FINRA

FINRA Orders Wells Fargo & Banc of America’s Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $5.1M for Floating-Rate Bank Loan Funds Sales

Published on: June 4, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MER) and Wells Fargo Advisors LLC must pay $5.1 million for losses sustained by customers who bought floating-rate bank loan funds.

According to the SRO, brokers at Banc of America and Merrill recommended the purchase of floating-rate bank loan funds to customers who didn’t have investment goals, risks tolerance, or financial conditions that were consistent with the features and risks of these kinds of mutual funds. Instead, these were customers whose risk tolerance levels were conservative and wanted to preserve principal. FINRA says that the sale recommendations were made even though there wasn’t reason to believe that floating-rate bank loan funds would be suitable for these investors.

In regards to the allegations against Wells Fargo, FINRA, in its acceptance, waiver and consent letter, said that brokers there warned about the funds but that the firm failed to act on their worries. The SRO says that the brokers had even confused the funds with bank certificates of deposit and other less risky investments.

FINRA Chief Ketchum Calls for Brokers To Better Inform Investors of Fixed Income, Structured Product Risks

Published on: May 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority CEO and Chairman Richard G. Ketchum says that with more investors getting involved in sophisticated investments, broker-dealers must do a more thorough job of informing them of the risks involved in complex financial instruments. Speaking at FINRA’s yearly conference in DC, Ketchum said that now is when brokerage firms should be talking to clients about the possible drawbacks of having concentrated holdings in fixed-income securities that are more speculative or for a longer duration. He also talked about letting clients know that bond funds are not the equivalent of owning fixed securities directly.

Acknowledging that it can be more difficult to train financial advisers on how to make effective disclosures to customers about structured products, Ketchum suggested that using simple language is one way that broker can provide potential investors with more information, rather than just satisfying disclosure requirements. The FINRA chief spoke about how it essential it was to sure that investors have a better comprehension of the risks involved in what they are buying.

Ketchum also scolded financial firms for being more direct when it comes to marketing on their websites than they are with the disclosure and legal sides. He noted that providing investors with disclosures that they don’t fully understand creates more risks for the firms in the long run.

FINRA Orders LPL Financial to Pay $7.5M Over Allegedly Inadequate Supervision of E-Mails

Published on: May 23, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In what is being called the SRO’s largest fine to date over e-mail violations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that it is fining LPL Financial LLC $7.5 million over 35 key e-mail system failures. The financial firm also has to set up a $1.5 million fund to compensate customers that may have been impacted. That is a total of $9 million.

According to FINRA, the e-mail and retention issues took place between 2007 and 2013, with LPL’s systems failing a minimum of 35 times. The brokerage firm allegedly did not fulfill its duty to supervise representatives, capture email, and answer regulator requests.

For more than four years, LPL purportedly did not supervise 28 million business emails that involved thousands of independent contractor representatives. The broker-dealer also is accused of making misstatements to the SRO during the latter’s investigation into the matter (email systems failures made it impossible for the firm to give over certain documents).

LPL Financial Ordered to Pay $7.5M FINRA Fine Over E-Mail Failures

Published on: May 22, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that LPL Financial LLC must pay a $7.5 million fine for inadequately supervising more than 28 million business emails between 2007 and 2013. This is the largest fine the SRO has ever imposed over an e-mail case.

According to FINRA, LPL’s systems for overseeing and storing e-mails failed a minimum of 35 times. It contends that the firm did not succeed in fulfilling its duty to retain e-mails, supervise its representatives, and properly respond to requests by regulators. The SRO attributes these problems to the brokerage firm’s failure to put enough resources toward updating its e-mail system as its business grew quickly.

Among the e-mail failures:

FINRA Securities Activities: SRO Withdraws Proposal to Make Financial Firms Link to BrokerCheck, Gets Request from SIFMA to Modify ‘Inability to Pay’ Rule, and Says Broker-Dealers Can Give Investors PIP Data About ETPs

Published on: May 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SRO Says Brokerage Can Institutional Customers PIP Data About ETPs Under Certain Conditions

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority staff have determined that under certain conditions, broker-dealers are permitted to include pre-inception performance information in communications with institutional investors about exchange-traded products, also known as ETPs. Staffers said that FINRA Rule 2210, which governs institutional communications, allows for the use of this data in the way that a fund company is proposing. ALPA Distributors is proposing using the PIP information just in institutional communications, per FINRA Rule 2210 and subject to certain criteria.

However, in “applying the suitability standards” for recommendations to institutional customers,” the SRO said brokerage firms should be cautious about putting too much “weight” on PIP information, while taking into consideration the correlation between performance of other, similar ETPs managed by the investment adviser, sponsor, or index provider and the PIP data. The staff’s letter was in response to a letter written by the fund company, which sees value in giving institutional investors the information for ETPs analysis.

FINRA Notifies Brokerage Firms About Non-traded REIT Information that Can Mislead Investors

Published on: May 6, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is alerting broker-dealers that the way they market certain non-traded real estate investment trusts could be misleading investors. The regulator said its recent reviews of brokerage firm communications with the public about these investments showed “deficiencies.” The SRO has been trying to improve the sales practices related to illiquid REITs and increase their transparency.

Among the identified information shortcomings:
• Inaccurate and misleading statements about the benefits of investing • Failure to adequately explain the risks involved • Describing a real estate security as a “yield,” which can incorrectly suggest that it is a bond
FINRA said it is necessary for brokerage firms to provide “fair and balanced” distribution rates, while explaining that distribution payments are not a given. The regulator observed that some broker-dealers are prone to highlight these payments, which are given to investors as soon as the nontraded REITs are sold, but fails to inform that some distributions are the return of their principal or borrowed money. FINRA reminded broker-dealers that they have to wait until an REIT has paid distributions for six months before it can make claims about the instrument’s yearly return rate.

The SRO noted that data about related or affiliated REITs should be as prominently visible as other information, and past performance information about REITs involving the current investment being promoted cannot be cherry picked.

REITs and Non-traded REITs
REITs invest in commercial real estate, which gives investors a chance to benefit from the increase in property values, and they are publicly traded. Non-traded REITs, which don’t trade on securities exchange, can be tough to sell in secondary markets or illiquid. Investors usually have to pay higher fees for them.

FINRA has been targeting the improper-sale of non-traded REITs for some time now. This latest notification to brokerage firms doesn’t mention how many broker-dealers it looked at (or which ones) to reach its conclusions.

Our REIT lawyers represent investors throughout the US. For over two decades, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP has helped thousands of investors recoup their investment losses by going through arbitration via FINRA, NYSE, NASD, and AAA, as well as through the state and federal courts.

FINRA Provides Guidance on Communications With the Public Concerning Unlisted Real Estate Investment Programs, FINRA.org (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Majority of Non-Traded REITs Underperform Compared to Benchmarks, Reports New Study, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2012
Private REITs: The Need for Tougher Oversight?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 28, 2011
Apple REIT Arbitration: FINRA Rules Against David Lerner Associates in First of Hundreds of Cases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 26, 2012 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Plan May Dramatically Change The Way Brokerage Firms Report On Nontraded REITS & Other Illiquid Investments on Client Statements

Published on: April 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s board of governors has a plan that could radically modify the way brokerage firms report illiquid investments’ value on the account statements of clients. The SRO, which wants to give investors more transparency in regards to the actual value of such investments, has been trying to modify its rules about REITs and private placement valuations on client statements for well over a year.

Earlier this month, in changes it is proposing to Rule 2340, the FINRA board presented two reporting alternatives for brokerage firms. With the first option, a brokerage firm wouldn’t need to have the per-share estimated value of an REIT or a private placement that is unlisted included in customers’ account statements. The second choice lets a brokerage firm chose from three options:

• A valuation done by an external service at least one time every three years.

NBA, NFL Players Among Alleged Promissory Note Fraud Victims of Success Trade Securities, Says FINRA

Published on: April 22, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has issued temporary cease-and-desist order against Fuad Ahmed, the president and CEO of Success Trade Securities, Inc., to stop his alleged financial fraud activities. It also put out a complaint against him and the online brokerage firm, charging them with promissory note fraud. The notes were issued by Success Trade, Inc. Ahmed is one of its majority owners. Success Trade Securities runs LowTrades and Just2Trades.

FINRA issued the TCDO over concerns that if it didn’t, investors’ assets and funds would continue to be misused. The SRO contends that the brokerage firm, its financial representatives, and Ahmed sold over $18M in promissory notes to nearly five dozen investors, including ex- and current NBA and NFL Athletes, while omitting or misrepresenting material facts, such as how they were raising $5 million via the selling of the notes or that the sales went over 300% above the original offering.

The majority of notes promised a 12.5-26% yearly interest rate payment monthly over three years. Also, Success Trade Securities and Ahmed allegedly did not disclose both how much the brokerage firm owed investors and that it couldn’t keep paying interest payments unless it brought it new investor money. The SRO believes that note sale proceeds went to unsecured loans to Ahmed, past investor payments, and firm operations.

Former Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Deutsche Bank Broker is Ordered by FINRA To Pay Investor $11M Over Alleged Securities Fraud

Published on: April 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A FINRA arbitration panel is ordering ex-broker Karl Hahn, who previously worked with Bank of America Corp’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch (MER), Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY), and Deutsche Bank AG’s (DB) Deutsche Bank Securities, to pay investor Chase Bailey $11 million because he sustained about $6 million in losses allegedly caused by securities fraud. Bailey contends that Hahn made excessive trades and misrepresented securities related to transactions involving a number of investments, including a variable annuity, approximately $2.3 million in fraudulent real estate financing involving East Coast properties, and covered calls.

In the filmmaker/Internet entrepreneur’s securities arbitration claim, Bailey named the three financial firms where Hahn previously worked. It is during this period that Bailey was allegedly defrauded. (He had moved his funds from one brokerage firm to the other each time Hahn was hired by that employer.) Bailey settled his case with Merrill for $700,000, while claims against Deutsche Bank and Oppenheimer were tossed out.

Per the FINRA arbitration ruling, Bailey is awarded $6.4 million in punitive damages and $4.1 million in compensatory damage. Ordering brokers to pay punitive damages is uncommon.

Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court

Published on: April 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is holding that an arbitration award granted to investors cannot be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act just because an arbitrator exhibited obvious partiality when failing to reveal that he wrote a dissent in an unrelated arbitration that allegedly showed he had prejudged issues of law. The securities case is Antietam Industries Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.

Petitioners Antietam Industries Inc., Janice Warfel, and William Warfel contend they sustained financial losses over their RMK fund investments. In 2011, they filed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration case claiming that their money was lost because Morgan Keegan had made misrepresentations while failing to disclose how risky the funds were.

Last year, the panel awarded the petitioners $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, plus fees and interest, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. When they sought to confirm the award, Morgan Keegan submitted a motion to vacate, pointing to FAA and contending that arbitrator Christopher Mass allegedly showed partiality and “misbehavior” with his failure to disclose his previous dissent. The court, however, rejected Morgan Keegan’s argument, saying it was not convinced that Mass was predisposed or had prejudged.