Wall Street Investment Fraud Lawyer Blog

Apple REITs 6, 7, 8 and 9 Paid Only A Fraction To Investors Seeking Redemptions Through David Lerner

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:54:22 -0500

Over the last six weeks, we have spoken to over sixty (60) nervous investors with concerns about the recent events and negative press swirling around FINRA's complaint filed against David Lerner and the Apple REIT investments. Most, if not all of the those investors indicated that they intended immediately to redeem their shares in Apple REITs 6-9.

Redemption requests are considered by the Apple REIT entities on a quarterly basis and June 23, 2011 was the deadline to submit redemption request forms to David Lerner for the current quarter. This week, investors began receiving letters from David Lerner providing information on how much of their investment they are going to receive this quarter. The results are as follows:

Apple REIT 6 - 11.88%
Apple REIT 7 - 11.08%
Apple REIT 8 - 6.28%
Apple REIT 9 - 38.34%

These results are disappointing and extremely harmful to seniors who are not in a position financially or health-wise to wait a few years to possibly receive all of their investment back. Investors who are over-concentrated in Apple REITs (e.g. more than 10% of your portfolio) likely have a valid legal claim against David Lerner to attempt to recover damages suffered as a result of the firm making unsuitable investment recommendations and for concealing material facts from investors, including but not limited to concealing the true share prices of these investments. By continuing to represent investors that the share price was $11 when in fact it was not, David Lerner concealed the truth from investors and contributed to the run on the bank and the low redemption percentages. In many cases, Apple REITs were sold by David Lerner brokers as safe investments that are 100% liquid after three years from the date of purchase. Clearly, that did not turn out to be the case.

Did David Lerner Associates Violate The Law By Failing To Re-Price Apple REIT Investments?

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:48:45 -0500

Apparently since David Lerner began selling Apple REIT investments to moms and pops across the country ($6.8 billion), it has consistently listed the price per share of the various Apple REIT investments as $11. The accuracy of this $11 per share amount is undermined, however, by the fact that the values and profitability of the hotels held in these Apple REITs has been hit in recent years with historic market downturns. Many reputable sources including FINRA, the organization in charge of regulating David Lerner, has charged the company with misleading its customers by publishing an over-inflated $11 per share price in Apple REITs Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

The questions, therefore, are as follows:
1. Why did David Lerner not change the price per share of the Apple REITs?
2. Was David Lerner required to change the price per share of these REITs?
3. What is the true value of Apple REITs Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten?

1. Why did David Lerner not change the price per share of the Apple REITs?

Only discovery obtained in lawsuits filed against the company will uncover the true extent behind the reasons that the company failed to reflect the true value. Our experience in representing investors, however, points to conflicts of interest as being the culprit. According to the FINRA complaint recently filed against David Lerner, 60-70 percent of the company's annual business was generated from selling Apple REITs. David Lerner has earned over $30 million in commissions and marketing allowances since January 2011 alone. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Also, it seems reasonable to think that investors might make a run on the REITs to liquidate their positions if they noticed a drastic downturn in share values. If David Lerner does not re-price, however, investors won't know the true value of their REIT shares. If they don't know the true value of their REIT shares, they probably won't liquidate as long as the shares are paying the same dividends. This is important because the Unit Redemption Program discussed in the prospectuses of these investments limit the total amount of redemptions to three percent of the weighted average number of Units outstanding during the 12-month period immediately prior to the date of redemption. If a large number of investors now make a run on the Apple REIT investments and seek to liquidate their positions, many will not be able to get their money back and lawsuits will likely begin.

2. Was David Lerner required to change the price per share of these REITs?

With regard to Apple REITs Six, Seven, Eight and Nine, the answer is yes.

In 2009, FINRA issued Notice to Members 09-09 reminding David Lerner and other FINRA members selling unlisted REITs (e.g. Apple REITs) that the firms selling the investments are prohibited from using information that is more than 18 months old to estimate the value of a nontraded REIT. Apple REITs Six through Nine are no longer open to new customers and were offered more than 18 months ago. A review of the 10k reports issued by these Apple REIT entities shows that performance has been down over the last couple of years and that the entities have resorted to borrowing money to pay the investor dividends. Surely, the value of these investments have dropped below $11 per share.

With regard to Apple REIT Ten, it appears that David Lerner is permitted to reflect the $11 per share price on the monthly statements because the investment is still in the offering phase and has not been available for 18 months. This fact should not be construed to suggest that recommendation to invest in Apple REIT Ten were suitable for you. These are illiquid investments and are not suitable for investors who may need to liquidate the funds on short notice (i.e. retirees fall into this category). Furthermore, if you own more than one of these Apple REITs, you may be over-concentrated and being exposed to too much risk in your portfolio. David Lerner has a fiduciary duty to recommend suitable investments to all of its customers. If they fail to satisfy these duties, the firm can held liable for damages related to the breach.

Will FINRA's Complaint Against David Lerner Cause Apple REIT To Deny Redemption Requests By Investors?

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:30:51 -0500

Last week, FINRA's complaint filed against David Lerner & Associates triggered a storm of media attention scrutinizing the brokerage firm's alleged sales practices violations related to its distribution of Apple REITs investments. The FINRA complaint also exposed that the $11 price per share of all Apple REITs offered are overvalued and that each REIT has been borrowing money to pay dividends. To view the FINRA complaint, click here.

Since 1992, David Lerner has served as best efforts underwriter and sole distributor of a series of ten REITs that have issued nearly $6.8 billion in securities to date. A REIT is a company that owns and usually operates income-producing real estate. To qualify as a REIT, a company must have most of its assets and income tied to a real estate investment and must distribute at least 90% of its taxable income to shareholders annually in the form of dividends. Several of the earlier Apple REITs have been acquired by other companies. However, Apple REIT Six, Apple REIT Seven, Apple REIT Eight and Apple REIT Nine continue to operate but are closed to new investors. Apple REIT Ten opened in January 2011 and is still open to new investors.

Since the complaint was filed, we have received multiple calls from aggrieved investors who want to withdraw their investments from Apple REIT Six through Ten but are concerned that the REITs will not honor their redemption requests. So the question is whether investors will be able to get their money back from the Apple REITs?

First of all, the Apple REITs are illiquid investments because there is no market to sell them to third parties. From a suitability standpoint, these investments are not appropriate for investors who may need access to cash in the short-term (e.g. retirees). Unfortunately, however, the FINRA complaint alleges that David Lerner targeted retirees to sell them Apple REITs. Obviously the risks associated with illiquidity are magnified as more of the investment is purchased. Since there is no market to sell Apple REITs on the open market, investors generally must rely on Apple REIT to honor redemption requests.

Each of the Apple REITs Six through Ten has rules described in the product prospectus regarding whether units of the REITs can be redeemed. The applicable Apple REIT program is referred to in the prospectus as the "Unit Redemption Program" and the language describing how the program works is very difficult to follow.

The language in each of prospectuses does state, however, that the company will not consider any redemption requests made within the first 12 months of purchase. Therefore, since the Apple REIT Ten did not open until January 2011, investors in Apple REIT Ten currently are not eligible to receive any of their money back. To view orginal Apple REIT prospectus, click here.

With regard to Apple REIT Six, Seven, Eight and Nine, it appears that those investors may be eligible to receive redemptions. Approved redemptions are paid quarterly and are considered on a first come, first serve basis. Therefore, if you have already decided that you want to make a redemption request, you have to get in line. Given the negative publicity surrounding these REITs, all of this increases the risk that redemptions will be limited and/or suspended altogether in the coming months. To go to the Apple REIT companies website and view additional information regarding each of these REITs, click here.

Another fact that increases the risks that redemption requests will be denied in whole or part is that the fact that the Unit Redemption Program limits the total amount of redemptions to three percent of the weighted average number of Units outstanding during the 12-month period immediately prior to the date of redemption. Also, the prospectuses state that the company has complete authority to deny redemption requests and to unilaterally change the rules on redemptions at any time. For example, the FINRA complaint alleges that in May 2011, after redemption requests exceeded the 3 percent limit in the first quarter of 2011, Apple REIT Eight raised the redemption percentage to 5 percent but lowered the redemption payout on non-reinvested shares to 92% of the purchase price. In other words, the company unilaterally imposed an 8% redemption charge on the Apple Eight REIT.

Attention David Lerner Customers Invested In Apple REITs: Tips To Help Recover Your Losses

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:39:14 -0500

If you are a David Lerner customer who is invested in Apple REITs and have read the newspapers this week, you have probably been searching for quality information to help you assess whether: (1) your REIT investments have lost money; (2) you are in danger of losing money and (3) there are any steps that you can take to avoid losing money.

As an attorney who represents investors, there are steps that you need to take to help protect yourself just in case things go from bad to worse. These tips will help you organize your thoughts and make you feel like you are gaining control of the situation. Should you contact an attorney, these tips will make it easier for the attorney to evaluate your case.

Tip 1: Create a written chronology of events.

It is our understanding that many of David Lerner's customers have attended one or more investment seminars. The statements made during these seminars as well as the documents provided by the financial advisor may turn out to be extremely important. For example, did the financial advisor hand out marketing materials describing the Apple REIT investments? Were they described to you as safe? Were any guarantees made?

Our memories are flawed and they become even more flawed as time passes. As a result, it is in your best interest to write down as much as you can remember now. You can add to it over time. Next week, you may see a television advertisement that triggers another helpful memory. Write it down. Focus on writing down things that you remember being told about the investment opportunity. Was it described as a safe investment? When were you told it was a safe investment opportunity? How many times were you told that it was a sure thing? How was the Apple REIT investments described to you?

All of these facts are very important should it become necessary to take legal action at some point in the future.

Tip 2: Begin to organize the key documents provided to you by David Lerner

Over the course of your relationship with David Lerner, you have probably received scores of documents. Below is a list of a few key documents that will help an attorney evaluate your case.

- Account opening documents: When you opened your David Lerner account, you signed documents that asked you to state your investment objectives and risk tolerance. For example, you or your financial advisor may have checked "income" as your investment objective and "moderate" as the risk tolerance. Furthermore, each year, David Lerner may have sent you a form asking you to update this information. Gather these documents together and place them in a seperate folder.

- Marketing Materials related to Apple REITs

- Handwritten notes and correspondences provided to you by your financial advisor: Notes by brokers can pop up in strange places like on the backs of folders, a torn piece of paper, etc. These could turn out to be a crucial pieces of evidence.

-Notes and correspondences from you to your advisor.

- Organize monthly account statements.

Tip 3: Beware of writing complaint letters

You may feel the need to write a complaint letter to David Lerner or a state regulator. Keep in mind that anything you say in those letter can be used against you later in a lawsuit.

Are The Wheels Coming Off Apple REITs Sold By David Lerner?

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:43:22 -0500

The New York headquartered brokerage firm David Lerner & Associates has marketed Apple REIT's to its customers as investments that provide safe income. Since 1992, David Lerner has sold more than $6 billion of Apple REITs into over a hundred thousand of its customer accounts. More specifically, since January 2011, David Lerner has sold over $300 million of Apple REIT Ten and since 1996, the firm has received $600 million from sales. This comprises of 60-70% of David Lerner's business during that time period. The firm has branch offices in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida.

Based on our preliminary investigation, David Lerner conducts investment seminars to entice investors to open accounts and purchase these investments. This week, FINRA, the entity responsible for regulating the brokerage industry, filed an action against the firm for allegedly failing to satisfy its due diligence and suitability obligations in connection with the sale of Apple REITs.

According to an article in today's New York Times entitled, Statements Skip Over REIT's Woes, for many years the price per share of Apple REITs listed on David Lerner's customer monthly statements has remained constant- $11 per share. The problem is that the market for the commercial real estate investments held inside of Apple REITs, extended stay hotels, has not been consistent. After all, the commercial real estate market has suffered historic losses in recent years. So, how can the price per share legitimately remain the same? It can't.

Unfortunately, Apple REITs appear to be the on the verge of collapsing despite its $11 per share price stated on the monthly statements issued to customers of David Lerner. The New York Times article states for example, that Apple REIT Eight has significant problems. It has failed to make mortgage payments on four hotels it owns. Furthermore, a day after FINRA filed its lawsuit, an investment management company began a tender offer for up to 5% of the outstanding Apple Eight shares. The offering price was only $3, not $11.

More bad news may be on the way for investors in these REITs and David Lerner will likely be right in the middle of the legal storm. After all, David Lerner was the underwriter on these investment and had a duty to conduct due diligence analysis on the viability of these investments. It was also the primary distributor of the investments to the public and marketed them as safe and conservative products.

Our firm represents investors who suffer investment losses and is investigating into this matter. If you purchased Apple REITs, feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

David Lerner Associates, Inc. Sued By FINRA Related To Apple REITs

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:49:24 -0500

The Wall Street Journal reports that FINRA filed suit against David Lerner Associates, Inc. for allegedly failing to satisfy its due diligence and suitability obligations in connection with the sale of Apple REITs. Since 1992 David Lerner has sold more than $6 billion in Apple REITs to its investors.

The FINRA complaint alleges that the Apple REITs are illiquid and heavily concentrated in extended stay hotels and that a substantial number of its customers were invested in more than one Apple REIT. This fact raises concerns about whether such recommendations were suitable for David Lerner's customers especially since FINRA alleges that the firm targeted its elderly unsophisticated clients for these income producing investments.

Even more concerning is the fact that several of these Apple REITs have maintained an $11 price per share even though the commercial real estate market (i.e. the sector invested in by the REITs) has declined considerably over the last few years. Furthermore, the FINRA complaint states that a substantial portion of the distributions paid by all Apple REITs comes from loan proceeds. In other words, the investments do not appear to be generating sufficient income to sustain the 7%-8% distributions, which suggests that the $11 per share price is over-inflated.

If you have been sold any Apple REIT by David Lerner Associates, Inc., you may have legal rights that could entitle you to recover your losses. Please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

FINRA Takes Aim At Brokers Selling Reverse Convertible Notes

Tue, 31 May 2011 14:15:37 -0500

Investment News reports that Richard Ketcham, FINRA's chairman and chief executive last week warned an audience of more than 900 industry professionals at the regulator's annual meeting in Washington that the regulator is focusing on broker-dealers that sell structured products such a reverse convertible notes.

This news comes on the heels of our blog post last week that the Massachusetts' state regulators is also targeting firms who are selling these products to retail investors. As we reported, structured products like reverse convertible notes are very complex investments that are rarely suitable for the average investor.

In this low interest environment, however, reverse convertibles are attractive to retirees seeking income because they provide above-average yields and resemble corporate bonds given that they are often linked to well known companies (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Apple, etc.) What investors often do not know is that reverse convertibles involve complex and risky options trades which is often not adequately disclosed during the sales process. In general, when the stock price falls below a pre-determined price during the term of the note, upon maturity, investors receive shares of stock at a depressed price instead of their principal investment. To make matters worse, the products pay above-average commissions to a sales force who by in large are only knowledgeable about the sales points, not the intricate risks.

According to the article, more than 8,000 different structured products are currently offered and last year's sales hit a record of $55 billion, up 61% from $34 billion in 2009. This shocking sales data and the historically volatile stock market spell danger and losses for investors. Regulators do need to be watching carefully this developing story.

Reverse Convertible Notes Targeted By Massachusetts Securities Regulators

Thu, 26 May 2011 17:08:58 -0500

According to a Bloomberg News article today entitled, Massachusetts Investigates Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes, the state securities regulator appears to be positioning itself to potentially take action against the brokerage industry on its sales practices related reverse convertible notes.

Reverse convertible notes are very complex structured investments that are rarely suitable for retail investors. To the average investor, they look like corporate bonds issued by large well-known corporations (e.g. Bank of America, John Deere, Apple, etc) that pay above-average yields over a period of three to twelve months. As a result, they are an easy sell to retirees looking for an investment to provide supplemental income.

In reality, however, reverse convertible notes are not corporate bonds and investors are not investing in large corporations. The investments are actually created by investment banks and investors in these products are actually purchasing an option to receive shares of stock in the large company at a depressed price upon maturity.

For example, an individual invests $25,000 into a hypothetical reverse convertible note linked to Bank of America that pays monthly interest of 8% and matures in twelve months. Therefore, during the twelve month period, the investor receives income payments amounting to 8% per month.

The key question is, however, does the investor receive his or her principal investment back at the end of the twelve months as in a corporate bond? The answer is that it depends on whether the price of Bank of America stock dropped below a pre-determined value during the course of the twelve months. If not, then the investor receives his or her principal investment back in full. If so, then the investor does not get his or her principal investment back. Instead, he or she receives shares of Bank of America stock at a depressed price per share.

This is just one example of a myriad of ways these products are structured and the riskiness is not always clear from the amount of interest the investment pays. For example, a reverse convertible paying 15% over three months may be less risky than a note paying 6% over twelve notes. Therefore, it is very difficult for even very experienced options investors to know whether they are getting a good deal.

To make matters worse, reverse convertibles pay above-average commissions and the financial advisors selling the products often do not fully understand what they are selling. They may know the selling points but that is not sufficient, which is why Massachusetts appears to be positioning itself to take action.

Our firm has represented investors who lost money in these investments. If you have suffered losses, feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

FINRA Conducts Sweep of Marketing Materials Related To Reverse Convertible Notes

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:09:56 -0500

Today, FINRA announced that it is conducting a "sweep" to survey advertisements used by brokerage firms in connection with the sale of reverse convertible notes. Brokers are being required to turn over copies of all marketing materials used to sell the structured products between September 2010 and February 2011. Brokers have until April 1, 2011 to comply.

Reverse convertible notes (RCNs) are complex derivative investments that are rarely suitable for retail investors. To the average investor, these investments resemble short-term corporate bonds issued by well known companies such as General Electric. In reality, RCNs are issued by investment banks and involve complex options transactions. The options are linked to the stock price of well-known companies. During the initial payout phase (i.e. typically 3-12 months) investors receive above-average yields. The catch is that if during that payout phase the stock price of the linked company drops below a predetermined price, investors do not receive their principal back upon maturity. Instead, investors receive shares of stock in the linked company at a depressed price per share.

In part because of the complex nature of these investments, FINRA sent a notice to brokerage firms last year reminding them that marketing material must be fair and balanced. This recent sweep is FINRA's way of following up to determine whether its members are in compliance.

The Doss Firm, LLC has represented multiple investors who lost money investing in reverse convertible notes. If you believe that you are a victim, please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

FINRA Orders Schwab To Pay $18 million to Investors In the YieldPlus Bond Fund

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:25:09 -0500

This month, FINRA announced that it ordered Schwab to pay $18 million to investors for improperly marketing its YieldPlus Bond fund to retail investors. The order requires Charles Schwab to pay the money into a Fair Fund that will be established by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to repay investors in YieldPlus fund, an ultra short term bond fund managed by Charles Schwab Investment Management. According to the disciplinary report, $17.5 million of the $18 million consists of fees that Schwab collected on sales of the fund. The other $500,000 constitutes a fine.

The FINRA investigation found that despite changes in the fund's portfolio that caused the fund to be disproportionately affected by mortgage backed securities, Schwab continued to market the fund as a low-risk alternative to money market funds. Between September 1, 2006 to February 29, 2008, Schwab sold over $13.75 billion in shares of the YieldPlus to customers.

The Doss Firm, LLC represents investors who lost money in the YieldPlus fund. For a free consultation, please feel free to contact us.

Atlanta Business Chronicle Publishes Article Co-Authored By Jason Doss on Securities Arbitration

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:41:58 -0500

The Doss Firm, LLC is pleased to announce that on March 18, 2011, the Atlanta Business Chronicle published an article co-authored by Jason Doss entitled Securities arbitration rules should be revised. The article discusses recent developments in legislation that may ultimately permit retail investors the opportunity to opt out of arbitration in disputes with financial advisors and their firms. Currently, investors with investment accounts at brokerage firms such as Merrill Lynch are required to resolve all disputes in FINRA arbitration. FINRA is the entity that regulates much of the financial services industry. The reason that investors are forced into arbitration is that brokerage firms bury arbitration clauses in the stacks of documents signed by investors when an account is opened. In addition, even if investors realize that their contracts contain an arbitration clause, brokerage firms typically will not accept the consumer as a client.

Critics of the arbitration forum have long argued that it is biased in favor of the securities industry. Recent federal legislation empowers the Securities Exchange Commission to examine whether forced arbitration harms the investing public. If it does, the agency has the power to prohibit the practice.

The Atlanta Business Chronicle article advocates that investors should be able to choose whether to resolve their disputes in the arbitration forum or proceed in court. After all, if arbitration is so great everyone would choose it.

The Georgia Bar Journal Publishes Article Co-Authored By Attorney Jason Doss

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:25:42 -0500

The Doss Firm, LLC is pleased to announce that the Georgia Bar Journal published an article co-authored by Jason Doss in the February 2011 edition. The article is entitled Holmes v. Grubman: The Supreme Court of Georgia Balances Financial Advisor Common Law Liability and Investor Protection.

The article summarizes the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion and discusses how Georgia law acknowledges that the relationship between financial advisors and their customers are fiduciary in nature. The article also discusses the ramifications of the Court's holding that the fiduciary duty also extends to non-discretionary client accounts.

The Georgia Bar Journal is delivered to over 35,000 attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia. For a copy of the article, please click here.

Attorney Jason Doss Speaks At ABA Mid-Year Meeting On Securities Arbitration In The Wake of The Dodd-Frank Act

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:17:06 -0500

The Doss Firm, LLC is pleased to announce that on February 11, 2011, Jason Doss was a featured speaker at the ABA Mid-Year meeting in Atlanta. The CLE course was entitled Securities Arbitration Practice & Procedure In The Wake of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.

Jason Doss is also currently under contract with the American Bar Association to write a book for practitioners tentatively titled, Securities Arbitration Practice & Procedure. It is scheduled to be released later this year.

Attention New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Members: Immediate Steps To Take If You Suffered Investment Losses From Ephren Taylor, Capital City Corp. and/or Bishop Eddie Long

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:29:53 -0500

On September 28, 2010, at the outset of the sex scandal that ripped through New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, we posted a blog post entitled, Bishop Eddie Long's New Birth Church Members Are Sitting Ducks For An Affinity Fraud Investment Scam. In that posting, we warned that church members were at risk of becoming victims of financial fraud.

After reading the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports over the last couple days about Bishop Eddie Long going "viral" in an attempt to recover lost money on behalf of trusting church members, it is clear that our warning came too late.

If you fear that you have been a victim of Ephren Taylor and Capital City Corp, you need to take immediate steps to help regain control of the untenable situation you face. Hopefully, the tips below will also assist you in recovering your losses.

Tip 1: Do not accept any settlement offer without first consulting with an attorney.

Based on some quick research, it appears that Capital City Corporation is a business development company authorized under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 to make loans and equity investments in developing business enterprises. According to today's AJC article, Capital City Corp. stated, "the legal team has been working with individuals to legally and privately resolve, refund, and restructure any potential losses."

As an attorney who represents defrauded investors, I interpret "refund and restructure" to mean small refund now, long wait to get back the rest of your money. Because Capital City makes loans and equity investments in developing business enterprises, my guess is that it was hit pretty hard during the recession. As a result, Capital City may be cash poor right now and does not want to refund all of the investment losses right now. In their settlement sales pitch, the legal team hired by Capital City will likely paint a rosy picture of Capital City's future business opportunities. This will make the settlement offer look like a low risk proposition. Do not trust them. They are not looking out for your best interests. They are only interested in limiting Capital City's exposure to liability.

Tip 2: Do not sign any documents provided to you by Capital City Corp. and/or Ephron Taylor.

When parties settle disputes, the defendant always wants the plaintiff to sign a release. A release typically is a paragraph contained in the settlement agreement that looks like boiler-plate words. Its function is to absolve the defendant of any and all sins it committed in the past. The release has the effect of prohibiting a plaintiff from filing a subsequent lawsuit. Importantly, the language of the release will not be limited solely to Capital City Corp. It will also include New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Bishop Eddie Long and any other person or entity and anyone else Capital City's attorneys can think of.

Tip 3: Get copies of any recorded church services where Capital City Corporation and/or Ephron Taylor was discussed.

I have never attended New Birth but like many churches, it is likely that the church records its services. These recording will provide crucial evidence about the representations that were made about Capital City Corp. and/or Ephren Taylor.

I once represented a woman from Atlanta that was defrauded (along with a group of others) in an affinity fraud scheme at her church. The pastor of her church was very vocal in his support of the fraudster and made many statements during church service that were recorded. These recordings provided crucial evidence in her case because they contained many misrepresentations about the nature of the investment opportunity.

To recap - (1) Get a lawyer; (2) Do not sign anything; and (3) Get the tapes!

Tip 4: Create a written chronology of events.

Our memories are flawed and they become even more flawed as time passes. As a result, it is in your best interest to write down as much as you can remember now. You can add to it over time. Next week, you may see an television advertisement that triggers another helpful memory. Write it down. Focus on writing down things that you remember being told about the investment opportunity. Was it described as a safe investment? When were you told it was a safe investment opportunity? How many times were you told that it was a sure thing? How did Capital City Corp. and/or Ephren Taylor gain your trust?

All of these facts are very important should it become necessary to take legal action at some point in the future.

Tip 5: Did I mention that you should hire an attorney?

All victims of investment scams have suffered from the breach of a trust relationship. The trust relationship is a very powerful force. It frequently causes victims to blame themselves and it can also skew your memories. As a result, individuals who are in this position need to acknowledge and accept that they need the help of a disinterested representative. Attorneys serve this function well.

The Doss Firm, LLC Investigating Class Cases Against Issuers of Reverse Convertible Notes

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:31:05 -0500

The Doss Firm, LLC currently represents investors who lost money investing in reverse convertible notes. While our firm currently represents investors in individual cases against financial services firms like Ameriprise Financial for allegedly wrongly selling these products to senior citizens, we are also investigating class cases against the issuers of these products for failing to disclose the impact that excessive fees have on the investment performance .

If you have been sold one or more reverse convertible notes, you may have a legal claim against the issuer of the product or the firm that sold the investment to you. Feel free to contact us for a free consultation and portfolio evaluation.