Investor Lawyers Blog

NASAA and AARP Launch “Free Lunch Seminar Monitor Program” to Protect Seniors From Investment Fraud

Published on: October 28, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrators Association and the AARP are inviting senior investors to take part in their “Free Lunch Seminar Monitor program.” Both organizations say the program will give investors a chance to report any unscrupulous promoters of inappropriate investments to security authorities in their state.

According to statistics, 80% of senior investors (age 60 and above) were invited to attend at least one free investment seminar over the last three years. Three out of five elderly investors received six or more invitations to these free seminars.

The free lunch seminar invitations usually indicate that seniors who attend will be fed a free, expensive lunch while they listen to information about how to invest and manage their money during retirement.The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and federal and state securities regulators, however, say that these lunches are actually sales presentations, which consist of 50% “misleading” or “exaggerated” advertising claims and 25% unsuitable investment recommendations.

Last year, the SEC and securities regulators released their joint findings pertaining to “free lunch” seminars, including:

• The lunch seminars, while touted as “educational,” were actually held with the purpose of opening new investor accounts and (eventually) selling investment products.

• 59% of firms that oversaw the free seminars exhibited weak supervisory practices.

“Free Lunch Seminar Monitor Program”
Investors who would like to be part of the Free Lunch Seminar Monitor Program can bring a checklist (see below) to the lunch seminar with questions about the presenters and the products being promoted. The information from these forms will allow state securities regulators to determine whether the promoters and the information they are presenting are in compliance with securities laws and regulations.

The program gives investors an opportunity “fight back” against the promoters of these “free seminars” and gives securities regulators another way to protect seniors from investment fraud.

AARP and NASAA Launch “Free Lunch Seminar Monitor” Program, AARP.org
“Free Lunch” Investment Seminar Examinations Uncover Widespread Problems, Perils for Older Investors, SEC.gov, September 10, 2007

Related Web Resources:
What to Listen for Checklist, AARP.org (PDF)

North American Securities Administrators Association

“Free Lunch” Investment Seminars-Avoiding the Heartburn of a Hard Sell, FINRA Continue Reading ›

SunTrust Investment Services to Pay $700,000 Fine to Settle FINRA Charges of Excessive Commission and Supervisory Violations Involving Fee-Based Brokerage Business

Published on: October 23, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has announced that SunTrust Investment Services Inc. has agreed to pay a $700,000 fine to settle allegations that it engaged in supervisory violations involving its fee-based brokerage business and charged excessive commissions on low-priced stocks. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not admitting to or denying the charges.

SunTrust terminated its Portfolio Choice accounts, which were fee-based accounts, in 2006. The charges by FINRA involve the period between November 2002 and December 2005 when SunTrust opened more than 2,644 Portfolio Choice accounts without properly evaluating whether the accounts were the appropriate fit for customers. According to FINRA, SunTrust neglected to properly monitor the Portfolio Choice accounts to make sure that they continued to be the appropriate account choice for clients.

FINRA found that at least 36 Portfolio Choice accounts that did not engage in any trades for at least eight quarters-yet these accounts were charged more than $129,000 in fees during the last four quarters. FINRA also says that a number of SunTrust Portfolio Choice clients paid an asset-based fee and transaction commission on the same assets.

FINRA was able to identify over 900 incidents when SunTrust neglected to exclude a customer asset that was purchased with a commission from the asset base that is used to determine the account fee. The error resulted in customers being charged twice, leading to about $437,500 in commissions and excess fees for SunTrust clients.

FINRA also accused the investment firm of acting inappropriately when it let a number of customers keep their accounts and pay for them even though they had not traded for years. Between January 2002 and September 2, 2005, FINRA says SunTrust did not establish a supervisor system that could make sure that registered representatives would charges clients fair commissions on securities transactions. The firm used an automated commission system that charged commission of more than 5% when low quantities and/or low-priced stocks were sold or purchased. Because of this, some clients were billed excess commissions nearing $100,000 in total.

Also as part of its settlement, SunTrust said it would certify that it returned $713,362 in interest and fees to clients that were affected by the alleged violations. FINRA says it took this voluntary refund into account when assessing its fine against SunTrust.

Related Web Resources:

SunTrust Investment Services

FINRA
Continue Reading ›

Banorte Securities International Agrees to $1.1 Million Fine Over Charges It Recommended Class B Mutual Fund Shares Instead of Class A

Published on: October 22, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Banorte Securities International, Ltd. has agreed to a $1.1 million fine to settle charges that it recommended to customers that they buy Class B off-shore mutual fund shares even though they would have benefited more financially by buying Class A shares. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced the settlement agreement last week.

By agreeing to settle, Banorte is not admitting to or denying the charges. The company also agreed to a plan that would address more than 1,400 transactions involving accounts in over 300 customer households.

Banorte had been accused of having inadequate supervisor systems to oversee the sales of off-shore mutual fund shares, including guidelines that failed to properly advise registered representatives that Class A share purchases eligible for front-end loans were more affordable than Class B Shares.

According to FINRA enforcement head Susan L. Merrill, firms are obligated to consider all share classes and pricing features that would most benefit a customer-regardless of whether or not that clients reside in the United States or abroad. The majority of Banorte’s customers reside in Mexico. Merrill also said that firms must take all relevant factors into considerations when making mutual fund recommendations to clients.

Class A Shares

These mutual fund shares come with a front-end sales charge and lower ongoing fees that are asset-based.

Class B Shares

While these mutual fund shares usually do not come with a front-end sales fee, their asset-based fees are usually higher than Class A Shares’ fees.

FINRA alleges that from 2003 until May 2004, the majority of Banorte mutual fund sales involved Class B shares even though investing in Class A Shares could have resulted in higher returns for clients.

Related Web Resources:

FINRA Fines Banorte Securities International $1.1 Million for Improper Sales of Class B Mutual Fund Shares, FINRA, October 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Ray Londo, Londo Financial Group, and Linsco Private Ledger For Improper Lending/Borrowing of Client Funds

Published on: October 20, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities fraud attorneys at the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP are investigating claims for clients of Ray Londo, Londo Financial Group, and Linsco Private Ledger (LPL). The firm is asking any clients of Ray Londo that lent him or anyone else in his company money to call (800) 259-9010.

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Ray Londo was fired from LPL this year because of his failure to abide by company policy related to borrowing from or lending money to clients. FINRA registered representatives are not supposed to borrow money from clients or accept checks issued directly to a broker.

FINRA Rule 2370

Securities and Exchange Commission Sues Five World Group Securities Brokers For Persuading Clients to Refinance Homes With Subprime Mortgages

Published on: October 16, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This month, the US Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against five World Group Securities brokers for allegedly pushing investors into refinancing their homes with subprime mortgages. The SEC is accusing the mortgage brokers of taking advantage of the clients’ lack of education, modest financial means, and poor fluency in English to fraudulently sell them unsuitable securities-primarily variable universal life policies.

Because most of the investors who were persuaded to purchase the securities lacked the funds or income to do so, the defendants allegedly persuaded them to come up with the money through the refinancing of their fixed-rate mortgages into subprime adjustable-rate negative amortization mortgages. The brokers received compensation from the securities sale and the mortgage refinancings.

The defendants in the case are Guillermo Haro, Jesus Gutierrez Kederio Ainsworth, Angel Romo, and Gabriel Paredes. The Commission says that the brokers violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws.

The SEC says the men misrepresented the returns the investors would get back from the securities, the nature and liquidity of the variable universal life policies, and the new mortgages’ terms, as well as failed to reveal key facts to the investors. The Commision’s complaint also accuses the brokers of falsifying customer account forms and placing inaccurate securities sales information on order tickets.

The SEC calls the men’s actions and their willingness to allow their clients to risk the potential loss of their homes “egregious” conduct that will not be tolerated. The Commission is seeking disgorgement, injunctions, and financial fines against the defendants.

If you are a victim of investor fraud, it is important that you find out about the legal remedies available to you.

Commission Charges Five Registered Representatives with Fraudulent Sales of Unsuitable Securities Funded Through Subprime Mortgage Refinancings, SEC, October 3, 2008
World Group Securities brokers charged with fraud, Bizjournals.com, October 13, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Subprime Mortgage, Investopedia Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Applies for New York Bank Charter

Published on: October 15, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs is applying for a New York bank charter. The application is one of the steps the New York-based investment bank is making in its move to become a commercial bank.

Goldman’s competitors, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase are banks that have a national charter, which allows banks to open branches in different states without needing to apply for separate charters in each state. Having a New York charter, however, will not prevent Goldman Sachs from opening branches outside the state.

Goldman’s move to obtain a state charter is a sign that the company may not want a consumer-oriented business that operates on a national level. Rather than focusing on retail banking services, the firm will likely concentrate on managing rich people’s assets.

FINRA Orders Charles Schwab to Pay $542,340 Over Short-Term Bond Fund Investor Claim

Published on: October 14, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Earlier this month, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel found Charles Schwab Corp. liable for $542,340 in an investor claim against the company over its YieldPlus short-term bond fund. This case is one of numerous individual arbitration and class action lawsuits against the San Francisco-based investment firm because of the fund.

The Schwab YieldPlus Fund had assets worth over $13 billion last year, but the fund suffered major losses this year because of mortgage-backed securities. At the end of last week, the fund’s assets were worth $432 million.

In this latest arbitration claim, investor Jeffrey Nielson accused Schwab and representative Darin Beckering of purposely misleading him when he purchased the ultrashort-bond fund because they did not fully disclose the extent to which the fund would be exposed to the subprime-mortgage market. Nielson also claims he was never informed that the Schwab YieldPlus Fund was a proprietary fund.

Wisconsin School Districts Sue Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus and Co. in Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps

Published on: October 7, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Five school districts in Wisconsin are suing Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for losses incurred after the bank and brokerage firm sold the districts “Credit Default Swaps,” (also called “CDS” or complex credit derivatives) worth $200 million resulting in some $150 million in losses. The school districts claim that the bank and brokerage firm told them that the CDS investments were safe even though they knew otherwise.

The school districts involved in the lawsuit include Kimberly Area School District, Kenosha Unified School District, School District of Waukesha, Whitefish Bay School District, and West Allis – West Milwaukee School District. They are seeking full recovery of their money. Attorney Robert Kantas of the stockbroker fraud firm law firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is representing the school districts.

The districts’ lawsuit accuses Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus of either negligently or purposely misrepresenting the investments and withholding key information. The plaintiffs’ complaint names specific times when they were told that “15 Enrons” would need to happen before the districts would be affected, none of the CDO’s had sub-prime debt, and the investments were “safe” and “conservative.” The districts later found out that some of the CDOs they purchased included leases, home equity loans, commercial mortgage loans, residential mortgage loans, credit card receivables, auto finance receivables, and other debt obligations.

2004 SEC Vote that Changed Net Capital Rule May Have Played a Role in Current FInancial Crisis

Published on: October 6, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A recent New York Times article about the current US financial crisis refers to an April 28, 2004 meeting involving members of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the meeting, the SEC members considered an urgent request made by large investment banks for an exemption from an old regulation limiting the amount of debt that their brokerage units could take on. The exemption would release millions of dollars that were in reserve as a cushion against the brokerage units’ investment losses. The released funds could then be used by a parent company to invest in credit derivatives, mortgage-backed securities, and other instruments.

Although one commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, had questions the consequences of such an exemption, he was reassured that only large firms with assets over $5 billion would be able to avail of the exemption. Market regulation head Annette L. Nazareth, who would later be appointed and serve as an SEC commissioner until January 2008, told the commission that the new rules would allow the commission to forbid companies from engaging in high risk activities. Another SEC commissioner, Roel C. Campos, supported the exemption, albeit with “fingers crossed.”

Following a 55 minute discussion that was not attended by many people, a vote was called. The unanimous decision changed the net capital rule-designed to be a buffer during tough financial times. In loosening these rules, the agency also decided to depend on investment companies’ computer models to determine an investment’s risk-level. This essentially left the task of monitoring investment risks to the banks themselves.

One man-Indiana software consultant Leonard D. Bole-loudly disagreed with this approach, noting that the firms’ computer software would not be able to predict certain kinds of market turmoil. His letter to the SEC, sent in January 2004, never received a response.

Once the firms availed of the rule change, the ratio of borrowing compared to their overall assets increasing dramatically. While examiners were aware of potential problems related to risky investments and a heavier dependence on debt, they virtually ignored the warning signs while assuming that the firms had the discipline to regulate themselves and not borrow too much.

The SEC, which was now finally able to monitor the large investment banks’ riskier investments, never fully availed of this advantage. Seven people were given the task of monitoring these companies, yet their department currently does not have a director. And not one inspection has been completed since SEC Chairman Christopher Cox reorganized the department some 18 months ago.

The commission formerly ended its 2004 program last month, acknowledging its failure to anticipate problems that have resulted with Bear Stearns and the four other large investment banks. Cox says it is now obvious that “voluntary regulation does not work.” Critics of the SEC, however, say the commission has fallen short with its enforcement efforts in recent years.

If you have lost money during the financial crisis because of broker-dealer misconduct or mismanagement, there are legal remedies available to you.

Related Web Resources:

Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt, New York Times, October 2, 2008
SEC
Continue Reading ›

Almost 7,000 Broker-Dealers from FSC Securities, AIG Financial Advisors, and Royal Alliance Associates Will Be Part of AIG Advisor Group Sale, Says Source

Published on: October 2, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A source in investment banking who is choosing to remain anonymous says that the futures of nearly 7,000 financial advisors and registered representatives responsible for generating some $1.3 billion in fees and commissions in 2007 will be decided by American International Group Inc’s large scale asset sale. Details of the sale could be announced as early as Friday by new AIG head Edward Liddy.

Published reports also say that AIG New York is thinking of selling over 15 business lines to repay the federal government for an $85 billion emergency loan.
AIG Advisor Group is made up of FSC Securities Corp, AIG Financial Advisors Inc., and Royal Alliance Associates Inc.

The unnamed source is also predicting that Liddy will retain the services of a Wall Street company to conduct a quiet auction for the broker-dealers and that aggressive bids from different firms, including Raymond James and LPL Financial are likely. According to other sources and recruiters, the Financial Services Network of San Mateo, California, which is one of the largest advisor groups affiliated with FSC Securities, could end up with LPL or one of its subsidiaries.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, AIG Chairman and CEO Liddy said that he expects the company will emerge from its current financial turmoil. Liddy was appointed to his new post two days after the federal government’s loan, intended to keep AIG from bankruptcy.

Related Web Resources:

Another Bailout: Government Lends AIG $85 Billion, NPR.org, September 17, 2008
AIG Advisor Group
Continue Reading ›