Specifically, the Department alleges that Thrivent violated the Act by “… replacing its clients’ existing variable annuities for new variable annuities which required the clients to pay surrender charges and various fees.” According to the Department, possible violations of law in the case include (i) failure to maintain and enforce a supervisory system with adequate written procedures to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, (ii) failure to adequately review the sales and replacements of VA’s for suitability, (iii) failure to enforce its written procedures regarding documentation of sales and replacements of VA’s, and (iv) failure to adequately train its salespersons, registered representatives and principals.

Prior to 2012, Thrivent rolled out a new feature to its VA. This feature consisted of adding a Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit (“GLWB”) to the VA in return for a rider fee. During the time period of January 2011 – June 2012 and July 2013 – June 2014, Thrivent allegedly recommended that certain customers purchase new variable annuities with GLWB riders to replace existing variable annuities, without performing any analysis of whether the customers would economically benefit from the variable annuity switch. Some customers who were advised to switch allegedly would have received greater payments over the life of the policies if they had kept their original variable annuities in place.

In general, VA products have a checkered history with regulators. Both the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have issued numerous rulings, advisory documents and investor alerts warning that the sale of VA’s might be unsuitable and inappropriate under certain circumstances. Specifically, the SEC has warned about the risks and costs of switching VA contracts, encouraging investors to consider whether they can buy the insurance features embedded in a VA less expensively as part of the VA or separately. FINRA has warned investors that switching, or exchanging, a VA contract is generally not a good idea, due to bonus recapture charges, surrender charges, higher charges accompanying the new contract, unnecessary riders on the new contract, and whether the advisor is motivated by commissions.

When a broker or financial advisor recommends that a client purchase or sell a security, the broker must have a reasonable basis for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the investor. In making this assessment, a broker must consider the investors income and net worth, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and other security holdings.

If you received an unsuitable recommendation of securities from a broker or investment adviser, including variable annuities, and suffered significant losses are a result, you may be able to recover your losses in FINRA 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.

Currently a broker at Newport Coast Securities, Holzer has also worked with a number of other firms, including UBS, Brookstreet Securities Corporation, AG Edwards, Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc. and Sequoia Equities Securities. Holzer and UBS have already been compelled to pay to settle securities claims amounting to $11.4 million. These claims alleged that Holzer misrepresented variable annuities through misrepresentation of guaranteed returns. Holzer was fired from AG Edwards in 2003 for allegedly engaging in business practices that did not coincide with the firm’s policies. Further allegations against Holzer include misrepresentations while at Brookstreet. These misrepresentations allegedly occurred in 2005 at a Beverly Hills presentation at which Holzer allegedly stated that a fictional couple was able to make $9 million by deferring $732,000 in taxes through the use of trusts. In another claim, a customer of Wedbush Morgan Securities alleged breach of fiduciary duty, account mishandling, and breach of contract that allegedly resulted in damages of $824,000.

According to securities fraud attorneys, allegations against Holzer include fraud, churning, unsuitable investments, misrepresentations of fees, Securities Act violations, private placement-related fraud, negligent representations related to variable annuities, inadequate supervision, variable annuity-related fraud, negligent recommendation and sale of Provident Royalties LLC, negligent sale and recommendation of Behringer Harvard Security trust and other unsafe products as well as elder abuse.

Stock fraud lawyers say that in many cases, investment firms can still be held liable for a broker’s actions if their supervision of that broker was negligent. As a result, it may possible for investors to recover their losses from Holzer or the brokerage firm she was employed with when the fraud occurred.

If you have a claim arising from the conduct of Bambi Holzer or another financial advisor, you may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. 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.

According to Goodwin, Inland Real Estate Group of Cos. Inc. has no control over Retail Properties of America. Furthermore, when asked if Inland would join in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — which is seeking class action status — Goodwin said, “We have discussed various potential actions but haven’t reached a conclusion. Our interests are clearly aligned with the shareholders.”

Investment fraud lawyers say Retail Properties of America is the third-largest shopping center REIT in the nation. In April 2012, Retail Properties of America was converted to a publicly traded New York Stock Exchange company from a non-traded REIT.

According to securities fraud attorneys, REITs typically carry a high commission which motivates brokers to make the recommendation to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Non-traded REITs such as the Retail Property REIT carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. However, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors. This becomes a major problem for investors, especially retired individuals, who may need to access their funds sooner than the investment allows. For more information on REITs, see the previous blog post “FINRA Investor Alert: Public Non-traded REITs.”

If you suffered losses as a result of your investment in the Retail Properties of America Inc. REIT, or another non-traded REIT, 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.

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.