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.

According to the allegations made by one investor, Berthel Fisher failed to make the proper disclosures and perform adequate due diligence regarding the TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program. A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on July 8, which stated, “Berthel Fisher had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omission in the 2008 [private-placement memorandum] and failed to investigate red flags that pointed to other misrepresentations and omissions.”

The deal’s sponsor, Thompson National Properties LLC, and chief executive Tony Thompson have also been under investigation by securities arbitration lawyers for the TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., a non-traded REIT, and the TNP 12% Notes Program. Allegedly, the TNP Strategic Retail Trust was recommended to many investors for which it was unsuitable, given their age, risk tolerances and investment objectives. Reportedly, the 12% Notes Program, which was designed to raise capital for tenant-in-common real estate operations, suspended interest payments to investors and was in danger of defaulting on two loans.

In addition, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleged “misrepresentations, mismanagement, misappropriation of investor funds and other misconduct” on the part of Thompson and his team regarding another TNP-sponsored deal, TNP Kodak, or TNP 6700 Santa Monica Boulevard. According to stock fraud lawyers, it is possible that some brokerage firms may be held liable for inadequate due diligence or the unsuitable recommendation of TNP investments to investors.

If you suffered significant losses in the TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program LLC, TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., TNP 12% Notes Program or TNP Kodak, you may be able to recover your losses through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 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 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California judge David Carter denied in part Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment, allowing some of the claims made by investors to move forward.

Medical Capital is a medical-receivables company that was charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009 and subsequently went under. Since 2003, Wells Fargo has issued almost $2.2 billion in Medical Capital Holdings notes. The Medical Capital’s court-appointed receiver had, as of February, recovered $157.5 million for investors, but over $1 billion in unpaid principal is yet outstanding. Stock fraud lawyers hope to get that money back for their clients through the class action or individual FINRA securities arbitration claims.

Wells Fargo, as trustee of the notes, distributed investor funds so that medical receivables could be purchased by Medical Capital. According to securities fraud attorneys, investors have alleged that Medical Capital executives “used the trustee-controlled accounts as their personal piggy banks.” Reports stated that registered representatives who sold these notes said that they were given a sense of security by Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and Wells Fargo’s participation. Bank of New York Mellon agreed to pay investors $114 million in February, 2013 but a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo stated that “Wells Fargo believes it has acted appropriately and will continue to vigorously defend its case.”

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Wells Fargo in Medical Capital notes, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a stock fraud lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the allegations issued by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Lucia claimed that this wealth management strategy had been thoroughly “backtested” over real bear market periods. He allegedly made these claims while promoting Buckets of Money at seminars where he presented a lengthy slideshow indicating that retires would receive inflation-adjusted income while protecting and increasing savings through his wealth management program. In truth, however, despite publicly made claims, little, if any, backtesting was done by RJL and Lucia on the Buckets of Money strategy.

These seminars were held in hopes of obtaining advisory clients, according to the SEC’s order which instituted administrative proceedings against RJL and Lucia. These clients would then be charged advisory services fees. Lucia’s radio show and personal and company website promoted the seminars.

Reportedly, RJL and Lucia did not adequately maintain records of backtesting, despite the SEC rule that required them to do so. A pair of two-page spreadsheets that did not accurately duplicate the investment strategy advertised, served as the only backtesting calculations documentation.

Stock fraud lawyers are especially concerned about the fact that various non-traded REIT investments were often included in the Buckets of Money strategy. While the Buckets of Money strategy was aimed at retirees, non-traded REITs are typically unsuitable for retired investors because of their inherent risks and illiquidity. The unsuitable recommendations of many non-traded REITs are currently under investigation by securities fraud attorneys.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Ray Lucia Sr. and RJL, 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.

Early this month, a temporary asset freeze against the financial planning firm and Louis V. Schooler, the firm’s owner, was obtained by the SEC. Securities arbitration lawyers say the SEC’s allegations state that Schooler and Western Financial sold units in partnerships, organized by Western, for the purchase of vacant land located in Nevada. Reportedly, the land would then be held to be sold at a later date for a profit.

According to the SEC’s claims, Western neglected to tell investors that they (the investors) would be paying outrageous mark-ups on the land. Investment fraud lawyers say that in some cases, mark-ups amounted to over five times the fair market value of the land. Furthermore, allegations state that Schooler failed to tell investors that the initial land purchase was financed by mortgages, which later encumbered the property.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint was filed in a San Diego federal court. According to the complaint, investors have been misled by Western and Schooler since 2007 through the use of comparative prices of plots of land that were supposedly similar, but had sold for higher prices than Western was offering. In reality, the “comp” land was not comparable to what was sold to investors.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investments with Western Financial Planning and Louis V. Schooler, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the allegations listed in the 65-count indictment against Lanier, while he was working for Merrill Lynch as a financial advisor between 2008 and 2010, Lanier forged client signatures on fraudulent letters of authorization to Merrill Lynch client associates. These client associates were responsible for processing client funds through wire transfers. Purportedly, these letters also contained misleading and false statements that were intended to persuade the client associates to transfer funds from the investment accounts of clients to bank accounts under Lanier’s control.

According to the indictment, stock fraud lawyers say that Lanier deliberately sought out assistance from client associates who were not familiar with his clients to direct funds transfers. Lanier allegedly claimed Merrill Lynch clients had given voice approval on a recorded telephone conversation, though no such approval was given. Choosing client associates who were unfamiliar with his clients aided Lanier in his scheme.

If it can be proven that Merrill Lynch failed to adequately supervise Lanier, the firm may be held liable for investor losses. Therefore, clients who were defrauded by Lanier may be able to recover losses through FINRA arbitration, regardless of Lanier’s ability to pay as a result of his imprisonment and/or the charges against him.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with James Ryan Lanier, 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.

Private placements have been offered by Cypress Leasing, which were then offered and sold by certain broker-dealers registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Reportedly, the market decline of 2008 impacted the equipment leasing business and, as a result, many of the Cypress Leasing private placements may have experienced a decline in value. It is believed that the following offerings are included in these criteria:

• CypressEquipment Fund 13
• CypressEquipment Fund 14
• CypressEquipment Fund 15
• CypressEquipment Fund 16
• CypressEquipment Fund 17
• CypressEquipment Fund VII
• CypressEquipment Fund VIII
• CypressEquipment Fund IX
• CypressEquipment Fund X
• CypressEquipment Fund XI
• CypressEquipment Fund XII
• CypressGrowth Fund

According to securities arbitration lawyers, private placements allow smaller companies to use the sale of debt securities or equities to raise capital without it becoming necessary for them to register these securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Because these investments are typically more complicated and carry more risk than other traditional investments, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors.

Securities fraud attorneys say that because the creation and sale of private placements often carry high commissions, these investments continue to be pushed by brokerage firms despite the fact that they may be unsuitable for investors. 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.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment in Cypress Leasing private placements, or another private placement, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to investment fraud lawyers, many Fidelity investors have learned that their Facebook stock orders were not executed at previously expected prices. In addition, some Fidelity investors decided to cancel their Facebook stock orders prior to the time it began trading, on May 18 at 11:30 am, but the stock was allegedly assigned to their accounts anyway. Many investors were confronted with margin calls that were unexpected because of Fidelity’s failure to honor the canceled orders. Securities fraud attorneys say this exacerbated the situation.

In a related case, Facebook Inc., Morgan Stanley and other banks are being sued by Facebook’s shareholders. The shareholders claimed Facebook’s weakened growth forecasts were hidden by the defendants prior to its $16 billion IPO. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, changes in the business forecast during the IPO process were only “selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors.” The complaint alleges that “the value of Facebook common stock has declined substantially and plaintiffs and the class have sustained damages as a result.” A similar lawsuit was filed by another investor in a California state court. In the first three days of trading, Facebook shares declined 18.4 percent, reducing the stock’s value by more than $2.9 billion.

If you sustained losses as a result of Fidelity’s alleged execution errors of Facebook stock, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investment fraud lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to securities fraud attorneys, TICs became popular in 2002, following a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that allowed capital gains to be deferred by investors. In this property ownership, a fractional interest is owned by two or more parties. However, following the real estate crisis, TICs saw a significant decline in value. For more information on TICs, see the previous blog post, “TICs Dangerous for Many Investors.”

SCI Real Estate Investments is a United States real estate company that acquires retail and multi-family properties. It offers co-ownership interests in these United States properties as investments to individual buyers of real estate and 1031 exchanges. SCI is based in Los Angeles and was founded in 1994. A voluntary petition for reorganization was filed by SCI on February 11, 2011, under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. The firm’s liquidation plan confirmation hearing is scheduled for June 13, 2012.

Investment fraud lawyers say one especially problematic SCI offering is the SCI Capital Group Mezzanine Fund. This fund invested in unsecured loans to SCI and SCI affiliates, and did not invest in real estate. It is likely that these loans will be discharged by the bankruptcy filing. In addition to the Mezzanine Fund, other TICs offered by SCI have been negatively affected by the collapse of the real estate market.

If you suffered losses as a result of your investment in TICs or other real estate offerings with SIC Real Estate Investments, you may have a valid FINRA securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities fraud attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Securities Arbitration Commentator research and InvestmentNews reports indicate that $12.6 million in cases involving DBSI’s direct broker-dealer sales of TICs have been filed with FINRA.

LPL Financial LLC has also faced a FINRA panel because of TIC investments. Heinrich and Araceli Hardt, both 76 from San Diego, California, purchased two TIC exchanges from David Glenn, an LPL broker. According to the Hardts’ allegations, LPL and Glenn’s broker misconduct included elder abuse and securities fraud. On February 10, the FINRA panel awarded the Hardts $1.4 million. Claims were also filed on behalf of the Hardts against Orchard Securities LLC and Meridian Capital Partners. However, the claims against Meridian Capital and Orchard Securities were dismissed by the Hardts in December.

TICs became popular in 2002, following a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that allowed capital gains to be deferred by investors. In this property ownership, a fractional interest is owned by two or more parties. However, following the real estate crisis, TICs saw a significant decline in value. For more information on TICs, see the previous blog post, “TICs Dangerous for Many Investors.”

If you have suffered significant losses because of TIC investments, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. Investors should seek to recover their losses through whatever means available to them, including securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investment attorney 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.

In some cases, firms failed to verify the instructions via telephone but released the funds anyway. This violation in procedure may entitle defrauded investors to a recovery of losses through securities arbitration. According to the SEC, four brokerage firms have been charged for allowing traders to trade in the U.S. securities market, despite the fact that they were unregistered. In the same case, Igors Nagaicevs, a trader, was charged with making $874,896 through unauthorized purchases and sales. He also broke into accounts 159 times from 2009 to August 2010. According to the SEC, he cost investors possibly over $2 million.

“Nagaicevs engaged in a brazen and systematic securities fraud, repeatedly raiding brokerage accounts and causing massive damages to innocent investors,” says the director of the SEC’s San Francisco regional office, Marc J. Fagel.

According to the FBI’s figures, this type of financial fraud totals around $23 million, with actual victim losses amounting to about $6 million.

If investors notice any signs that their account has been compromised, such as bounced email messages, unexplained password changes, reports of spam, or unauthorized transactions on their investment accounts, they should contact an investment attorney immediately. If you believe you have been the victim of fraud, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.