Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Published on: | by

The U.S. District Court in Manhattan’s Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has approved a $40 million class action settlement in the residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against three individuals who used to be affiliated with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ). The plaintiffs are pension and union groups, including Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers – Employers Construction Trust Fund, Boilermakers-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, and New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund. The deadline for class members to file their settlement claims is August 20, 2012.

The defendants, Samir Tabet, James J. Sullivan, and Mark L. Zusy, had previously worked for Lehman affiliate Structured Asset Securities Corp. They are accused of filing misleading Offering Documents about the credit quality of mortgage pass-through certificates that were worth billions of dollars. The certificates were issued in 2006 and 2007.

The plaintiffs had submitted their original institutional securities lawsuit prior to Lehman’s filing for bankruptcy in September 2008. This case is one of a number of class action complaints accusing the financial firm and its ex-executives of wrongdoing and negligence.

Per the terms of the RMBS settlement, the Lehman Brothers Estate is responsible for paying $8.3 million. Dow Jones News Services reports that an insurance policy for the financial firm’s ex-directors and former officers will pay the remaining $31.7 million.

When Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, this was considered a major catalyst for the global financial crisis that ensued. The firm, which emerged from bankruptcy protection this March, is now a liquidating company that is expected to spend the next years repaying its investors and creditors that have asserted over $300 billion in claims. Depending on the type of debt owed, a creditor may receive 21 cents/28 cents on the dollar. Also, Lehman is still a defendant in several securities lawsuits related to its bankruptcy and there are other claims against it that need to be resolved.

Last month, Judge Kaplan approved the use of $90 million in insurance to settle another lawsuit against Fuld, ex-finance chief Erin Callan, ex-president Joseph Gregory, former CFO Ian Lowitt, ex-chief risk officer Christopher O’Meara, and several former Lehman directors. The plaintiffs include pension funds, companies, and individuals located abroad. The investors had purchased $30 billion in Lehman debt and equity prior to the firm’s bankruptcy filing and their investments later failed.

Kaplan had initially refused to let the plaintiffs’ insurers pay the $90 million because he wanted to determine whether the securities settlement was a fair one. Now that the federal judge has signed off on it, the plaintiffs will not have to pay for the settlement out of pocket and they are released from the investors’ securities claims.

Judge Approves $40M Settlement with Ex-Lehman Execs, WSJ, June 22, 2012

The Lehman Settlement

Ex-Lehman Executives’ $90 Million Settlement Approved, Bloomberg, May 24, 2012


More Blog Posts:
Ex-Lehman Brothers Holdings Chief Executive Defends Request that Insurance Fund Pay Legal Bills, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 19, 2011

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A Financial Industry Arbitration panel has decided that ex-UBS Financial Services broker Pericles Gregoriou can keep $1 million of the signing bonus he was given when he joined the financial firm even though he left the company earlier than what the terms of the hiring agreement stipulated. Gregoriou worked for the UBS AG (UBS) unit from ’07 to ’09.

This is an unusual victory for a broker. They usually find it very challenging to contest demands by a financial firm to give back unpaid bonus money. However, the FINRA panel said that Gregoriou was not liable for the $1 million damages. Also, the
panel denied Gregoriou’s counterclaim against UBS and a number of individuals. He had sought $3.24 million.

In a securities fraud case involving two former Bear Stearns employees against the SEC, “reluctantly,” the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a settlement deal involving Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi. The defendants are accused of making alleged representations about two failing hedge funds.

The ex-Bear Stearns managers faced civil and criminal charges in 2008 for allegedly misleading bank counterparties and investors about the financial state of the funds, which ended up failing due to subprime mortgage-backed securities exposure in 2007. Cioffi and Tannin were acquitted of the criminal allegations in 2009.

Senior Judge Frederic Block approved the agreement wile noting that the SEC has limited powers when it comes to getting back the financial losses of investors. He asked Congress to think about whether the government should do more to help victims of “Wall Street predators.”

Per the terms of the securities settlement, Tannin will pay $200K in disgorgement and a $100K fine. Meantime, Cioffi will also pay a $100K fine and $700K in disgorgement. Although both are settling without denying or admitting to the allegations, they also have agreed to not commit 1933 Securities Act violations in the future and consented to temporary securities industry bars—Tannin for two years and Cioffi for three years.

In other securities law news, the U.S. District for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit that investors in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scam had filed against the government. The reason for the dismissal was lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The investors blame the SEC for allowing the multibillion dollar scheme to continue for years and they have pointed to the latter’s alleged gross negligence” in not investigating the matter. The plaintiffs contend that the Commission breached its duty to them. Judge Paul Friedman, however, sided with the government in its argument that the investors’ claims are not allowed due to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “discretionary function exception,” which gives the SEC broad authority in terms of when to deciding when to conduct probes into alleged securities law violations.

While recognizing the plaintiffs’ “tragic” financial losses, the court found that investors failed to identify any “mandatory obligations” that were violated by SEC employees that executed discretionary tasks. The plaintiffs also did not adequately plead that the SEC’s activities lacked grounding in matters of public policy.

Meantime, the SEC has named ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) executive Thomas J. Butler the director of its new Office of Credit Ratings. The office is in charge of overseeing the nine nationally recognized statistical rating organizations that are registered, and it was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The office will conduct a yearly exam of each credit rating agency and put out a public report.

UBS loses case to recoup bonus from ex-broker, Reuters, February 6, 2012

Former Exec to Head Office of Credit Ratings, The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

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

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel is ordering Morgan Stanley Smith Barney to pay $5 million to Todd G. Vitale and John P. Paladino, two of the brokers that the financial firm had wooed from UBS AG (UBS) in 2008. The two brokers are alleging fraudulent misrepresentations, breach of written and oral contract, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission and/or concealment, intentional interference with existing and prospective economic advantage, negligent omission and/or concealment, California Labor Code violations, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, constructive fraud, negligent supervision, and failure to supervise. They both still work for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

Both brokers were recruited a few months before Morgan Stanley merged with Citigroup Inc.’s (C) Smith Barney. Per the terms of their recruiting agreement, Vitale was promised that within six months of joining the financial firm he would become a salaried manager. Paladino would then inherit Vitale’s book, which would come with significant revenue.

After the merger occurred, however, a number of key management changes happened, and four years after they were hired, Vitale still hasn’t been promoted to manager while Paladino has yet to get his book. Also, Paladino’s monthly income has been reduced.

Ruling on the case, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded $2 million to Paladino and $2.6 million to Vitale. $355,000 in legal fees was also awarded to the two men.

This arbitration proceeding is one of numerous cases of late involving investment advisers claiming that financial firms had wooed them with promises that were never fulfilled. Brokerage firms often make verbal commitments when recruiting and they protect themselves by not including these agreements in the actual employment contract.

“Successful financial advisors and brokers can manage tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars of their clients’ assets and securities firms are willing to pay, or promise to pay, them millions of dollars to bring their clients’ accounts to a new firm,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Partners and FINRA Arbitration Attorney William Shepherd. “Just as firms are not always honest with investors, these firms do not always keep their promises to advisors and brokers. Because licensed representatives and their firms are required to sign agreements to arbitrate disputes, cases of this type must be decided in securities arbitration. Our law firm has represented both investors and investment professionals in securities arbitration proceedings in their disputes with financial firms.”

Meantime, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney has issued a statement saying that the financial firm’s disagree with the panel’s decision and the facts support the ruling. However, there are internal firm memos documenting the recruiting deal.

Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Win $5M Employment Dispute Arbitration Award, Forbes, June 20, 2012

Panel Says MSSB Must Pay Recruited Brokers $5 Million, Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 5, 2012
Investment Advisers and Brokers Should Be Able To Explain in One Page Why an Investment Would Benefit a Retail Client, Says FINRA CEO Richard Ketchum, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 14, 2012

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Sentinel Management Group Execs Indicted Over Alleged $500M Fraud, Egan-Jones Rating Wants Court to Hear Bias Claim Against SEC, and Oppenheimer Funds Pays $35M Over Alleged Mutual Fund Misstatements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waver, and Consent to settle allegations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule violations involving his alleged failure to advise Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS) of his arrest for retail theft at a store in Wisconsin. FINRA has accepted the AWC, which Hutson submitted without denying or admitting to the findings and without adjudicating any issue.

The Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney broker (and before that he worked for predecessor company Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ((ASBXL)), had entered a “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor charge in February 2010. He received a jail sentence of nine months, which was reduced to 12 months probation. On August 16, 2010, Hutson, turned in a Form UT (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration) stating that he was voluntarily let go from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney because the financial firm accused him of not properly reporting the arrest.

Also, although Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) doesn’t mandate the disclosure of a mere arrest but does contemplate a criminal charge (at least), many industry members obligate employees to disclose any arrests. Yet when it was time to update this form by March 18, 2010, FINRA says that Hutson did not report the misdemeanor theft plea. Then, when he filled out Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s yearly compliance questionnaire on May 19, 2010, he again denied having been arrested or charged with a crime in the past year or that he was statutorily disqualified.

FINRA contends that Hutson willfully violated its Article V, Section 2 (C) by-laws by not disclosing the criminal charge. The SRO also says that his later “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor theft violated FINRA Rule 2010 (when he made the false statement that he hadn’t been charged with any crime in the 12 months leading up to his completion of the compliance questionnaire) and he again violated this same rule when it was time to fill out the questionnaire. Per the AWC terms, Hutson is suspended from associating with any FINRA member for five months and he must pay a $5,000 fine.

“A broker can have a dozen complaints by investors and lose a half-dozen claims of wrongdoing, in which arbitrators reimburse these investors only part of their millions in collective losses, yet the broker is neither fined nor suspended,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP founder and Securities Attorney William Shepherd. “A shoplifting charge in one’s past – very bad. Repeated misrepresentations to investors – so what. Perhaps FINRA should get its priorities straight.”

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson, Forbes, June 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Investor Groups, Securities Lawyers, and Business Community Comment on the JOBS Act Reg D’s Investor Verification Process, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 24, 2012

SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

Accused Texas Ponzi Scammer May Have Defrauded Investors of $2M, Stockbroker Fraud, August 3, 2011

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Former Sentinel Management Group Inc. CEO Eric Bloom and head trader Charles Mosley have been indicted for allegedly defrauding investors of about $500 million prior to the firm’s filing for bankruptcy protection in 2007. The government is seeking forfeiture of approximately that amount.

The two men are accused of fraudulently getting and retaining “under management” this money by misleading clients about where their money was going, the investments’ value, and the associated risks involved. According to prosecutors, defendants allegedly used investors’ securities as collateral to get a loan from Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK), in part to buy risky, illiquid securities. Bloom is also accused of causing clients to believe that Sentinel’s financial problems were not a result of these risky purchases, the indebtedness to the BoNY credit line, and too much use of leverage.

In other securities law news, Egan-Jones Rating Co. wants the Securities and Exchange Commission’s attempts to pursue claims against it in an administrative forum instead of in federal court blocked. The credit rating agency, which has long believed that the SEC does not treat it fairly even as it “historically coddled and excused” the larger credit raters, contends that if it were forced to make its defense in an administrative hearing it would not be able to avail of its constitutional due process rights due to the SEC’s bias.The Commission’s administrative claims accuse Egan Jones and its president Sean Egan of allegedly making “material misrepresentations” in its 2008 registration application to become a nationally registered statistical rating agency for government and asset-backed and securities issuers.

Egan-Jones filed a complaint accusing the SEC of “institutional bias,” as well as of allegedly improper conduct when examining and investigating the small credit ratings agency (including having Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations staff go “back and forth between divisions and duties” to engage in both examination and enforcement roles.)The credit rater is also accusing the Commission of improperly seeking civil penalties against it under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, even though the actions it allegedly committed happened way before Dodd-Frank was enacted.

One firm that has agreed to settle the SEC’s administrative action against it is OppenheimerFunds Inc. Without denying or admitting to the allegations, the investment management company will pay over $35 million over allegations that it and its sales and distribution arm, OppenheimerFunds Distributor Inc., made misleading statements about the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund (OPCHX, OCHBX, OCHCX, OCHNX, OCHYX) and Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX) in 2008.

The SEC contends that Oppenheimer used “total return swaps” derivatives, which created significant exposure to commercial mortgage-backed securities in the two funds, but allegedly did not adequately disclose in its prospectus the year that the Champion fund took on significant leverage through these derivative instruments. OppenheimerFunds also is accused of putting out misleading statements about the financial losses and recovery prospects of the fund when the CMBS market started to collapse, allegedly resulting in significant cash liabilities on total return swap contracts involving both funds. The $35 million will go into a fund to payback investors.

Meantime, Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq OMX Group are proposing a $40M “voluntary accommodation” fund that would be used to payback members that were hurt because of technical problems that occurred during Facebook Inc.’s (FB) IPO offering last month. Nasdaq would pay about $13.7 million in cash to these members, while the balance would be a credit to them for trading expenses.

A technical snafu had stalled the social networking company’s market entry by about 30 minutes, which then delayed order confirmations on May 18, which is the day that Facebook went public. Many investors contend that they lost money as a result of Nasdaq’s alleged mishandling of their purchases, sales, or cancellation orders for the Facebook stock. Some of them have already filed securities lawsuits.

Sentinel Management Chief, Head Trader Indicted in Illinois, Bloomberg/Businessweek, June 1, 2012
Investors sue Nasdaq, Facebook over IPO, Reuters, May 22, 2012

Credit Rater Egan-Jones, Alleging Bias, Sues To Force SEC Proceeding Into Federal Court, BNA Securities Law Daily, June 8, 2012

OppenheimerFunds to pay $35M to settle SEC charge, Boston.com, June 6, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has decided not to grant summary judgment to UBS AG (UBS) and UBS Securities LLC in Mary Barker’s lawsuit claiming that her firing violated the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Judge Janet Hall found that UBS failed to show that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the plaintiff would have been let go “regardless of any protected activity.”

Barker, who started working for UBS in 1998, was terminated from her job in 2008 during a “large-scale” layoff. At the time, she was working in the Business Management Group of the Equities Chief Operating Officer’s office as an associate director. Barker filed her complaint the following year contending that she was actually let go because she “discovered reporting discrepancies” while working on a project to “reconcile” UBS’s New York Stock Exchange holdings. Barker contended that after this, she was “retaliated against or constructively discharged.” She also said that one of her bosses not only failed to adequately support her, but also had been “overlooking her for projects.”

Seeking summary judgment, UBS said that Barker failed to show that her “protected” behavior led to her termination. The district court, however, disagreed with UBS, countering that although the financial firm showed that it was undergoing “extreme financial hardship,” this does not show why the plaintiff, in particular, was let go.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the two federal agencies didn’t know that JPMorgan & Chase (JPM) had sustained $2 billion in trading losses until they heard about it through the press in April. Schapiro and Gensler testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee on May 22. Both agency heads noted that trading activities aren’t within the purview of the CFTC and the SEC. They also pointed out that the risky derivatives trading did not happen through JPMorgan’s futures commission merchant arm or broker-dealer arm.

The SEC has no authority over the credit default index derivatives that were involved in the trades, and although, per the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFTC will eventually regulate the swap dealing activities of banks, the rules to make this authority law have not yet been written.

Now, the CFTC is probing JPMorgan’s trading transactions. It recently issued subpoenas asking for the firm’s internal documents related to the financial firm’s massive loss. The probe is being run by the agency’s enforcement division and, according to Reuters, will revolve around what JPMorgan traders told internal management staff and their supervisors as the bets began to sour. (However, per the Wall Street Journal, the inquiry is in the beginning phases and not limited to what traders said or didn’t say. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that JPMorgan or certain individuals will be subject to any civil enforcement action.)

Meantime, Schapiro has said that the SEC is also looking into whether JPMorgan’s financial reporting and public disclosure were accurate in regards to what the financial firm knew and when it had this knowledge. She told Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that it was too early to tell whether JPMorgan’s activity would have violated the Volcker rule, which calls for banks to have their proprietary trading activity limited to risk-mitigation hedging. While JPMorgan has said that its transactions were hedges, experts are divided over this assessment. (The Volcker rule, which is part of Dodd-Frank, has not yet been implemented and there are critics fighting its current incarnation.) Menendez, in turn, said that Schapiro should look to JPMorgan’s trading loss as a reason for constructing strong verbiage when implementing the rule. However, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was also at the hearing, wondered whether employing this approach might backfire-initially causing the legislation to “look good,” while ultimately creating a situation where highly complex institutions would be placed situations to “not appropriately hedge their activity.”

IMPLEMENTING DERIVATIVES REFORM: REDUCING SYSTEMIC RISK AND IMPROVING MARKET OVERSIGHT, Banking.Senate.gov, May 22, 2012

Regulators Say They Learned Of J.P. Morgan Losses from news reports, Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2012

CFTC subpoenas JPMorgan over trading loss: WSJ, The Republic, May 31, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 22, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 19, 2012

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal judge Manuel Real threw out five of the seven securities claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its fraud lawsuit against ex-IndyMac Bancorp chief executive Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott
Keys. The Commission is accusing the two men of covering up the now failed California mortgage lender’s deteriorating liquidity position and capital in 2008. Real’s bench ruling dilutes the SEC’s lawsuit against the two men.

The Commission contends that Keys and Perry misled investors while trying to raise capital and preparing to sell $100 million in new stock before July 2008, which is when thrift regulators closed IndyMac Bank, F.S.B and the holding company filed for bankruptcy protection. They are accusing Perry of letting investors receive misleading or false statements about the company’s failing financial state that omitted material information. (S. Blair Abernathy, also a former IndyMac chief financial officer, had also been sued by the SEC. However, rather that fight the lawsuit, he chose to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.)

Attorneys for Perry and Keys had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that five of the seven filings that the SEC is targeting cannot support the claims. Real granted that motion last month, finding that IndyMac’s regulatory filings lacked any misleading or false statements to investors and did not leave out key information.

The remaining claims revolve around whether the bank properly disclosed in its 2008 first-quarter earnings report (and companion slideshow presentation) the financial hazards it was in at the time. The judge also ruled that Perry could not be made to pay back allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Real’s decision substantially narrows the Commission’s securities case against Perry and Keys. According to Reuters, the ruling also could potentially end the lawsuit against Keys because he was on a leave of absence during the time that the matters related to the filings that are still at issue would have occurred.

Before its collapse in 2008, Countrywide spinoff IndyMac was the country’s largest issuers of alt-A mortgage, also called “liar loans.” These high-risk home loans are primarily based on simple statements from borrowers of their income instead of tax returns. Unfortunately, loan defaults ended up soaring and a mid-2008 run on deposits at IndyMac contributed to its collapse. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which places its IndyMac losses at $13 billion, went on to sell what was left of the bank to private investors. IndyMac is now OneWest bank.

Judge dismisses parts of IndyMac fraud case, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CLQ) has consented to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority a $3.5M fine to settle allegations that he gave out inaccurate information about subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. The SRO is also accusing the financial firm of supervisory failures and inadequate maintenance of records and books.

Per FINRA, beginning January 2006 through October 2007, Citigroup published mortgage performance information that was inaccurate on its Web site, including inaccurate information about three subprime and Alt-A securitizations that may have impacted investors’ assessment of subsequent RMB. Citigroup also allegedly failed to supervise the pricing of MBS because of a lack of procedures to verify pricing and did not properly document the steps that were executed to evaluate the reasonableness of the prices provided by traders. The financial firm is also accused of not maintaining the needed books and records, including original margin call records. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

In other institutional investment securities news, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kent Whitney an ex-registered floor broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, agreed to pay $600K to settle allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that he made statements that were “false and misleading” to the exchange and others about a scam to trade options without posting margin. The CFTC contends that between May 2008 and April 2010, Whitney engaged in the scam on eight occasions, purposely giving out clearing firms that had invalid account numbers in connection with trades made on the New York Mercantile Exchange CME trading floors. He is said to have gotten out of posting over $96 million in margin.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. arbitrator Alvin Green is ordering David Lerner Associates Inc. to pay claimants Florence Hechtel and Joseph Graziose $24,450 for the Apple REITs that they bought from the firm. They will get the money after returning the Apple REIT 9 shares to the company. The Apple REIT is the 14th largest nontraded real estate investment trust in the US. David Lerner & Associates also will have to reimburse them their $425 FINRA claim filing fee.

According to Graziose and Hechtel, the financial firm misrepresented the Apple REIT 9, as well as breached its fiduciary duty and contract to them. Other Apple REIT investors have made similar claims. However, of the hundreds of arbitration claims (there are also securities lawsuits) that have been pending, this is the first one to go to hearing.

Per FINRA, since 1992 David Lerner & Associates has sold close to $7 billion in Apple REITs, making about $600 million in revenue from the sales (60-70% of the firm’s business since 1996). It is the only distributor of Apple REITs.

Last year, the SRO charged the financial firm with soliciting investors to buy Apple REIT Ten shares (a $2 billion non-traded REIT) without performing a reasonable investigation to make sure the REITs were suitable for these clients. Many of its Apple REIT investors are not only unsophisticated investors but also they are elderly. David Lerner & Associates also allegedly offered misleading information about the distribution online.

Several months ago, FINRA also sued firm owner David Lerner for similar alleged misconduct, including misleading clients about the valuation and risk involved in their Apple REIT Tens. The complaint against Lerner follows statements he is accused of making to investors after FINRA made its charges against the financial firm.

Per the amended complaint, Lerner wrote to over 50,000 clients to “counter negative press.” This letter also talked about a potential opportunity for Apple REIT shareholders to take part in a listing or a sale on a national exchange to get rid of their shares at a reasonable price. Also, at a seminar he hosted Lerner allegedly made statements to investors that were misleading.

For the last nine months, our REIT lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LPP has been investigating claims on behalf of investors who sustained losses in Apple Real Estate Investment Trusts that they bought from David Lerner Associates. For many investors, these non-traded REITs were unsuitable for them.

First Apple REIT case goes against Lerner, Investment News, May 23, 2012

FINRA Charges David Lerner & Associates With Soliciting Investors to Purchase REITs Without Fully Investigating Suitability; Lerner Marketed REITs on its Website With Misleading Returns, FINRA, May 31, 2011

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

REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 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., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
Contact us for information on our fees. Main Office
1010 Lamar St #900
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 227-2400 Fax: (713) 583-1217 Toll Free: (800) 259-9010
Contact us for information on our fees. Western Colorado
241 S Elizabeth St #500
Ridgway, CO 81432
Phone: (970) 239-7085
Contact us for information on our fees. Denver
1700 Lincoln St #2710
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (720) 439-2827
Contact us for information on our fees. Portland
621 SW Morrison St #1050-B
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (971) 285-3075
Contact us for information on our fees. Gulfport
2118 18th St #100
Gulfport, MS 39501
Phone: (228) 206-2493
Contact us for information on our fees. Tampa
407 N Howard Ave #201A
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 560-2992
Contact us for information on our fees. San Diego
1545 Hotel Cir S #150-1
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 550-4847
Contact us for information on our fees. Chicago
141 W Jackson Blvd #3550A
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 462-4176
Contact us for information on our fees. Buffalo Sheridan Meadows Corporate Park South
6225 Sheridan Dr #308-B
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (716) 261-3529
Contact us for information on our fees. Dallas Founders Square
900 Jackson St #440-A
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 613-5306
Contact us for information on our fees. New Orleans Lakeway Two
3850 N Causeway Blvd #200-B
Metairie, LA 70002
Phone: (504) 324-0252
Contact us for information on our fees. Lexington
216 E Reynolds Rd #C
Lexington, KY 40517
Phone: (859) 810-0266
Contact us for information on our fees. San Francisco
1 Embarcadero Ctr #500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 287-0877

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

We serve the following localities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Bernardino-Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa–St. Petersburg, and Washington, D.C. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design