Investor Lawyers Blog

LC Wegard Clients that Purchased Relevant Securities May Be Entitled to Distribution from Litigation Estate

Published on: March 18, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

If you are a LC Wegard & Co, Inc. customer who bought any of the securities listed below from the firm between October 1, 1991 and September 30, 1994, you may be entitled to distribution from the Litigation Estate.

Relevant Securities (includes Common Stock, Zero Coupon Subordinated Debentures, Warrants, Subordinated Pay in Kind Debentures, Subordinated Convertible Debentures):

• Chefs International Inc.
• AGP & Co.
• Diamond Entertainment Corp.
• Consolidated Technology Group, Ltd.
• Futurebiotics, Inc.
• Great American Recreation, Inc.
• Gates/FA Distributing Inc.
• Gentner Communications Corp.
• Immunotherapies Corp.
• Linkon Corp.
• Lafayette Industries Inc.
• Metalclad Corp.
• Primedex Health Systems Inc.
• Nacoma Cosolidated Industries, Inc.
• Officeland Inc.
• Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems Inc.
• PDK Lambs, Inc.
• Process Equipment, Inc.
• US Transportation Systems, Inc.
• Sanyo Industries, Inc.
• Site Holdings, Inc.

All LC Wegard clients that bought any of these securities during the Relevant Period have to submit the original, signed proof of claim and any supporting or accompanying documents to:

Claims Administration C/O Donald F. Conway Receiver PO Box 8329 Princeton, New Jersey 08543-8329
Deadline: The Claims administration must receive your claim by 5pm EST on May 4, 2010. Failure to meet this deadline will result in a perpetual bar from receiving any distribution.

Our stockbroker fraud attorneys represent investment fraud victims throughout the US.

Related Web Resource:
Proof of Claim Form (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Five Years Later Ex- Knight Securities Supervisors are Exonerated? Just Call it “Par for the Course.”

Published on: March 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s National Adjudicatory Council has dismissed the charges against former Knight Securities, L.P. CEO Ken Pasternak and John Leighton, the investment firm’s ex- Institutional Sales Desk head. The two men were accused of supervisory failures over allegedly fraudulent sales. Specifically, they allegedly inadequately supervised Leighton’s brother Joseph Leighton, who, at the time, was the firm’s top institutional sales trader. Regulators had accused Joseph of inflating the price of securities when selling them to institutional clients and keeping the extra profit.

The National Association of Securities Dealers found that the two former executives failed to take reasonable steps to make sure that Joseph was in compliance with industry standards. He settled with NASD and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005.

A lower FINRA panel had also ruled against two men. Pasternak was suspended from supervisory positions for two years and John was barred from supervisory roles. Both men were each ordered to pay $100,000.

Now, however, NAC is disagreeing with the lower panel, claiming that FINRA failed to establish that Joseph Leighton violated regulatory and market standards. The council also found that John Leighton did enforce Knight’s compliance procedures and that there was evidence that does not support allegations accusing Pasternak of not responding properly to “red flags” that surfaced over the way that Joseph handled his institutional client orders. However, institutional clients have come forward to testify that the pricing they received was fair. Also, in 2008, a federal judge threw out similar charges that the SEC filed against Pasternak and Joseph Leighton.

“This is another case at FINRA of the soldiers getting punished while the officers in charge ultimately get a walk,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “The primary regulator of brokerage firms may have recently changed its name to the ‘Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’ but it remains a ‘National Association of Securities Dealers’ – a non-profit private corporation (similar to a country club) with a vested interest in seeing to it that favored members do not have to answer for misdeeds. After all, a precedent of fines or sanctions for the bosses might affect the treatment of other bosses in the future.”

Related Web Resources:
COMPLIANCE WATCH: Complying As Your Brother’s Keeper, The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2010
National Adjudicatory Council, FINRA Continue Reading ›

Protect Yourself from Texas Securities Fraud by Making Sure that the Company or Agent that Sells You Annuities Has a Valid Insurance License

Published on: March 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

If you are going to buy annuities in Texas, it is important that you make sure that your agent is licensed with the state and also has a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority license. You should also make sure that the annuity you purchased is legitimate and in compliance with Texas standards and laws.

If you buy an unauthorized annuity, you may pay an inadequate return or put your money at risk. You can also become the victim of Texas securities fraud.

What is an Annuity?
This financial insurance contract can grow in value and provide constant income over an extended time period. They are good for growing your retirement, saving for your children’s schooling, setting up a trust fund, or bequeathing money to loved ones. Texas Department of Insurance regulates annuities and keeps an update list of companies and agents that are allowed to sell them in the state.

Three Kinds of Annuities:
Variable Annuities: Higher risk than fixed annuities, variable annuities rely on the stock market’s performance. They usually invest in different financial instruments, including money market funds, equity indexes, mutual funds, and government securities. These annuities let buyers decide how to distribute their accumulated value within the contract’s selected investments.

This kind of annuity doesn’t come with any guarantee of earnings and you can lose your original investment. Because variable annuities rely so much on the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission considers them securities.

Fixed Annuities: The most conservative type of annuity. They make earnings at an annually set current interest rate. Although the rate can change, a guaranteed minimum rate must be established. These annuity contracts usually invest in non-stock market, conservative investments. Buyers usually don’t have any say in how the funds are managed.

Equity-Indexed Annuities: EIA’s have traits that can be found in both variable annuities and fixed annuities. They pose a greater risk than fixed annuities and are less risky than variable annuities. Their returns are affected by changes in money, bond, and stock markets, and they come with a guaranteed minimum interest rate.

It is important to remember that annuities are not the best investment for everyone-especially if your financial goals are in the short-term. Your agent should apprise you of any risks and make sure that if you do choose to buy annuities, that they are the right choice for you.

Related Web Resources:
Understanding Annuities, Texas Department of Insurance
SEC Tips for Preventing Annuities Fraud, SEC.gov Continue Reading ›

Stifel, Nicolaus, and Co. to Pay Back $78,000 to Missouri Investors for Broker Fraud

Published on: March 11, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Stifel, Nicolaus and Co. Inc. has reached an agreement with Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan over the broker fraud committed by former Stifel securities broker Girard Munsch. As part of the deal, the three Missouri investors will get back $78,000 in commissions that they paid and the broker-dealer will pay over $130,000 in payments, penalties, and costs.
Over three years, Munsch made over 500 trades in accounts owned by three Missouri investors. He has admitted that during some of the transactions, he was the only one to benefit. One investor, Marie Ganninger, says that she started investing with the former Stifel broker after her husband passed away. She chose to go with Munsch because he was the broker of one of her relatives. She will be getting back the commissions she paid.
The state of Missouri went after Stifel for failing to properly supervise Munsch and neglecting to notice or take action when he made unsuitable recommendations and excessive trades.
In 2007, the former Stifel broker entered into a consent order. He was ordered to pay $50,000 in investor restitution for broker misconduct, and his license was suspended. He retired and can no longer work as a broker in Missouri.
Please do not despair if you lost money because of broker fraud. There are legal remedies available that can allow you to recoup your investment losses.
Stifel to return $78,000 to investors, pay $130,000 in penalties, St. Louis Business, March 11, 2010
Consent order in the matter of Girard Augustus Munsch, Jr., State of Missouri Continue Reading ›

“America’s Prophet” Psychic Accused of Multimillion-Dollar Investment Fraud

Published on: March 10, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Sean David Morton has bilked more than 100 investors of over six million dollars as the mastermind of an alleged offering fraud scheme. The man who calls himself “America’s Prophet” never professed to have a financial background. However, he is accused of promising prospective investors that he would use his psychic gifts to predict the movements of the stock market and advise his investing team.

The SEC claims Morton told investors he would use their funds to trade in foreign currencies and that profits would be distributed pro rata among them. The federal agency says that Morton, who describes himself as an intuitive consultant and trained Remote Viewer, lied to these investors about having a successful track record for being able to predict when the market will rise and crash. He also allegedly lied about how their money would be used, fund liquidity, and that profits were audited and certified.

Morton allegedly invested only half of the investors’ money in foreign currency trading firms. He is accused of diverting the rest, including at least $240,000 into his Prophecy Research Institute, a nonprofit religious group. Morton also allegedly commingled investors’ funds among the different entity accounts. The SEC contends that the defendant did not seek accreditation status from Delphi Investment Group investors.

Morton, Vajra Productions LLC, Magic Eight Ball Distributing, Inc., 27 Investments LLC, and Delphi Investment Group are the defendants in the SEC’s investment fraud lawsuit. Morton’s wife, Melissa, and Prophecy Research Institute are named relief defendants. The Mortons controls the entity defendants.

Federal regulators continue to warn investors that they must make sure that anyone they entrust with investing their funds is properly licensed. Unfortunately, many people are misled into investing in securities scams that end up costing them their hard-earned money and financial security.

Related Web Resources:
Investment ‘Psychic’ Accused of Financial Fraud, ABC News, March 8, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint, SEC.gov Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Warns Investors Against Affinity Fraud

Published on: March 8, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Affinity fraud involves investment schemes that target specific groups, such as the elderly, those belonging to identifiable ethnic or religious communities or members of professional groups. Fraudsters seek to gain the trust of members of the group by either belonging to the group or pretending they belong. One tactic is to seek to fool group leaders into thinking the investments are legitimate so that they will assist in promoting the fraud. This is often accomplished by generating false profits for formal or informal leaders of the group at the beginning.

Pyramid schemes and ponzi scams are often employed to commit affinity fraud. In these schemes funds from new investors are used to falsify profits to current investors. This lulls them into believing their investments are turning a profit. as new investors are deceived into believing their investments will also soon grow in value. Inevitably, when there are no more new investors to sign up, the scheme falls apart and investors usually later learn the fraudster has stolen their funds.

However, affinity fraud can often involve abusing trust to lure victims into simply investing into high-risk and/or high-commission investments to generate commissions and fees, or buying and selling (“churning”) invesements to gain multiple comissions.

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. Settles Massachusetts Auction-Rate Securities Allegations

Published on: March 5, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. has settled a securities fraud-related administrative complaint filed against it by the state of Massachusetts for auction-rate securities sales to local residents. The broker-dealer will redeem 60 of the accounts with ARS. The other 10 accounts will be offered “enhanced liquidity.”

According to Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who had sought to make the investment firm repurchase up to $55.5 million in ARS that were sold in the state, 85% of Oppenheimer’s Massachusetts customer accounts will be completely redeemed over one year.

Galvin contends in his complaint that Oppenheimer misrepresented ARS and the ARS market when marketing to clients. He says that although company’s employees sold their ARS when they found out that the market was collapsing, they failed to notify investors about the unfolding crisis.

Galvin will submit a cease-and-desist order and findings against the broker-dealer over its unethical and dishonest conduct and the failure to properly supervise agents when they marketed and sold ARS. The redemptions will take place in three steps.

Oppenheimer also recently settled its ARS case filed by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on behalf of investors in his state, as well as throughout the US, for $31 million.

Related Web Resources:
Oppenheimer Settles Massachusetts Auction-Rate Case (Update3), BusinessWeek, February 24, 2010
Oppenheimer, Cuomo reach $31M agreement, LegalNewsline.com
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Ordered to Defend Against Securities Fraud Allegations by Terra Securities of Norway and Several Norwegian Municipalities

Published on: March 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court judge has denied Citigroup‘s motion that the securities fraud lawsuit filed against it by Terra Securities of Norway and seven Norwegian municipalities be dismissed. The plaintiffs claim that Citi misrepresented the risk involved in the $115 million in securities they bought in May and June 2007. They are seeking over $200 million in compensatory damages.

Judge Victor Morrero rejected Citibank’s claim that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over the case because the financial losses happened in Norway. The plaintiffs had argued that their securities fraud claims are a result of Citigroup’s conduct in New York.

In their securities fraud complaint, the plaintiffs are claiming that Citigroup sold fund-linked securities as if they were conservative, safe investments. In fact, the notes, which were tied to the Citi Tender Option Bond Fund, are very high risk.
The municipalities bought the derivatives through Terra.

In the months following their purchase, the notes would go on to significantly drop in value. Terra went bankrupt and the municipalities had to reduce funding that was intended for hospitals, libraries, schools, and social services. One of the plaintiffs, the municipality of Narvik, was forced to turn off street and road lights at night. This is an area experiences limited daylight hours during the winter. The other municipalities that are plaintiffs of this securities fraud lawsuit are Bremanger, Hemnes, Hattfjelldal, Rana, Kvinesdal, and Vik.

The plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawyer says that the judge’s ruling affirms foreign plaintiffs’ right to sue Citigroup for alleged fraud that occurred in NY over notes that were marketed abroad. Citigroup, which had pushed to have the case heard in Norway or England, denies any wrongdoing. The investment bank says it will vigorously defend against the charges.

Related Web Resources:
Citigroup Must Defend Norwegians’ Lawsuit Over Notes, BusinessWeek, February 17, 2010

Citigroup Must Defend Suit Over Derivatives Sales In Norway, Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Says It Has Jurisdiction to Go After Ex-JP Morgan Executives For Securities Fraud

Published on: February 28, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has countered the motion to dismiss its securities fraud case against two former JP Morgan Chase (JPM) executives. The SEC had charged defendants Douglas MacFaddin and Charles LeCroy with paying the friends of Jefferson County, Alabama commissioners $8.2 million to garner $5 billion in business for JP Morgan Chase. The two men filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that swap agreements are not “securities-based swap agreements,” which means they aren’t under the SEC’s jurisdiction and therefore not subject to its enforcement.

However, the SEC’s brief argues that the defendants’ challenge is based on the question of whether the Bond Market Association’s Municipal Swap Index is an index of securities. The SEC argued that regardless of what you call the Municipal Swap Index, this “linguistic exercise” doesn’t make a difference to what the Index actually is, the manner in which it is calculated, and the connection between the bonds and interest rates that comprise the Index. The SEC notes that interest rates are securities.

The SEC asked the court to not dismiss the case over lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pointed to the ruling made in SEC v. Rorech. In that enforcement case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to decide during the pleading phase whether credit default swaps are security-based swap agreements.

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Swap Transactions, All Business Continue Reading ›

Court Reinstates Texas Securities Arbitration Award

Published on: February 26, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Claimant Leonard Claus was awarded $25,000 by a National Association of Securities Dealers’ arbitration panel for his Texas securities arbitration claim. Claus had made a verbal agreement with Jerry Short, who worked for Institutional Capital Management Inc. over the sale and purchase of bonds.

Clause, who bought the bonds, was planning to sell them to Sterling Financial Investment Group Inc. The resale plan didn’t work out, and he sold them to another buyer at cost.

Clause then sued ICM and Sterling for breach of contract, violations of federal and state securities laws, and negligence.

In addition to the $25,000 compensatory damages award, NASD charged Clause $22,000 in arbitration fees. They awarded his lawyer $70,000 in legal fees.

ICM and Sterling asked that the Texas securities fraud award be vacated by the district court. A magistrate judge vacated, claiming that the NASD panel went beyond its authority when it violated Texas law and directly issued an award to Clause’s lawyer.

Clause and IMS appealed, claiming that the judge made a mistake when vacating the entire award on the basis of the awarded attorney’s fee. Meantime, Sterling and ICM contended that the attorney’s fee violated Texas law and that it conflicted with the contingency fee arrangement between clause and his attorney, which the NASD panel is not allowed to override. ICM and Sterling said the legal fee award was unreasonable.

Court of Appeals ruled that even though Texas statute must directly authorize any fee awards, the party that is told to pay the fee cannot challenge the payment’s propriety. The court called the award error harmless and “immaterial to the party” that is ordered to pay it. The court also noted that ICM/Sterling did not challenge the evidence that supported the fee award.

Related Web Resources:

National Association Of Securities Dealers – NASD
Continue Reading ›