Allegedly, Surevest invested some of its clients in high-risk portfolios, allocating very little of these accounts into traditionally low-risk investments. These high-risk investments allegedly included equities, non-traded REITs and other private placement securities. Some Surevest clients have raised allegations asserting that the high-risk investment recommendations were unsuitable and implemented regardless of the age, risk tolerance and other considerations of the investors.

According to securities arbitration lawyers, firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives, and risk tolerance. Non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors and makes them unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances as well as those who need easy access to funds. Other private placements and equities also carry significant risks.

The clients alleging unsuitability are also alleging that they would not have suffered such significant losses if their accounts had been managed and invested properly. Investment fraud lawyers say that investments with traditionally lower risk, such as bonds, may have been more appropriate for many investors. Surevest Capital Management, an investment advisory company, is registered in California, New York, Nevada and Arizona, and keeps offices in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

If you suffered significant losses because of the unsuitable recommendation of equities, non-traded REITs or other private placements from Surevest Capital Management or another full-service brokerage firm, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

REIT Investments like the ArciTerra National REIT typically offer commissions between 7-10 percent, which is significantly higher than traditional investments like mutual funds and stocks. In some cases, the commission generated by these investments can be as high as 15 percent. This higher commission can explain why brokerage firms are motivated to recommend these investments despite their possible unsuitability.

Stock fraud lawyers are investigating the possibility that brokerage firms may be held liable for the recommendation of ArciTerra National REIT. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that brokers and firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Non-traded REITs are illiquid and inherently risky and, therefore, not suitable for many investors.

Furthermore, the ArciTerra National REIT reportedly offered private placements in order to raise capital. These private placements were then offered by broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. According to investment fraud lawyers, because private placements are typically more complicated and carry more risk than other traditional investments, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors.

If you suffered losses in the ArciTerra National REIT, another risky REIT, or were unsuitably recommended private placements, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a stock fraud lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Bank of America held commercial loans from small banks amounting to around $400 million in 2006. In 2007, securities packages were put together from these loans and then sold to investors. The subpoena arrives only one day after Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. settled allegations of engaging in abusive mortgage practices. These abusive practices included engaging in deceptive practices in the offering of loan modifications, a failure to offer other options before closing on borrowers with federally insured mortgages, submitting improper documents to the bankruptcy court and robo-signing foreclosure documents without proper review of the paperwork.

The settlement amounted to $25 billion and involved federal agencies plus authorities in 49 states. This settlement is designed to give $2,000 to around 750 borrowers whose homes were foreclosed upon after the home values dropped 33 percent from their 2006 worth, and to provide mortgage relief. In addition, all five banks will pay $766.5 million in penalties to the Federal Reserve. This is considered to be the biggest federal-state settlement ever. Bank of America will also pay $1 billion to settle allegations that it, together with its Countrywide Financial unit, engaged in fraudulent and wrongful conduct.

Needless to say, between the recent settlement, the subpoena regarding two of its CLOs, and numerous potential securities arbitration claims related to its CDOs, Bank of America is not off to a good start in 2012. If suspicions about the Bank of America CLOs turn out to be correct, investors who suffered losses as a result may have a valid securities arbitration claim. Investors are advised to stay informed on this issue as it holds potential for loss recovery.