration Exemption to $50M

Published on: September 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

President Barack Obama says he supports Senate bill, S. 1544, which would let companies sell up to $50 million in securities in a public offering without having to register with the SEC. That’s a huge leap from the current $5 million threshold that is allowed under Regulation A of the 1933 Securities Act.

Called the Small Company Capital Formation Act, Senators Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced the bill earlier this month. If passed, Tester said it would relieve some regulatory burdens. S. 1544 is almost identical to H.R. 1070, which Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) introduced in the House earlier this year.

Senator Tester says that the new rule will help entrepreneurs create jobs and raise additional capital. Greater transparency of offers would also be enhanced, giving investors access to more information. On his Web site, Tester speaks about the need to do everything possible to push for “innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation.” Tester says the bill streamlines new companies’ ability to be successful and have the capital they need for growth. With this capital, they can concentrate on succeeding rather than getting mired in “government paperwork.” Senator Pat Toomey has the Small Company Capital Formation Act will make it easier for small companies and start-ups to go public.

Meantime, Republican lawmakers have introduced a series of job bills that could also affect securities laws. The Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, H.R. 2930, exempts crowdfunding from the 1933 Securities Act‘s registration requirements for business individuals who invest under $10,0000 or under 10% of their annual income and companies that raise under $5 million. In his jobs plan, President Obama has also said that he supports this proposed measure.

Other Republican Bills:
H.R. 2930: Introduced by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), this bill would exclude crowdfunding from the 500 shareholder cap of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, while preempting state regulation. McHenry said that if passed the bill would give smaller investors a chance to get into startups, which they currently cannot do because of current SEC regulation.

S. 1538: Known as the Regulatory Time-Out Act, this bill would set up a one-year moratorium on key regulations with a $100 million or greater yearly effect on the economy.

Access to Capital for Job Creators Act: Introduced by GOP whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the bill would get rid of the SEC’s current ban on general solicitation. Currently, the Commission’s Section 4(2) of the 1933 Act or its Rule 506 of Regulation D doesn’t let private placement issuers use general solicitation or advertising to get investors to put money in their offerings. McCarthy believes that this ban keeps small companies from being able to draw in capital that they need.

Our securities fraud attorneys are here to help investors that have been victims of financial fraud recoup their losses.

American Jobs Act, White House, September 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 31, 2011

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

SEC Looking at Other Ways to Communicate with Whistleblowers

Published on: September 14, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Sean McKessy, who is in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Whistleblower, the agency is exploring the best ways to communicate with whistleblowers and their lawyers. McKessy spoke as part of a TheCorporateCounsel.net—sponsored webcast panel on whistleblower issues.

Right now, the office is adhering to the communications policies of the SEC’s enforcement division. However, McKessy said that the Whistleblower Office is in the process of coming up with “communicating best practices,” documenting interactions, and developing internal policies and procedures. Proper documentation would hopefully ensure that the necessary information, and the extent that the whistleblower cooperated, are properly recorded so that this information can be presented in the event there is a claim.

The SEC’s whistleblower office is also working on its yearly report to Congress about the progress the program has made, as well as its the investor protection fund that provides whistleblowers who come forward with their financial reward with compensation.

David Becker, who is a former SEC general counsel and was also a co-panelist, spoke about companies considering whether to self-report internal problems. Becker noted that there is greater incentive to self-report when there is a possibility that an employee might go to the SEC first. However, he pointed out that companies considering self-reporting would have to take into consideration how revealing specific information could impact them, as there is certain information that he SEC “will not be able to walk away from.”

Meantime, many companies are now using certification forms. These request employees to notify a company about unethical or unlawful behavior that they observe. McKessey, however, cautioned that unless the forms are properly worded and constructed, they might affect the employee’s ability to come forward to the SEC. That said, he did push for companies to move towards developing systems that allow for the reporting of wrongdoing. As long as an employee fears reprisal and punishments for stepping forward there is a greater likelihood that they won’t say anything.

The whistleblower bounty program is supposed to provide employees that come forward with certain protections. However, a worker can still be fired for company policy violations and poor performance as long an employer provides proper documents showing that the termination would have happened regardless of whether or not the employee was a whistleblower.

Whistleblower Complaints
A whistleblower that steps forward to voluntarily report possible violations of federal securities laws may be entitled to part of the damages collected by the government from the responsible parties. That percentage of the award is 10-30%.

To receive this money, the information provided by the whistleblower must be original and has to result in a successful SEC action ending in an order of monetary sanctions above $1 million.

Stockbroker Fraud
Our securities fraud lawyers are here to help our investor clients recoup their losses.

Office of the Whistleblower, SEC

Whistleblower Lawsuit Claims Taxpayers Were Defrauded When Federal Government Bailed Out Houston-Based American International Group in 2008, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 5, 2011

SEC is Finalizing Its Whistleblower Rules, Says Chairman Schapiro, April 28, 2011

Whistleblower Claims SEC is Illegally Destroying Records of Closed Enforcement Cases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2011

FINRA Tells Congress It Is Ready to Act as SRO for Investment Advisors

Published on: September 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Speaking before a House Financial Services Committee, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Chief Executive Richard Ketchup said that the self-regulatory organization is ready to set up a new entity to oversee investment advisers and make sure they are in compliance with federal securities laws. Ketchum also said the SRO would hire experienced staff to do the job and that regulatory oversight to tailored to investment advisers would be put into place.

Currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission is the watchdog for investment advisers. Staffing issues, however, prevent the commission from doing a thorough and frequent job-checks are about once every 11 years. Last year, the SEC was only able to examine 9% of all registered investment advisers.

Yet there are many in the financial industry that have expressed a preference for this status quo, or, if change has to happen, they would like state regulators to do the job. Some have expressed worry that FINRA would uphold investment advisers to rules more that applicable to broke-dealers. Others are not sure that the SRO is up to the task. Many are still not happy with FINRA’s performance as a financial industry watchdog prior to financial crisis. (It is important to note that FINRA has taken some responsibility for not discovering the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scam earlier.)

Man Allegedly Involved in Texas Securities Fraud Scam that Bilked Over 7,000 Deaf Investors of $3.45M is Charged by the SEC

Published on: September 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Jody Dunn with fraud. Dunn is accused of soliciting $3.45 million from over 7,000 deaf investors in a Texas securities scam. He is also deaf. According to the SEC, he engaged in material misrepresentations, the fraudulent and unregistered offering and selling of securities, and the misappropriation of investor funds.

Per the commission, Dunn told investors he would place their money with Imperia Invest IBC, which guaranteed returns of 1.2% a day. He solicited investments for Imperia between August 2007 and July 2010.

While he did send the send the remaining funds to the Imperia-owned offshore accounts, he never confirmed that the financial firm was really investing the money-even though he allegedly knew that Imperia lost investor funds and wasn’t properly crediting clients’ accounts. Dunn also never paid investors the interest they were owed and he failed to tell them that his fee was more than 10% of the money he collected from them.

Last year, the SEC charged Imperio with involvement in a $7 million fraud scam and secured a court order freezing the internet-based firms assets. The SEC claims that Imperia defrauded approximately 14,000 investors, who were told that they could only obtain their money by paying a few hundred dollars for a Visa debit card. Apparently, however, the financial firm did not have ties Visa and it never paid any money back to its victims.

In the commission’s complaint against Dunn, it is accusing him of making a number of misrepresentations to investors including:

• Claiming he would help them get into Traded Endowment Policies (viatical settlements) by having them invest through Imperia even though none of their money was used to buy TEPs.

• Claiming he knew the people behind Imperia even though he had never met anyone affiliated with the financial firm.

• Not being able to give an accurate analysis of the way he calculated profits or fees.
.
TEPs or Viatical Settlements
With TEPs, the insurance policy owner sells the policy before it matures. These are sold at a discount but in an amount greater than the current cash surrender value. All beneficial obligations then go to the new owner. Investors of the Imperia-offered TEP investments had to put in at least $50 for an $80,000 loan from a foreign bank. The funds were then supposed to go toward buying a TEP. The SEC is accusing Dunn of violating sections of the Securities Act and sections of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

SEC Charges Solicitor in Investment Scheme Targeting Deaf Community, SEC, September 9, 2011
Texan defrauded deaf investors out of $3.45M, Investment News, September 12, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

SEC Charges Internet Company With Defrauding the Deaf, New York Observer, October 7, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 6, 2011
Texas Minister Pleads Guilty to Involvement in $7.2M “White Hat Guys” Securities Fraud that Bilked Thousands of Petro America Corporation Investors in the US and Canada, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 21, 2011
Alleged $800 Affinity Fraud Scheme Prompts SEC to Sue GTF Enterprises and Its Money Manager, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 4, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Spent $100K More Than Necessary By Failing to Follow Office of Personnel Management Guidelines In Director’s Hiring

Published on: September 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Office of the Inspector General, by failing to abide by its own practices when hiring Henry Hu as Division of Risk director, as well as the guidelines provided by the Office of Personnel Management, the Securities and Exchange Commission unnecessarily spent $100,000. Details of these findings were provided in a report released by the SEC late last month.

The “unprecedented arrangement” with Hu covered his living expenses in DC when he worked as an SEC division director between 9/09 through 1/11. He is now back at work as a professor at the University of Texas Law School.

Specifically faulted over this matter was ex-SEC Executive Director Diego Ruiz, who the Office of Personnel Management said was the person mainly responsible for the offer to cover Hu’s living costs while he worked for the Commission. Ruiz, who has resigned from the agency, was also allegedly involved in the SEC’s misuses of its independent leasing authority. Because Ruiz is no longer with the agency, no disciplinary action will be taken against him.

Claimant Not Only $100K Loses Securities Arbitration Case Against Citigroup Global Markets But Gets Stuck with Financial Firm’s $50K in Legal Bills

Published on: September 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Alphonse M. Lucchese, a CitiSmith Barney customer, has not only lost his $100,000 securities claim against the financial firm in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, but he also now must pay for Citigroup‘s $49,985 in attorney fees. The case is Alphonse M. Lucchese, Claimant, v. Citi Smith Barney, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Robert Joseph Malenfant, and Alfred George Weaver, Respondents.

Lucchese had originally filed a securities fraud lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court of Massachusetts. The case was later dismissed and sent to arbitration.

Lucchese claims Smith Barney stockbroker Weaver, who is a Respondent, recommended that he buy 4,000 shares of Lehman preferred. Despite his reservations-including concerns about the stock and how they compared with other companies’ shares-Lucchese “reluctantly agreed” and at $25/share spent $100,000.

The stock initially dropped 20%-a $20,000 drop in value. The Claimant says that Weaver told him to hold on to his stock. When the financial markets collapsed, Lucchese’s stocks’ worth then dropped by 63%. He says that when he told Weaver to sell the position even though it meant losing $63,000, the broker recommended that the Claimant still hold on to his shares and that Lehman was not going to fail… only it did. Lucchese’s shares then became worthless when Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

While Weaver acknowledged making a mistake by not selling Lucchese’s stock, the Respondent claims that the Claimant never ordered him to sell. Lucchese disputes this account.

The arbitrator, when ruling on the case, decided that there was lack of credible evidence supporting Lucchese’s claim. He also found that Weaver acted on “good faith” when he advised Lucchese not to sell prior to Lehman filing for bankruptcy and that the broker would have no way of knowing that this would happen.

Lucchese’s claims of securities fraud, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, failure to supervise, violations of federal and state securities laws, and other violations were denied in their entirety. In addition, the arbitrator determined that the Claimant should be responsible for Citigroup’s legal fees of $49,985, $3,150 in arbitration forum fees, and $400 for the explained decision.

Most securities cases must be resolved in arbitration and you want to make sure you are represented by experienced stockbroker fraud lawyers to increase your chances of recouping your losses. A securities claim is not the type of case you want to handle on your own.

Citi Smith Barney Customer Sues Over 2008 Failure to Sell Lehman Shares, Forbes, December 18, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2011
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging SecuritiesFraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, October 20, 2011
**This post has been backdated for publication.
Continue Reading ›

Elder Investors Suffering From Alzheimer’s Make Perfect Targets for Securities Fraud

Published on: September 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to MetLife Mature Market Institute, some 1 million seniors are victims of financial exploitation each year-that’s 1 out of every 5 elderly persons. Because the number of seniors in the 65 and over age group growing, the number of elder fraud victims is also expected to rise. Elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer’s are especially vulnerable to financial fraud.

Already, approximately 5.4 million people who have this mental disease. By 2050, that number is expected to hit 16 million. Alzheimer’s patients tend to experience memory loss, confusion, difficulty working with numbers or making plans, disorientation, problems with comprehension and processing, cognitive difficulties, forgetfulness, and loss of judgment—all symptoms that can make it easy for someone to take advantage of them. It doesn’t help that Alzheimer’s patients may have lost the ability to understand the risks that they are taking or how this may impact their financial future.

Financial advisors, caregivers, family, friends, and strangers are among those that have been known to commit elder financial fraud. Trusted professionals (financial professionals, lawyers, and fiduciary agents) are considered the largest perpetrator group. It is also important to note though that there are those financial advisers with no intention of taking advantage of an elderly investor that may not even realize that their client is suffering from Alzheimer’s and may not be able to make his/her decisions.

This, however, doesn’t mean that all financial advisers shouldn’t take the necessary precautions to make sure that a client is understands the types of investments he/she is making, this risks involved, and how this may impact his/her future. As a matter of fact, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Alzheimer’s Association have started working together to make sure that members of the financial industry know how deal investors who may be suffering from this disease.

More Key Findings from MMI and its study with the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (NCPEA):

• Elder financial fraud results in more than $2.6 billion in losses year.
• “Typical” elder fraud victims are usually between the ages of 70-99, female, Caucasian, cognitively impaired, frail, and/or isolated/lonely.
• In addition to financial losses, elder fraud victims are prone to health problems, loss of independence, credit issues, and depression.
• Retirement funds and life savings make elderly seniors ideal targets for financial scammers.

Earlier this year, Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. introduced the Preventing Affinity Scams for Seniors Act of 2011. Under the new bill, financial institutions would have to train employees, offer special services for older clients, and report signs of possible elder financial fraud.

Related Web Resources:
$2.6 Billion in Financial Abuse of the Elderly, Alzheimer’s Weekly
Met Life Study (PDF)

Broken Trust: Elders, Family & Finances, MetLife
Preventing Affinity Scams for Seniors Act of 2011

More Blog Posts:
Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 31, 2011
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Nevada Attorney General Goes After Bank of America for Allegedly Violating Countrywide Fraud Settlement

Published on: September 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is accusing Bank of America of violating its fraud settlement regarding Countrywide Financial Corp. She is asking the court to “terminate our consent judgment” because she says the violation is “such a material breach.”

Masto claims that instead of honoring the terms of their agreement, Bank of America has:

• Continued to take part in fraudulent activities that allow contracts to stay in place
• Gone back on its promise to lower interest rates when revising the loans of buyers in trouble and instead has raised them.
• Failed to give qualified homeowners the promised loan modifications
• Proceeded with foreclosures even though modification requests by borrowers were still pending
• Not met the 60-day requirement to grant new loan terms

Masto says that numerous complaints have been submitted to her office over modified mortgages that come with new contracts that are more expensive than what was originally stated. Ending Nevada’s participation in the settlement agreement would let the state file a securities lawsuit against the bank over its allegedly questionably practices.

Countrywide, which was acquire by Bank of America, settled lawsuits with a number of states, including Nevada over what they contend was predatory lending practices. To settle the complaints, the bank promised to designate $8.4 billion as direct loan relief, waive tens of millions of dollars in prepayment penalties and late fees, put aside money to help people in foreclosure, help 400,000 borrowers with financial relief, and suspend foreclosure on borrowers that were delinquent and had the most high risk loans.

Unfortunately, in Nevada, where 262,622 Countrywide loans were originated, foreclosure issues piled up, as did complaints about the bank’s loan service practices. Nevada’s new complaint also accuses Bank of America of:

• Telling credit report agencies that consumers who weren’t in default were in default.
• Deceiving borrowers about the reason their requests for loan modifications were turned down.
• Incorrectly claiming that borrowers that had made payments on trial loan modifications hadn’t paid.
• Falsely claiming that loan owners wouldn’t allow changes to mortgages.
• Misleading borrowers with loan modification offers that came with one set of terms but then returning with a different deal.
• Limiting the amount of time employees could help troubled borrowers with their loan-related issues and punishing those that violated these restrictions.
• Not providing the required loan documentation when it packaged mortgage securities and sold them to investors.
• Failing to endorse a mortgage note, per the typical pool and servicing agreements made between investors and Countrywide, and not delivering it to the trustee in charge of the pool.

Nevada says that Such paperwork failures should have prevented the bank from being able to foreclose on borrowers.

Masto’s request to get out of the Countrywide settlement could impact other negotiations by other state attorneys general related to allegedly improper foreclosure practices against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. These banks are being asked to put out approximately $20 billion toward loan modifications. Discussions here have been delayed because there is disagreement over whether a settlement would let state regulators sue the banks over questionable practices in the future.

Related Web Resources:
Nevada Says Bank Broke Mortgage Settlement, NY Times, August 30, 2011

Nevada’s Attorney General pursues BofA, UPI, September 19, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Countrywide Finance. Corp, UBS Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities LLC Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Filed by New Mexico Institutional Investors for $162M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 10, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 28, 2010

“Investor’s Guide to Loss Recovery” Offers Key Information on How to Use Conflict Resolution to Get Your Assets Back

Published on: September 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For many investors seeking to recover their lost assets from a Wall Street financial firm, the process can be daunting and confusing. This is why it is so important that you work with a stockbroker fraud law firm that can take you through process, knows how to successfully navigate the legal system, will protect your rights, and is committed to helping you recoup your losses. That said, any understanding you can acquire about the financial recovery process could only help your case, while also alleviating some of your concerns. The “Investor’s Guide to Loss Recovery” by Louis Straney is a reliable resource containing knowledgeable advice and guidance about the arbitration system, how it operates, and how to make it work in your favor.

The book offers detailed coverage and practical information about:

• Key litigation resources and strategies • How to file an effective claim, as well as the outcomes you can expect • Scripts of initial lawyer interviews, mediation, and arbitration • How to organize the massive amount of documents that will be exchanged between parties • Interviews with securities attorneys, investors, and experts • An explanation of how new regulatory reforms are impacting the financial recovery process, as well as the options that are available to victims of financial fraud
• Charts demonstrating the major areas of litigation • Empirical evidence about the growing awareness of investment misconduct
With over 30 years of experience working on Wall Street as a senior manager and director, Straney is an expert guide. He launched his own securities litigation consulting practice in 2007. In addition to having consulted or testified in over 200 engagements, Straney is the author of “Securities Fraud: Detection, Prevention and Control” and other works. He also is a published contributor whose writing has appeared in a number of publications, including the New York Times and the Public Investor Arbitration Bar Association Law Journal.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd has this to say about Straney: “I have worked with Lou Straney for many years on cases representing clients who have lost money because of securities fraud and other wronging by those who sold the securities. I have also appeared with him in speaking engagements regarding securities fraud. Although we only met about five years ago, each of us had worked for decades for large Wall Street securities firms. Lou and I have discussed for many hours the steady erosion of character and standards in that industry. In his book, Lou covers this and other subjects. As a non-lawyer, his comprehension of legal issues is surprising. But, as a non-youth, Lou’s incredible level of energy is what amazes me the most.”

Securities Fraud Research and Training

By the Book on Amazon.com

More Blog Posts:
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011
Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›