Stock Broker Fraud Blog

Charles Schwab Corp.’s Lawsuit Against FINRA to Stop Enforcement Case is Dismissed by Federal Judge

Wed, 16 May 2012 16:28:51 -0600

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. The financial firm had sought to stop the SRO’s enforcement case against it over an allegedly illegal arbitration agreement.

Schwab had added a new provision to over 6.8 million customer account agreement that would prevent clients from beginning or joining a class action lawsuit against the broker-dealer. Customers would also have to agree that industry arbitrators wouldn’t be able to consolidate securities claims from different investors. (Both kinds of cases typically involve investors with smaller claims that are usually less than $10,000. Lawyers who oppose Schwab’s arbitration provision have said that it leaves many of these investors without a legal process to be able to recover any financial losses.) By February, more than 50,000 clients had opened accounts with Schwab since it had implemented its new arbitration provision.

However, FINRA does not let class actions go through its arbitration system and it prevents broker-dealers from limiting the ways in which customers can file claims in court that are not allowed in arbitration. In its enforcement case against Schwab, the SRO accused the brokerage firm of violating its rules by making clients waive their right to file a class action complaint against it. Schwab immediately responded with a lawsuit against FINRA.

The brokerage firm said that it added the class-action waiver last year following the US Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. That decision held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts laws guaranteeing rights to file class action cases and supports the use of private dispute resolution by making sure that arbitration agreements are upheld. Schwab wanted a determination that its class action waiver was enforceable. (It even cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood. In that ruling, the court ruled that only a congressional mandate could preclude the enforcement of an arbitration agreement under the FAA.)

In her opinion, U.S. magistrate judge Elizabeth LaPorte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with FINRA that Schwab must follow the SRO’s procedures for disciplinary cases, which includes a review by a federal court judge. She also said that the court of appeals would have the final say in these cases and can fix any mistakes. Also, even though Schwab had tried to argue that going through FINRA’s process, which can take four years or even longer, would cause it harm that was irreparable, the court said that such a delay is not enough of a reason to be allowed to avoid FINRA’s process.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards, and Kantas, LTD, LLD our FINRA arbitration lawyers represent investors with claims against brokerage firms, brokers, and investment advisers. Your initial case evaluation with one of our stockbroker fraud attorneys is free.

Court Throws Out Finra Suit Against Charles Schwab, FOX Business/Dow Jones Newswires, May 11, 2012

Schwab client-waiver spurs FINRA complaint, Reuters, February 1, 2012

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 8, 2012
Schwab Subsidiary OptionsXpress Accused of Naked Short Selling Scam by SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 1, 2012

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $1.2M Over Bond Markups and Markdowns, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 27, 2012

Trading in Securities of 379 Microcap Companies Suspended in SEC’s Fraud Crackdown

Mon, 14 May 2012 20:46:01 -0600

In an effort to crack down on fraud via pump-and-dump scams and reverse mergers, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suspending trading in the securities of 379 Microcap companies that are dormant. This is the most number of companies to have trading in them suspended in one day.

As part of its heightened efforts to combat microcap shell company-related fraud, The SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group employed Operation Shell-Expel, which employed different agency resources to pinpoint shell companies in 6 other countries and 32 US states that were dormant and vulnerable to scams. SEC Division Director Robert Khuzami said that “empty shell companies” are to certain financial scammers “what guns are to bank robbers.”

According to the SEC, stock manipulators are willing to pay up to $750,000 to get control of a company so they can pump and dump the stock to make illegal gains while investors suffer. Now, however, because the trading suspension mandates that current financial formation must be provided, these shell companies can no longer be used by fraudsters to perpetuate their scams.

Securities laws let the SEC suspend trading in any stock for 10 days maximum. Barring exemptions and exceptions, a company whose trading privileges have been suspended can’t be quoted again unless it issues update information, including financial statements that are accurate.

The SEC chooses to suspend trading in a stock when it feels that to do so will protect investors. In an Investor Alert, the Commission listed some of the reasons for suspending trading, including:

• Insufficient or not the most up-to-date or accurate information about a company, including no current periodic report filings.

• Existing questions about whether information made available to the public is accurate, including the most current details about a company’s operational status, business transactions, or financial state.

• Potential issues over the trading in the stock, such as possible market manipulation and insider trading.

Because the SEC knows that suspending trading in a stock can cause the security’s price to dramatically go down, it is very discriminating about issuing suspensions.

Microcap companies usually have low-priced stock, which trades in low volumes, and limited assets. A pump-and-dump scam is one of the most common types of securities fraud involving these firms. Scammers will issue misleading and false statements to promote a microcap stock that is lightly traded. After buying low and then inflating the stock price by making it appear as if there is a lot of market activity, fraudsters will dump the stock by selling it into the market at the higher rate and make huge profits in the process.

Investor Bulletins: Trading Suspension, SEC (PDF)

SEC Microcap Fraud-Fighting Initiative Expels 379 Dormant Shell Companies to Protect Investors From Potential Scams, SEC, May 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger Faces SEC Charges Over Pump-and-Dump Scam Involving Sports Drink Company, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 19, 2011

Business Man Pleads Guilty Plea in Florida Microcap Market Fraud Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 17, 2010

Pump & Dump Scam Alleged in $600 Million Lawsuit Against Law Firm Baker & McKenzie, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 13, 2011

Dire Predictions For Wall Street Reforms: Not Complete Until 2013, Even Longer to Implement, Half May Not Survive

Sat, 12 May 2012 19:54:13 -0600

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations on May 2, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel K. Tarullo said he did not think that federal agencies would complete their rulemaking duties that are mandated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act until next year. He also said that full implementation of these rules would take even more time. Tarullo is in charge of overseeing efforts by the Fed to draft and execute these regulatory reforms.

He said that the process of completing the rules is a complicated one and challenges have inevitably arisen. To finish rulemaking duties sooner would likely have resulted in “inconsistencies and open questions” that would have inevitably led to “another round of changes.” Tarullo also spoke about how the complexities of certain US regulations have posed added challenges. For example, regulatory reforms must conform to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's Basel III framework.

Tarullo also said that “instability” from the shadow banking system warrants a need for more regulatory reforms. He warned of new forms of shadow banking that could be lurking on the horizon especially if greater regulation of the large financial firms leads to elements of the shadow banking system going into “largely unregulated markets.”

Tarullo talked about how money market funds could prove especially problematic due to a mix of fixed net asset value, not enough absorption capacity, and the “propensity for institutional investors to run together.” He also said that reform was necessary in the tri-party repo market.

At another gathering this month, ex-Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Leavitt voiced his thoughts about the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and its mandates. Speaking on a panel at the Bloomberg Washington Summit, he said that he believed that less than half of the act would end up being implemented. Leavitt partially attributed this to efforts by Congress to impede the law. He criticized what he considered lawmakers’ efforts to hold back the reform act and cut regulators’ funding.

As an example, Leavitt pointed to the JOBS ACT, which looks to relieve capital formation and relaxes several securities regulations. It is key in undermining regulation. However, he described the JOBS Act as “the most investor-unfriendly bill” in the history of this nation. He also spoke about how because Congressional members have been forced to contend with a lot of pressure to “emasculate principal regulators,” these lawmakers have ended up hurting the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission when it comes to issues that are key to systemic risk.

Stockbroker Fraud
To schedule your free initial consultation with Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, contact one of our securities lawyers today.

JOBS ACT (PDF)

Governor Daniel K. Tarullo, Speech at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Former SEC Chairman Levitt predicts less than half of Dodd-Frank will be implemented, Bloomberg/BNA, May 2, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Chairman Says Commission Shouldn’t Impose Industry-Wide Bars On Offenders that Committed Misconduct Before Dodd-Frank Statute’s Enactment, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 16, 2012

FINRA May Put Forward Another Proposal About Possible SEC Rule Regarding Fiduciary Duty, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 28, 2011

AARP, Investment Adviser Association, Among Groups Asking the SEC to Make Brokers Abide by 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 14, 2012

Stockbroker Fraud News Roundup: UBS Puerto Rico Settles SEC Action for $26M, Morgan Keegan’s Bid to Get $40K Award Over Marketing of RMK Advantage Income Fund Vacated is Denied, and SEC Settles with Attorney Involved in $1B Viaticals Scam

Fri, 11 May 2012 19:27:54 -0600

UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS) has agreed to pay $26.6 million to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission administrative action accusing the financial firm of misleading investors about its control and liquidity over the secondary market for nearly two dozen proprietary closed-end mutual funds. By settling, UBS Puerto Rico is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Per the SEC, not only did UBS Puerto Rico fail to disclose to clients that it was in control of the secondary market, but also when investor demand became less in 2008, the financial firm bought millions of dollars of the fund shares from shareholders that were exiting to make it appear as if the funds’ market was stable and liquid. The Commission also contends that when UBS Puerto Rico’s parent firm told it to lower the risks by reducing its closed-end fund inventory, the Latin America-based financial firm carried through with a strategy to liquidate its inventory at prices that undercut a number of customer sell orders that were pending. As a result, closed-end fund clients were allegedly denied the liquidity information and price that they are entitled to under the law. UBS Puerto Rico must now pay a $14 million penalty, $11.5 million in disgorgement, and $1.1 million in prejudgment interest.

The SEC has also filed an administrative action against Miguel A. Ferrer, the company’s ex-CEO and vice chairman, and Carlos Ortiz, the firm’s capital markets head. Ferrer allegedly made misrepresentations, did not disclose certain facts about the closed-end funds, and falsely represented the funds’ market price and trading premiums. The Commission is accusing Ortiz of falsely representing the basis of the fund share prices.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has denied Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc.'s bid to vacate the over $40,000 arbitration award it has been ordered to pay over the way it marketed its RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA). Judge Richard Matsch instead granted the investors’ motion to have the award confirmed, noting that there were “many factual allegations” in the statement of claim supporting the contention that the firm was liable.

Per the court, Morgan Keegan had argued that the arbitration panel wasn’t authorized to issue a ruling on the claimants’ bid for damages related to the marketing of the fund, which they had invested in through Fidelity Investment. Morgan Keegan contended that seeing as it had no business relationship with the claimants, it couldn’t be held liable for their losses, and therefore, the FINRA arbitration panel had disregarded applicable law and went outside its authority. The district court, however, disagreed with the financial firm.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the SEC has reached a settlement with a Florida attorney accused of being involved in a financial scam run by a viaticals company that defrauded investors of over $1 billion. The securities action, which restrains Michael McNerney from future securities violations, is SEC v. McNerney. He is the ex-outside counsel for now defunct Mutual Benefits Corp.

The MBC sales agent and the company’s marketing materials allegedly falsely claimed that viatical settlements were “secure” and “safe” investments as part of the strategy to get clients to invest. The viaticals company also is accused of improperly obtaining polices that couldn’t be sold or bought, improperly managing escrow premium funds in a Ponzi scam, and pressuring doctors to approve bogus false life expectancy figures.

McNerney, who was sentenced to time in prison for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, must pay $826 million in restitution (jointly and severally with other defendants convicted over the MBC offering fraud).

UBS Puerto Rico unit to pay $26.6 mln in SEC pact, Reuters, May 1, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. v. Pessel (PDF)

SEC Files Charges Against Former Attorney for Mutual Benefits, SEC, April 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Fraud Roundup: SEC Issues Alert for Broker-Dealers and Investors Over Municipal Bonds, Man Who Posed As Investment Adviser Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud, and Citigroup Settles FINRA Claims of Excessive Markups/Markdowns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2012

Commodities/Futures Round Up: CFTC Cracks Down on Perpetrators of Securities Violations and Considers New Swap Market Definitions and Rules, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 20, 2012

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 29, 2012

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc.

Thu, 10 May 2012 21:15:06 -0600

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP recently filed a number of securities fraud cases against three broker-dealers and their representatives on behalf of investors. If you are a client of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, First Allied Securities, Inc., or Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments and you feel that you too may have suffered losses because of broker misconduct, please contact our stockbroker law firm right away and ask for your free case evaluation.

Our securities fraud lawsuit against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith involve allegations of overconcentration against David Zeng. The broker allegedly over-concentrated client accounts to the point that they only held a few stocks that didn’t represent very many market sectors (precious metal mining, pharmaceuticals, casinos, and online media). Many were foreign stocks from Canada and China. Shares included Focus Media Holding Ltd. (FMCN), Goldcorp Inc. (GG), MGM Resorts International (MGM), Silver Wheaton Corp. (SLW), Delcath Systems, Inc. (DCTH), Teck Resources LTD (TCK), and Sina Corp. (SINA).

Our investment over-concentration lawyers believe that there are other Merrill Lynch investors that may have lost money on their investments because of Zeng.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas is also pursuing an elder financial fraud case against First Allied Securities, Inc. The investor, a 64-year-old retiree, lost his retirement, which he’d entrusted to the financial firm and investment advisor Sean Agahi. The client’s money was allegedly inappropriately invested in non-traditional securities that were way too risky for his age and the fact that he was retired.

Per the allegations, Agahi primarily chose to invest this retiree’s money primarily in placement Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) and limited partnerships that were not suitable for this client. (REITs pay higher commissions than bonds, stocks, and mutual funds)

Unfortunately, there are retirees and other elderly seniors in this country who continue to suffer losses on their investments because a broker allegedly decided not to make the investor’s best interests the priority. Our elder financial fraud lawyers would be happy to help you explore your legal options against First Allied Securities, Agahi, or another broker.

Our REIT fraud lawyers are also seeking financial recovery for more than 20 clients of Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments and two of their brokers. The investors blame the defendants’ for the huge losses sustained by their retirement savings.

Per their securities fraud allegations, longtime clients of an investment advisory company were persuaded by William Leitch and Corey Casilio to go with them after they decided to leave the financial firm in 2011. The investors contend that misrepresentation occurred because they did not realize that this meant they would no longer be working with financial firm. Rather than availing of their original investment advisory company’s recommendations, the investors allegedly sustained huge losses because of the many unsuitable investment recommendations made by Casilio and Leitch.

For example, some of their money was placed in private placements in REITs,” which they claim were misrepresented as bond or fixed income equivalents. Many of these REITs failed to meet the clients’ investment goals, risk tolerance levels, or time horizons.

If you believe that your broker or investment advisor failed to meet their legal obligations to you—the investor—and that this may have caused you to sustain financial losses, please contact one of our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011

KBS Cap Markets Non-Traded REITs May Be Too Risky for Some Retail Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 29, 2012

SEC Changes to Enforcement Have Led to Enhanced Results, Says Khuzami, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 4, 2012

Dallas Man Involved in $485M Ponzi Scams, Including the Fraud Involving Provident Royalties in Texas, Gets Twenty Year Prison Term

Tue, 08 May 2012 21:15:06 -0600

A judge has sentenced Joseph Blimline to 20 years in prison over his involvement in two complex, oil and gas Ponzi scams that took place in Texas and Michigan. The Dallas man, who was sentenced to two counts of conspiracy, was actually sentenced to 240 months behind bars for each count, but U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone said the sentences could run concurrently. He also has to pay restitution to his Ponzi scheme victims.

Blimline is accused of working with others to run a Michigan Ponzi scam between November 2003 and December 2005. That financial fraud made more than $28 million before it fell part. The government says that fraudsters promised investors inflated return rates. Blimline would then use payments from newer investors to pay previous investors, while also diverting investor payments for his personal gain.

The scammers then moved the Ponzi scheme to Texas in 2006 where they started running Provident Royalties in Dallas. That fraud eventually made more than $400 million from about 7,700 investors. Blimline was accused of also making materially false representations to Texas and failing to disclose material facts to investors to get them to invest in Provident. Once again, investor money was used to pay other investors. Also, Blimline got millions of dollars in unsecured loans from the investors’ money and directed Provident’s purchase of worthless assets belonging to the Michigan venture.

Blimline would go on to plead guilty to the criminal charges. Although he was not initially named in the securities fraud lawsuit filed by the SEC against Provident Royalties in 2009, the Commission eventually added him following claims by the Ponzi scam’s victims that he had played a key role in defrauding them. The government has described him as a company representative or “control person” who played a huge role in the financial scams.

The SEC’s lawsuit charged Provident Royalties and three founders. The Commission accused them of promising at least 7,700 investors more than 18% and misrepresenting the money’s use.

Also named in the SEC’s lawsuit were broker- dealer Provident Asset Management LLC and 21 entities that sold and offered the securities.
After a court placed an emergency freeze on Provident Royalties’ assets, a receiver was appointed.

Ponzi Scams
Please contact our Texas securities fraud lawyers if you believe you were the victim of a Ponzi scam or any other type of financial fraud. Unfortunately, every year, there are investors who suffer losses because of Ponzi schemes that inevitably fail when it becomes too hard to get enough new investors to pay earlier investors or when too many investors attempt to cash out.

Your first case evaluation with one of our Texas Ponzi scam attorneys is free.

Dallas Man Sentenced in Half-Billion-Dollar Ponzi Scheme, FBI, May 4, 2012

Dallas man pleads guilty in Provident Royalties' oil, gas scam case, Dallas News, August 31, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Provident Royalties Faces $485 Million Texas Securities Fraud, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 26, 2009

Sale of Interest in Private Placement Offerings by Medical Capital Holdings, Provident Royalties DBSI Leads to FINRA Order that Investors Get $3.2M in Restitution, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 29, 2011

Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Freezes Assets of Fourth Person Involved in Alleged $485 Million Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 23, 2009

Houston, Texas-Based Forethought Financial Group to Purchase The Hartford Financial Services Group’s Annuities Units

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:06:40 -0600

Forethought Financial Group, a privately-owned Houston based firm, is bringing more annuities business to Texas with its purchase of The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. (HIG)’s annuities units. The deal was announced on April 26. It was just in March that The Hartford made it known that it was planning to get out of the annuities business to focus on mutual funds, group benefits, and property and casualty insurance. It will will, however, keep managing is current annuity policies.

The Hartford had reported huge earning losses in its annuities business. Earnings dipped from $96 million during to 2010’s final quarter to $86 million during 2011’s last quarter and its overall net income had also plunged downward to $127 million from $619 million the year before. Low interest rates also hurt the financial firm.

The terms of the sale to Forethought were not revealed. However, the Texas firm is buying The Hartford’s distribution, management, and marketing units.

Forethought makes fixed and indexed annuities and sells them through both independent marketing groups and agents. It hasn’t been involved in the broker-dealer market. However, Forethought’s purchase of Hartford should allow the Texas-based company to start making variable annuities that registered representatives can sell.

Notwithstanding the woes of Houston’s AIG, Texas is gaining ground in the insurance business. “Annuities have become the latest darling of the retail financial industry with a focus on safety,” said Texas securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “While the term ‘guaranteed’ is prohibited in the sale of most securities, it is allowed in the sale of insurance products.”

Annuities
Annuities are a contract between the buyer and the insurer that are supposed to help an investor meet long-term financial objectives, such as retirement. The customer makes either a series of payments or just one lump sum to purchase the annuity. In return, the insurance company makes payments to the buyer periodically either right away or at a date in the future. There may be a death benefit involved that would allow your beneficiary to benefit. The three kinds of annuities are indexed, fixed, and variable.

Annuities are generally long-term investments, and there can be harsh penalties for withdrawing money from this type of investment during the first several years. There also may be “surrender charges” for cancelling one’s contract early on.

“Not only are annuities an ‘easy sale,’ the commissions can be huge,” said Texas annuities fraud lawyer William Shepherd. That is the true allure of these products and the reason they are not only being sold by insurance salespersons, but also by stock brokers, advisors, bankers and CPS’s. Who knows who will join in the fun next.”

Although the downside of annuity investing is limited, it is real. On the other hand, the upside is limited and very often misstated. “For example, it may sound as if a buyer will earn 6% or more guaranteed, while the real rate of return may be less than 3%,” said Houston securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd.

Some of the risks of investing in annuities may include:

• If you need the money sooner, you might have to pay a tough penalty
• Your annuity might not do as well as projected, which could hurt you financially
• If your insurer becomes unable to fulfill its part of the contract, this could prevent you from getting paid.

Contact our Texas securities fraud law firm to request your free case evaluation.

Hartford selling its units that market annuities, AP/GMA, April 26, 2012

The Hartford to Sell Individual Annuity Business, AvonPatch, April 27, 2012

Annuities, SEC

More Blog Posts:
Texas Broker-Dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial is Expelled by FINRA Hearing Officer Over Allegedly Fraudulent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Private Placements of Oil and Gas, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 25, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 28, 2012

Three Oil Service Executives Face SEC Charges in Texas Court For Allegedly Bribing Nigerian Customs Officials, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 22, 2012

Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and UBS to Pay $9.1M Over Leveraged and Inverse ETFs

Thu, 03 May 2012 21:15:12 -0600

Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), UBS AG (UBSN), Morgan Stanley (MS), and Citigroup Inc. (C) have consented to pay a combined $9.1 million to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claims that they did not adequately supervise the sale of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds in 2008 and 2009. $7.3 million of this is fines. The remaining $1.8 million will go to affected customers. The SRO says that the four financial firms had no reasonable grounds for recommending these securities to the investors, yet they each sold billions of dollars of ETFs to clients. Some of these investors ended up holding them for extended periods while the markets were exhibiting volatility.

It was in June 2009 that FINRA cautioned brokers that long-term investors and leveraged and inverse ETFs were not a good match. While UBS suspended its sale of these ETFs after the SRO issued its warning, it eventually resumed selling them but doesn’t recommend them to clients anymore. Morgan Stanley also had announced that it would place restrictions on ETF sales. Meantime, Wells Fargo continues to sell leveraged and inverse ETF. However, a spokesperson for the financial firm says that it has implemented enhanced procedures and policies to ensure that it meets its regulatory responsibilities. Citigroup also has enhanced its policies, procedures, and training related to the sale of these ETFs. (FINRA began looking into how leveraged and inverse ETFs are being marketed to clients in March after one ETN, VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term (TVIX), which is managed by Credit Suisse (CS), lost half its worth in two days.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission describes ETFs as (usually) registered investment companies with shares that represent an interest in a portfolio with securities that track an underlying index or benchmark. While leveraged ETFs look to deliver multiples of the performance of the benchmark or index they are tracking, inverse ETFs seek to do the opposite. Both types of ETFs seek to do this with the help of different investment strategies involving future contracts, swaps, and other derivative instruments. The majority of leveraged and inverse ETFs “reset” daily. How they perform over extend time periods can differ from how well their benchmark or underlying index does during the same duration. Per Bloomberg, leveraged and inverse ETFs hold $29.3 billion in the US.

“These highly leveraged investments were - and still are - being bought into the accounts of unsophisticated investors at these and other firms,” said Leveraged and Inverse ETF Attorney William Shepherd. “Although most firms do not allow margin investing in retirement accounts, many did not screen accounts to flag these leveraged investments which can operate on the same principle as margin accounts.”

For investors, it is important that they understand the risks involved in leveraged and inverse ETFs. Depending on what investment strategies the ETF employs, the risks may vary. Long-term investors should be especially careful about their decision to invest in leveraged and inverse ETFs.

Finra Sanctions Citi, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo $9.1M For Leveraged ETFs, The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2012

Leveraged and Inverse ETFs: Specialized Products with Extra Risks for Buy-and-Hold Investors, SEC

FINRA investigating exchange-traded notes: spokesperson, Reuters, March 29, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC to Investigate Seesawing Credit Suisse TVIX Note, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 30, 2012

Principals of Global Arena Capital Corp. and Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. Settle FINRA Securities Allegations, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 6, 2012

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 12, 2012

Schwab Subsidiary OptionsXpress Accused of Naked Short Selling Scam by SEC

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:54:15 -0600

The Securities and Exchange Commission is accusing optionsXpress, a Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) subsidiary, of being involved in a naked short selling scheme between 2008 and 2010. The SEC filed an administrative order against the online futures and options brokerage and clearing agency, its CEO, and a client while settling with three other company officials. OptionsXpress didn’t come under Schwab’s ownership until 18 months after the alleged securities fraud occurred.

According to the Commission’s Division of Enforcement, the Chicago-based online futures and options brokerage and clearing agency did not meet its obligations under Regulation SHO because it repeatedly took part in a number of fake “reset” transactions that were created to make it appear as if the financial firm had bought securities of “like kind and quality.” CEO/CFO Thomas Stern, who is also named in the order, is accused of taking part in these transactions that resulted in a “continuous failures to deliver” securities to a clearing agency. Such alleged actions violate Commission rules because the SEC mandates that in most cases securities reach a clearinghouse within three days after a trade happens. Otherwise, the brokerage must borrow or buy the security so that the position is closed out by the start of the next trading day at the latest.

The alleged naked short-selling scam occurred when optionsXpress facilitated its customers’ buying of shares while at the same time selling deep-in-the-money call options that were pretty much the economic equivalent of selling shares short. Buying the shares made it appear as if the financial firm had fulfilled its close-out duty when, in fact, the shares that were purportedly bought in the reset transactions were never sent to the buyers because on the day that they were “purchased,” the deep-in-the money calls that occurred caused the shares to be effectively resold. Also, the reset transactions were not actual purchases because they were for perpetuating an open short position while making it appear as if Reg. SHO’s delivery and close out requirements were being met. As a result, optionsXpress and its clients were able to take part in a stock-kiting scheme that kept true stock purchasers from experiencing the benefits of ownership.

One optionsXpress customer, Jonathan I. Feldman, is also named in the SEC’s administrative order. He is accused of taking part in a number of these fake transactions involving several securities. For example, in 2009, he purchased $2.9 billion in securities while selling short at least $1.7 billion of options using his optionsXpress account.

OptionsXpress and Feldman intend to fight the SEC’s administrative order.

Meantime, optionsXpress trading and customer service head Peter Bottini and compliance officers Kevin Strine and Phillip Hoeh have settled the SEC’s allegations against them over the alleged naked short selling scheme. They are accused of knowing (or if they didn’t that they should have known) that the omissions or actions they committed contributed to optionsXpress violating Reg SHO. By settling, they are not denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.

Read the SEC's administrative order (PDF)

SEC Charges OptionsXpress in Naked Short Selling Scheme, AdvisorOne, April 16, 2012

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2012

Fontana Capital LLC Founder Violated Short-Selling Rule, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 2, 2011

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, April 14, 2012

District Court Won’t Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Oral Misrepresentations

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:16:02 -0600

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has decided not to throw out a securities fraud lawsuit filed by a couple of unsophisticated investors contending that allegedly false oral misrepresentations were made to them causing them to think that their money would be placed in low risk, conservative investments when, in fact, the financial instruments recommended for them were very volatile and speculative. The case is Hemenway v. Bartoletta.

Plaintiff Jason Hemenway had received about $13.8 million in a lump sum after winning the Florida lottery in 2007. He and his wife then opened up an investment account at Capital City Bank Trust Co. Although they expressed a preference for investments with low risks, two of the financial firm’s representatives, private equity group High Street Capital Management LLC managers John Bartoletta and Erick Arnett, convinced the couple to move their money to a hedge fund limited partnership. High Street was that fund’s general partner.

Arnett and Bartoletta allegedly told the Hemenways that the investment was conservative and safe even though it wasn’t really appropriate for unsophisticated investors. The two men also failed to mention that the interests of the limited partnership were a lot risker than traditional equities and bonds and weren’t in line with the couple’s risk tolerance or investment goals.

Over 14 months the couple lost about $1.2 million. That is when they filed a federal securities fraud lawsuit against Bartoletta, Arnett, and High Street Capital Management, LLC, High Street Financial, LLC, and High Street Group, LLC.

The defendants sought to have the federal securities case dismissed on the grounds of failure to state a claim. Not only did they want the other allegations dropped due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but also they argued that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions could be countered because the plaintiffs had been given written documents that contradicted the statements made to them. Countering the defendants’ reasons for why the case should be dismissed, the plaintiffs argued that even though they were given written materials to counter any alleged misrepresentations (and omissions), they still had a valid claim under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Explaining its decision to reject the defendants’ dismissal motion, the district court noted that although per “usual presumption” a plaintiff has no justification for depending on oral representation rather than what is written, a previous decision issued by an appeals court in another case, Bruschi v. Brow, had found that there are circumstances that warrant a departure from this presumption. That ruling took into consideration the plaintiff’s sophistication regarding financial matters (or lack thereof), whether the defendant and plaintiff have a longstanding relationship and if it is a fiduciary one, how much access the plaintiff had to material information, if the plaintiff was the one that sought the transaction, and the specifics of the alleged misrepresentations.

Now, in Hemenway v. Bartoletta, this court has found that “no single factor” was “dispositive” and that all factors must be considered when deciding whether reliance is merited. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.

Hemenway v. Bartoletta

Reliance Issues Bar Dismissal Of Suit by Unsophisticated Investors,Bloomberg/BNA, April 19, 2012

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Bars Former Wells Fargo Advisors Broker that Bilked Child with Cerebral Palsy, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 26, 2012

Texas Broker-Dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial is Expelled by FINRA Hearing Officer Over Allegedly Fraudulent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Private Placements of Oil and Gas, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 25, 2012

SEC to Make Sure Rule Writing Process Incorporates Better Cost-Benefit Analysis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 25, 2012

FINRA Bars Former Wells Fargo Advisors Broker that Bilked Child with Cerebral Palsy

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:51:12 -0600

Ralph Edward Thomas Jr., a former broker has been permanently barred from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Thomas, who misappropriated money from three clients, including a child suffering from cerebral palsy, has been sentenced to a prison term of four years. He also must pay $836,000 in restitution.

According to prosecutors, the former broker stole the money over several years. More than $750,000 came from the child’s trust fund, which held the proceeds from a medical malpractice settlement he received for $3 million. During this time, he worked for Invest Financial Corporation, Harbor Financial Services, and Wells Fargo Advisors, which terminated him as their broker in 2010.

This case of securities fraud started after the child’s mom moved the trust to the bank in 2001. This gave Thomas control over the money. He would give out up to $1,500 of the child’s almost $6,300 in monthly annuity payments. He would then use withdrawal slips with the mother’s signature already written on it to buy cashier’s checks and take out money. He would deposit the checks in his personal accounts at other banks. In addition to the over $750,000 that he converted from the child’s account, Thomas converted $12,500 of the mother’s money.

Also, between February 2004 and July 2010, he defrauded an elderly client of over $42,000. He took out the money from her annuity account without telling her. He used the money to buy cashier’s check payable to cash or credit card companies where he had accounts.

In bilking these investors, Thomas violated FINRA rules 2010 and 2150 and NASD Rules 2110 and 2330. As part of the permanent bar, he can no longer associate with a FINRA member in any capacity.

Elderly seniors are among the most vulnerable members of society when it comes to being targets of financial fraud. The fraudster may be a financial professional, another professional with access to their funds, a relative, a caregiver, or a friend. Unfortunately, in the securities industry, there are brokers, insurance firms, investment advisers, brokerage firms, and other financial scam artists who will not hesitate to take advantage of an elderly person’s lack of investment knowledge, debilitating mental state, or isolation to take their money. In regards to children with disabilities, defrauding their trusts that have been set up as a result of their special needs or serious injuries can deprive them of the support and care they need to maintain their quality of living and pay for medical bills and other related expenses.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our FINRA securities fraud law firm has the experience to help elderly seniors, children and their families, and other individuals to pursue their financial losses. We have helped thousands of investors get their money back. One of our elder financial abuse lawyers would be happy to offer you a free case evaluation.

Finra bars broker who stole from sick child, Investment News, April 12, 2012

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Insurance Agent Convicted in Annuity Case Involving 83-Year-Old Dementia Patient, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 21, 2012

US Army Staff Sergeant Held in Afghan Civilian Massacre Was Once Accused of Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 20, 2012

SEC Seeks to Impose Tougher Penalties for Securities Fraud, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, December 29, 2011

Texas Broker-Dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial is Expelled by FINRA Hearing Officer Over Allegedly Fraudulent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Private Placements of Oil and Gas

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:15:56 -0600

In a default decision, San Antonio broker-dealer Pinnacle Partners Financial, Corp. has been expelled by a FINRA hearing officer for Texas securities fraud. The company’s president Brian Alfaro has also been barred. The financial firm and its head are accused of running a boiler room, engaging in the fraudulent selling of unregistered securities and private placements for gas and oil, and making numerous misrepresentations related to these investments. Alfaro is also accused of taking some of the investors’ money to pay for personal spending and unrelated business costs. The default decision was issued after Alfaro failed to show up at the FINRA panel hearing.

It was a year ago that FINRA issued an indefinite suspension against Alfaro and Pinnacle for not complying with a temporary order to cease and desist from making fraudulent misrepresentations. The two parties, however, allegedly kept making them, in addition to omissions related to the sale and offering of specific oil and gas joint interests.

According to the hearing officer, the Texas securities firm and its president operated the boiler room between August 2008 and March 2011. 10 brokers made cold calls numbering in the thousands to draw in investors for drilling investments involving gas and oil that was controlled or owned by Alfaro. They were able to get over 100 investors to put in more than $10 million.

Allegedly, between January 2009 and March 2011, Alfaro misused some of these monies, which investors thought were going toward well production and drilling, to cover some of his personal spending and other businesses. The misrepresentations and omissions that they are accused of purposely making in numerous private placements about a number of matters, include those involving inflated natural gas prices, cash flow, gross returns, and projected returns for natural gas. For example, they allegedly gave out a document claiming that over $14 million had been distributed to investors when, in fact, that figure was closer to under $1.5 million. Alfaro and Pinnacle also supposedly got rid of unfavorable, key information from well operator reports and gave investors maps that didn’t show undesirable wells that were located close to sites where drilling was supposed to take place.

To make restitution, Pinnacle and Alfaro will have to rescind the contracts of those that invested in the fraudulent offerings. They also must pay back the sales commission to clients who don’t ask for rescission.

FINRA Hearing Officer Expels Pinnacle Partners Financial Corp. and Bars President for Fraud, MarketWatch, April 25, 2012

Texas broker-dealer expelled by FINRA hearing officer, Reuters, April 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: US Supreme Court Turns Down Ex-Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling’s Appeal to Have His Criminal Conviction Overturned, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 18, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 20, 2012

Three Oil Service Executives Face SEC Charges in Texas Court For Allegedly Bribing Nigerian Customs Officials, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 22, 2012

FINRA Proposal Giving Collective Actions Exemption from Arbitration Gains SEC’s Accelerated Approval

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:13:32 -0600

The Securities and Exchange Commission has given accelerated approval to a proposed rule change by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The proposal modifies FINRA’s Dispute Resolution's Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes exempts collective actions from arbitration. The SEC decided to approve the proposed rule change after determining that it is consistent with not just the Exchange Act’s requirements, but also with regulations and rules applicable to a national securities association.

While class actions have been exempt from arbitration, small and large customers claims, employee disagreements, and complex cases have not. However, with the increase in collective actions, FINRA now believes that it is better to hear such actions submitted under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the courtroom.

"This seems to be a reversal of FINRA's earlier goals to expand their arbitration system to perhaps even include class action cases,” said FINRA Securities Lawyer William Shepherd. “Noting that FINRA is really just a trade association of all securities dealers, the suspicions are that legislators and courts have become so friendly to Wall Street lately that they no longer need their own dispute forum to avoid responsibility for their misdeeds."

FINRA sought the rule change following the ruling issued by a district court that held that a collective action is not a class action, per the Industry Code’s Rule 13204 that precludes class action from arbitration. The case was Hugo Gomez et al. v. Brill Securities, Inc. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ignored FINRA’s Interpretive Guidance that the SRO’s intent was to have collective actions also precluded from arbitration, much like class actions as is interpreted within Rule 13204’s meaning.

Also, per FINRA’s proposal, the rule change would:
• Provide that a claim involving plaintiffs that are similarly situated and make a case against the same defendants will not be settled through FINRA arbitration.

• Bar an associated person/firm member from enforcing any arbitration agreement against a member of a putative/collective class action group as it relates to any claim subject to a putative/collective class action (unless collective certification is not given or decertification occurs.)

• Grant arbitrators the power to determine whether a claim belongs to a collective action.

(Also, last month FINRA submitted an amendment to its proposal that would let a party ask any forum presiding over the collective action to resolve the disagreement within a specified time frame.)

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represents investors in arbitration and the courts. Contact our securities fraud law firm to speak with a FINRA securities arbitration attorney today.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change , FINRA, January 5, 2012

Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, SEC, April 9, 2012 (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2012

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

US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements, Institutional Investment Securities Fraud, February 17, 2012

Commodities/Futures Round Up: CFTC Cracks Down on Perpetrators of Securities Violations and Considers New Swap Market Definitions and Rules

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:23:53 -0600

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) are calling on the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to crack down on excessive energy market speculation. They believe that this type of speculation on oil that is “based on world events” is “abusive” and has been creating difficulties for Americans.

In their released statement, Murphy said that such speculation ups the price of a gallon of gas by 56 cents. The two lawmakers want the futures and option markets regulator to swiftly implement rules that have already been passed to curb excessive speculation.

In other commodities/futures trading news, last month the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered two men and their company Total Call Group Inc. to pay over $4.8 million for allegedly producing false customer statements and making bogus solicitations related to an off-exchange foreign currency fraud. In CFTC v. Total Call Group Inc., Thomas Patrick Thurmond and Craig Poe will pay $1.62 million and $3.24 million, respectively. Per the agency, between 2006 through late 2008, the two men solicited about $808,000 from at least four clients for trading in foreign currency options.

Earlier this month, another company, registered futures commission merchant Rosenthal Collins Group LLC, consented to pay over $2.5 million over CFTC allegations that it did not adequately supervise the way the firm handled an account linked to a multibillion dollar Ponzi scam. The account, held in Money Market Alternative LP’s name, experienced “significant change” between April 2006 and April 2009 in how much money it took in. For instance, the CFTC says that even though the account at inception reported a $300,000 net worth and a $45,000 yearly income, deposits varied from $2 million to $14 million a year. RCG is also accused of failing to look into and report excessive wire activity involving the account. As part of the CFTC securities settlement, the financial firm consented to pay a $1.6 million fine and disgorge $921,260, which is how much RCT made in account fees.

Just three days before, the CFTC announced that its swaps customer clearing documentation rule packaging will expand open access to execution and clearing, enhance transparency, lower cost and risks, and generate competition. The rules will not allow arrangements involving swap dealers, designated clearing organizations, major swap participants, and futures commission merchants that would limit how many counterparties a customer can get into a trade with, impair a client’s ability to access a trade execution on terms reasonable to the best terms that already exist, limit the position size a customer can take with an individual counterparty, and not allow compliance for specified time frames for acceptance of trades into clearing. Also, the CFTC is thinking about adopting definitions for swap dealers, major security-based swap participant eligible contract participant, security-based swap dealer, and major swap participant. These entities were created under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Meantime, MF Global Inc. (MFGLQ.PK) liquidation trustee James Giddens reportedly believes that he can make claims against certain company employees. Possible claims again such persons could include allegations of customer funds segregation requirement violations and breach of fiduciary duty. Although MF Global had told regulators that it was unable to account for customer funds of up to $900 million when it filed for bankruptcy protection, investigators are now saying that this figure is closer to somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion.

Commodities Futures Trading Commission

Trustee May Sue MF Officials, NY Times, April 12, 2011

CFTC Orders Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, a Registered Futures Commission Merchant, to Pay More than $2.5 Million for Supervision and Record-Production Violations, CFTC, April 12, 2012

CFTC v. Total Call Group Inc.

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Says RBC Took Part in Massive Trading Scam to Avail of Tax Benefits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 12, 2012

Texas Man Sued by CFTC Over Alleged Foreign Currency Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2012

CFTC and SEC May Need to Work Out Key Differences Related to Over-the-Counter Derivatives Rulemaking, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2012

Silicon Valley Man Faces SEC Securities Fraud Charge After Allegedly Bilking Internet Start-Up Investors of the “Next Google” of Millions

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:12:43 -0600

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Benedict Van with investment fraud. The San Jose, California man is accused of making false promises to get investors to put their money into two of his Internet companies that he claimed would become the “next Google.”

The names of the start-ups: eCity, Inc. and hereUare, Inc. Van allegedly falsely told prospective investors that the companies were to go public soon, which would result in millions of dollars in fast returns. However, according to the SEC, Van had no intention of taking his companies public and he used the money given to him by investors to stay in operation. About 100 investors gave funds to Van.

The Silicon Valley local would allegedly travel to cities in Northern California to visit potential investors in their own homes. Per the Commission’s complaint, investors gave Van over $6.2 million in 2007 and 2008 for hereUare. He was able to collected $880,000 in investor funds for eCity.

During presentations to potential investors, Van allegedly made it appear that he was a rich venture capitalist with previous IPO experience. He also claimed that the start-ups had lucrative patents and deals. He said that Goldman Sachs and an international law firm were poised to help him take the companies public. Van even offered to sell the shares at $9/share in a private offering, making it appear as if this was a “discount” and that the stock price would soon go up to $18 share for institutional investors. He bragged that after hereUare’s IPO, stock prices would likely hit $100. He showed investors Google’s stock price chart and caused them to think that they would make millions, much like the returns that happened with Google and Chinese search engine company Baidu. All of these were misrepresentations.

Van closed up shop in 2008 when money from investors ran out. The SEC says both companies committed securities fraud and antifraud violations.

To settle the investment fraud case, Van has agreed to a permanent bar from serving as a public company director or officer. Meantime, hereUare has consented to an order that it deregister its stock. Van won’t have to make a payment to settle the securities case because he has shown that he would not be able to pay it.

The people that Van targeted were inexperienced, retail investors. Unfortunately, it is their inexperience that makes retail investors a prime target for fraudsters. While commenting on the charges against Van, SEC San Francisco office director Marc Fagel, gave a shout out to investors warning them to be wary of pitches from companies with little track record or a small operations that are making claims of inevitable IPO wealth.

Our IPO Investment Fraud Lawyers represent investors throughout the US. Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Read the SEC Administrative Order (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
FINRA May Put Forward Another Proposal About Possible SEC Rule Regarding Fiduciary Duty, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 28, 2011

SEC’s Proxy Access Rule is Rejected by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 5, 2011

Wirehouses Struggle to Retain Their Share of the High-Net-Worth-Market, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 6, 2012