{"id":679,"date":"2010-04-22T19:03:36","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T19:03:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2010\/04\/schwab_must_pay_ssek_client_60_2"},"modified":"2022-03-09T16:00:15","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T22:00:15","slug":"schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tOur stockbroker fraud law firm <\/a>is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire principal loss of $604,094 for her securities fraud claim related to the Schwab California Tax-Free Yield Plus Fund. The award is not part of Schwab’s $200 million class action settlement. <\/p>\n

Like Schwab’s Yield Plus fund, SWYCX was marketed as an ultra short-term bond fund and an alterative to money market holdings or cash. In fact, not only were the securities illiquid, hard to value, untested, thinly traded, and highly vulnerable to market changes, but the fund was exposed to variable-rate bonds that were pegged to the London Interbank Offering Rate.<\/p>\n

Phone conversations recorded by Schwab with our client confirm the investor’s desire for safety of principal for her assets. During such exchanges, Schwab represented SWYCX as a better investment to Treasuries and Money Market and told the client that instead of holding such a large position in money market or cash for an extended time period it was better to place “cash” investments in the Yield Plus fund. Our securities fraud lawyers have other Schwab clients that were offered similar representations. <\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire principal loss of $604,094 for her securities fraud claim related to the Schwab California Tax-Free Yield Plus Fund. The award is not part of Schwab’s $200 million class action settlement. Like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3840,3752],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-charles-schwab","category-financial-firms"],"yoast_head":"\nSchwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel — Investor Lawyers Blog — April 22, 2010<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire — April 22, 2010\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel — Investor Lawyers Blog — April 22, 2010\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire — April 22, 2010\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel — Investor Lawyers Blog — April 22, 2010","description":"Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire — April 22, 2010","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel — Investor Lawyers Blog — April 22, 2010","twitter_description":"Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire — April 22, 2010","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel","datePublished":"2010-04-22T19:03:36+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:00:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/"},"wordCount":346,"articleSection":["Charles Schwab","Financial Firms"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/","name":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel — Investor Lawyers Blog — April 22, 2010","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T19:03:36+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:00:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"Our stockbroker fraud law firm is happy to announce that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded one of our clients her entire — April 22, 2010","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/schwab-must-pay-ssek-client-60-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-aX","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=679"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21956,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions\/21956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}