Blum Law Group has commenced an investigation into the activities of UBS Financial with relation to its clients who purchased stocks or bonds over the past 24 months. Investors who sustained losses at UBS or in their investment accounts should contact Blum Law Group
at 1-877-Stock Law (786-2552) or email us at blum@stockattorneys.com for a free case evaluation.
Blum Law Group has commenced an investigation into the activities of David Lerner and David Lerner Associates, Inc., based in Syosset, New York with relation to its clients who purchased Apple REITs. David Lerner was recently banned from the securities industry for a year and his firm ordered to pay $12 million for misleading investors into buying real estate investment trusts. Investors who sustained losses in David Lerner Associates, Inc. or Apple REIT investment accounts should contact Blum Law Group at 1-877-Stock Law (786-2552) or email blum@stockattorneys.com for a free case evaluation.
Blum Law Group has commenced an investigation into the activities of JW Korth & Company, based in Miami, Florida, with relation to its clients who purchased Banco Cruzeiro do Sul SA bonds. James W. Korth is their Managing Partner. Investors who sustained losses in JW Korth & Company or Banco Cruzeiro do Sul SA investment accounts should contact Blum Law Group at 1-877-Stock Law (786-2552) or email blum@stockattorneys.com for a free case evaluation.
The former chief executive of the failed brokerage firm Peregrine Financial Group (PFG), who last month wrote a note admitting that he had committed a long-ranging investment fraud, pleaded not guilty on Friday to lying to federal regulators. Federal prosecutors charged Russell Wasendorf Sr., the former head of Peregrine, with 31 counts of deceiving regulators about the value of his customers’ accounts. If convicted, he would face a maximum prison sentence of 155 years.
Blum Law Group is representing investors who lost money that was invested at PFG or through their Introducing Brokers, such as Liberty Trading Group. Just because you lost money does not mean you have a case. Rather, the Blum Law Group will provide a free case evaluation to determine if you have a claim worth filing. If you do, our law firm handles cases on a contingency fee so if we do not recover money for you, you will not pay any attorneys fees. Call us ASAP at 1-877-Stock Law (1-877-786-2552) or go to http://www.stockattorneys.com.
Blum Law Group has commenced an investigation into the activities of Liberty Trading Group, based in Tampa Florida. James Cordier is their President. On Monday, July 9, 2012, the NFA announced banking irregularities at Liberty Trading Group's clearing firm, PFG (Peregrine Financial Group Inc). What this means is that clients can only close out any of their positions. There is a hold placed on all incoming and outgoing wires and checks, as per the NFA. Investors who sustained losses in Liberty Trading Group or PFG investment accounts should contact Blum Law Group at 1-877-Stock Law (786-2552) for a free case evaluation.
FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) has taken disciplinary actions against the following individuals for violations of FINRA rules and federal securities laws, rules and regulations.
Olaf F. Gamlen (Palm Beach Gardens, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member for 10 business days. Olaf Gamlen consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion in a customer’s nondiscretionary advisory accounts. The findings stated that although the customer had given Olaf Gamlen oral authorization to use discretion in his accounts to effect securities transactions, Olaf Gamlen did not obtain the customer’s prior written authorization.
Paul Cragg Larsen (Naples, Florida) and Quentin Marius Silic (Naples, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which they were each barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Paul Larsen and Quentin Silic consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that they failed to respond to FINRA requests for information and documentation regarding possible undisclosed outside business activities and/or private securities transactions. The findings stated that through counsel, Paul Larsen and Quentin Silic advised FINRA that they would not provide the requested information and documentation.
Jordan Alan Linn (Hallandale, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $2,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member for 30 days. Jordan Linn consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he failed to amend his Form U4 to disclose a material fact.
Continue reading "February 2012 FINRA Florida Disciplinary Actions " »
FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) has taken disciplinary actions against the following individuals for violations of FINRA rules and federal securities laws, rules and regulations.
Jan D. Narrine (Winter Garden, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the findings, Jan Narrine consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he misappropriated a total of $57,311.99 by transferring funds from customers’ accounts to his own, and in each instance, forged the customers’ signatures on LOAs, which falsely purported to authorize and instruct the transfers. The findings stated that the transfers were made without the customers’ knowledge or authorization.
Victor B. Azevedo (Miami, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $2,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member for five business days. Victor Azevedo consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he knowingly made untrue statements while employed by his member firm’s bank affiliate.
Ricardo Blanco (Key Biscayne, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member. Ricardo Blanco consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he sent documents that contained false and inflated account values to a customer and also sent the customer a false account statement, which indicated that the account’s value was approximately $3 million when, in fact, it was worth less than a dollar. The findings stated that Ricardo Blanco sent a false account statement with an inflated value to another customer; the false statement indicated that the value of the account was approximately $2 million when the account had, in fact, been closed.
Richard Paul Counts (Belleair, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member. Counts consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he misappropriated approximately $18,000 from a customer’s checking account and approximately $73,500 from the same customer’s home equity line of credit; Counts converted these funds to his personal use.
Continue reading "January 2012 FINRA Florida Disciplinary Actions " »
This week the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a new Investor Alert called Public Non-Traded REITs-Perform a Careful Review Before Investing to help investors understand the benefits, risks, features and fees of these investments. While investors may find non-traded REITs appealing due to the potential opportunity for capital appreciation and the allure of a robust distribution, investors should also realize that the periodic distributions that help make non-traded REITs so appealing can, in some cases, be heavily subsidized by borrowed funds and include a return of investor principal. Additionally, early redemption of shares is often very limited, and fees associated with the sale of these products can be high and erode total return.
"Confronted with a volatile stock market and an extended period of low interest rates, many investors are looking for products that offer higher returns in turbulent times. However, investors should be wary of sales pitches that might play up non-traded REITs' high yields and stability, while glossing over the lack of liquidity, fees and other risks," said Gerri Walsh, FINRA's Vice President for Investor Education.
Real estate investment trusts (REITs) pool the capital of numerous investors to purchase a portfolio of properties—from office buildings to hotels and apartments, even timber-producing land—which the typical investor might not otherwise be able to purchase individually. There are two types of public REITs: those that trade on a national securities exchange and those that do not. FINRA's alert focuses on publicly registered non-exchange traded, or simply non-traded REITs.
Public Non-Traded REITs outlines the features, complexities, risks and costs associated with non-traded REITs.
• Distributions are not guaranteed and may exceed operating cash flow. In newer programs, distributions may be funded in part or entirely by cash from investor capital or borrowings. Distributions can also be suspended for a period of time or halted altogether.
• Lack of a public trading market creates illiquidity and valuation complexities. Most non-traded REITs are structured as a "finite life investment," meaning that at the end of a given timeframe, the REIT is required either to list on a national securities exchange or liquidate. Many factors affect the valuation of non-traded REITs, including the portfolio of real estate assets owned, strength of the trust's balance sheet, overhead expenses and cost of capital.
• Early redemption is often restrictive and may be expensive. Most non-traded REITs place limits on the amount of shares that can be redeemed prior to liquidation. These limits can be as restrictive as 5—or even 3—percent of the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the previous year. Additionally, the redemption price is generally lower than the purchase price, sometimes by as much as 10 percent.
• Non-traded REITs can be expensive. State and FINRA guidelines limit front-end fees to 15 percent, but a 15-percent front-end fee on a $10,000 investment means that only $8,500 is going to work for an investor.
Continue reading "FINRA Issued Investor Alert on Public Non-Traded REITs" »
Blum Law Group has filed a class action lawsuit against Regions Bank (“Regions”), a banking subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation (NYSE: RF). The securities class action filed in the United States Southern District of Florida alleges claims for violation of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. The basis for the lawsuit is that Regions personally participated or aided in the sale of securities by dealers that were not registered with the State of Florida.
Specifically, U.S. Pension Trust Corp. ("USPTC") and U.S. College Trust Corp. ("USCTC") (collectively, "USPT") sold securities from offices located in the State of Florida without registering as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The class is defined as all persons and entities who contributed money to the investment plans sold by USPT between September 21, 2006 and August 31, 2009, inclusive.
A U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of Florida already has ruled that USPT violated federal law by failing to register as a broker-dealer, and another federal court judge entered a final judgment against Regions for aiding and abetting USPT's violations of federal registration laws. Regions agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle those charges.
USPT also failed to register as a dealer with the State of Florida, which the class action lawsuit alleges USPT was required to do pursuant to the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. The class action lawsuit seeks to hold Regions liable under Florida law for personally participating or aiding in USPT's sales of securities when USPT was not registered as a dealer with the State of Florida.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJA) and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS) to pay restitution of $1.69 million to more than 15,500 investors who were charged unfair and unreasonable commissions on securities transactions. FINRA also fined RJA $225,000 and RJFS $200,000.
FINRA said it found that from Jan. 1, 2006 to Oct. 31, 2010, the investment and financial planning firm and its subsidiary used automated commission schedules for equity transactions that charged more than15,500 customers nearly $1.69 million in excessive commissions on over 27,000 transactions involving, in most instances, low-priced securities. FINRA found that the firms’ supervisory systems were inadequate because the firms established inflated schedules and rates without proper consideration of the factors necessary to determine the fairness of the commissions, including the type of security and the size of the transaction.
"Raymond James failed to adequately monitor its supervisory systems," said Brad Bennett, FINRA executive vice president. "Broker-dealers must ensure that their automated systems set commission charges that are fair to investors."
Blum Law Group is pursuing claims against National Financial Services, LLC (“NFS”) for investors who lost money investing over $100 million in more than 20 unregistered debt offerings sold by McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc., (“McGinn Smith”) and other entities under its ownership or control. McGinn Smith was a New York based securities broker-dealer with its principal place of business in Albany, NY. The firm also had many clients in Pennsylvania.
Chief among the investments sold by McGinn Smith were notes issued by four limited liability companies: First Independent Income Notes, LLC., First Equity Income Notes, LLC, First Albany Income Notes, LLC., and Third Albany Income Notes, LLC ( collectively, “Income Notes”). Each of these companies was wholly-owned by an extension of McGinn Smith.
McGinn Smith began using NFS, a Fidelity company, as its clearing firm in or about 2005. Many McGinn Smith clients were required to maintain an account with NFS which provided significant clearing and back office operations for McGinn Smith.
The claims allege, in part, that NFS was negligent in its pricing of the notes and breached duties it owed to the investors in negligently clearing for McGinn Smith.
In April 2010, both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed lawsuits against McGinn Smith and its principals, alleging that from 2003 through April 2010, McGinn Smith committed an ongoing fraud against over 900 investors.
Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy three years ago, leaving investors in Lehman Brothers structured notes with essentially worthless notes. In the last three years, arbitration panels, courts and securities regulators have all recognized that UBS down played the risks associated with Lehman structured notes, including principals protected notes sold to its customers.
In 2009, the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation filed a cease and desist and order and sought other relief against UBS, alleging unfair sales practice relating to its sale and recommendation of Lehman structured products to New Hampshire investors. Last month UBS settled this matter with the State of New Hampshire, agreeing to pay a fine, investigation costs and an administrative payment.
In 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined UBS $2.5 million and ordered $8.25 million in restitution for UBS’s misconduct in selling Lehman so-called Principal Protected notes. FINRA's settlement with UBS reveals UBS’ improper sales tactics relating to Lehman structured products. Although sanctioning UBS almost $11 million, it provides restitution for only a limited number of customers and specifically holds that investors are free to pursue their claims directly against UBS.
Most recently, a federal judge in New York ruled in a UBS-Lehman class action case that the offering documents that described Lehman’s purported “principal protection” notes were false and misleading. The Court did not accept UBS’s defense that the offering materials contained risk disclosures. The Court ruled that “a misleading statement displayed prominently and in numerous places may not be cured by inconspicuous and scattered warnings.” The court found that the principal protection statements were displayed more prominently and frequently than the warning statements.
