FINRA’s investigation of the two brokers found that they allegedly collaborated to steal approximately $300,000 from one of their clients, a widow who had diminished mental capacity. Reportedly, the client held accounts at both JP Morgan and a related bank affiliate. She sold two annuities between April and July 2013 and deposited the proceeds — approximately $300,000 — into a bank account that had been opened for her by Arevalo.

Subsequently, the funds were allegedly withdrawn using two cashier’s checks. On the same day, the money was allegedly deposited by Caballero into a joint account he opened at a different bank in his name and the client’s name. When the deposits were questioned by the bank and further confirmation was required, Arevalo allegedly drove the client to the bank so she could confirm the source of the funds.

Once the deposits were cleared, numerous checks payable to Arevalo and personal debit card purchases allegedly made by Caballero and Arevalo depleted the funds in the account. These purchases allegedly included real estate loan payments, various retail purchases and a payments on a car loan. The investor was not aware of the purchases or withdrawals on the account and allegedly did not give any authorization for these transactions.

Caballero and Arevalo were registered with Chase Investment Securities until around October 2012, when it merged with JP Morgan. At that time, they became JP Morgan-registered brokers. According to stock fraud lawyers, firms have a responsibility to adequately supervise their registered representatives and can be held liable for client losses if they fail to provide such supervision. Reportedly, the two brokers failed to cooperate with FINRA’s investigation but JP Morgan has reimbursed the victim for the stolen funds.

If you lost money because of broker theft or misconduct, you may be able to recover damages via FINRA arbitration. 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 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

In May 2012, a statement of claim was filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority by Saddlebag LLC. The claim alleges that the firm wrongfully invested the client’s assets in illiquid auction-rate securities (ARS). According to securities lawyers, many financial firms sold auction-rate securities as short-term instruments with a highly-liquid nature, much like money market funds.

However, in 2008, the credit crunch resulted in a failure of the ARS market and investors with a piece of the $330 billion market were stuck holding securities that they were unable to sell. Other firms, including Morgan Keegan, have been accused of misleading investors regarding the liquidity risk of auction-rate securities.

Auction-rate securities are tax-exempt, long-term and taxable bonds and their interest rates are connected to the short-term market. Through ARS, issuers can acquire lower short-term rates on long-term financing. Auction-rate securities were marketed as liquid cash alternatives and considered safe before the global credit crunch.

Firms and their registered representatives 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. According to Thompson Reuters, leading auction-rate securities underwriters included Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Merrill, RBC and Wachovia.

If illiquid investments were unsuitable for you given your age, investment objectives and risk tolerance and you suffered significant losses in the auction-rate securities market, 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 or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to a securities arbitration claim filed by a former JP Morgan broker, the firm allegedly “had a policy to only recommend in-house product to customers, irrespective of whether that product was the best choice for customers to meet their investment objectives.” Furthermore, the firm continued to discourage the selling of outside products by allegedly making it difficult for brokers to collect commissions and fees for those products. In addition, the claim alleges that the firm’s continuing insistence on the sales of proprietary mutual funds created a perpetual conflict between the firm’s policies and a broker’s responsibility to his or her clients.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that 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. The alleged practices of JP Morgan would have discouraged and/or made it difficult for brokers to act in the best interest of their clients.

If you are a JP Morgan customer and you received an unsuitable recommendation of a proprietary mutual fund, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. 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.

Securities arbitration lawyers say this situation is similar in some ways to what happened when, after Lehman declared bankruptcy, Series 2008A of Main Street Natural Gas Inc. Gas Project Revenue Bonds were downgraded. In the case of the Lehman bonds, the bonds were not guaranteed by Lehman Brothers, though certain payment obligations of the gas supplier were guaranteed.

The following is a list of gas prepayment bonds that have been affected by downgrades:

• Tennessee Energy Acquisition Corporation Gas Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A
• Public Energy Authority of Kentucky Inc. Variable Rate Gas Supply Revenue bonds, Series 2006A
• New Mexico Municipal Energy Acquisition Authority Gas Supply Variable Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 2009
• American Municipal Power Inc., OH Electricity Purchase Revenue Bonds, 2007A
• Lancaster Port Authority Gas Supply Variable Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
• Salt Verde Financial Corporation, AZ Senior Gas Revenue Bonds, 2007
• Central Plains Energy Project Gas Project Variable Rate Revenue Bonds (Project No. 2), Series 2009
• Main Street Natural Gas Inc. Gas Project Variable Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 2010
• Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corporation II Gas Supply Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A & 2007B
• California Statewide Communities Development Authority Gas Supply Revenue Bonds, Series 2010
• Municipal Energy Acquisition Corp. Gas Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A & 2006B
• Indiana Bond Bank Gas Revenue Bonds, 2007
• Northern California Gas Authority No. 1 Gas Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A & 2007B
• Main Street Natural Gas Inc. Gas Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A & 2006B
• Roseville Natural Gas Financing Authority, CA Gas Prepayment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A
• Public Authority for Colorado Energy Natural Gas Purchase Revenue Bonds, Series 2008
• Main Street Natural Gas Inc. Gas Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A
• Long Beach Bond Finance Authority Natural Gas Purchase Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A & 2007B
• Natural Gas Acquisition Corporation of the City of Clarksville, TN Gas Revenue Bonds, Series 2006
• Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corporation I, Gas Supply Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A & 2006B
• Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corporation I, Gas Supply Revenue Bonds, Series 2008D
• Black Belt Energy Gas District Gas Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
• Central Plains Energy Project Gas Project Revenue Bonds (Project No. 3), Series 2012

According to stock fraud lawyers, the profitability and yield of investor holdings may be impacted by the downgrades placed on these investments. Furthermore, if the gas supplier guarantor’s credit risk was not disclosed, or if the bonds were recommended as “safe,” investors may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. 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.

Last month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators reportedly initiated inquiries into the fund sales practices of JPMorgan. A recognized fund researcher, Morningstar, reported that around 42 percent of JPMorgan’s funds did not surpass the average performance of similar funds over the past three years. Furthermore, a New York Times article published last month stated that JPMorgan financial advisors were allegedly “encouraged, at times, to favor JPMorgan’s own products even when competitors had better-performing or cheaper options.” Investment fraud lawyers’ investigations will establish whether the firm or its advisors can be held responsible for investor losses that resulted because of improper sales practices.

The Chase Strategic Portfolio is reportedly one of the main products that has been pushed by JPMorgan. The investment is made up of a combination of around 15 mutual funds. Some of these funds are developed by JPMorgan. Securities fraud attorneys say the Chase Strategic Portfolio is designed to allow ordinary investors access to holdings in stocks and bonds, with varying levels of risk, accomplished through the use of six main models. The fund was launched in 2008 and reportedly has around $20 billion in assets. Chase Strategic Portfolio carries an annual fee on assets of 1.6 percent, but also includes a fee on underlying JPMorgan funds. The aforementioned New York Times article also stated that the actual annual return of the fund after fees was 13.87 percent per year, which trailed the hypothetical 15.39 percent return included in the marketing materials.

If you suffered losses as a result of your investment in Chase Strategic Portfolio or other JPMorgan mutual funds, 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.

The FHFA is seeking civil penalties as well as damages. Allegedly, the financial institutions violated fiduciary duty by providing misleading loan descriptions as a part of their sales and marketing materials. The marketing materials did not reveal the true risk factors associated with the loans. According to the FHFA’s press release, “Based on our review, FHFA alleges that the loans had different and more risky characteristics than the descriptions contained in the marketing and sales materials provided to the Enterprises for those securities.”

Congress and regulators have put forth a continuing effort to deal with the practices of institutions that led to the financial crisis of 2008 and this lawsuit is part of that goal. It is similar to the one filed on July 27, 2011 against UBS Americas Inc. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 gives the FHFA the authority to file complaints such as this one.

As conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the FHFA is responsible for preserving the assets of these companies, but if — as an individual investor — you have suffered investment losses that you believe to be the result of misleading marketing materials or a breach of fiduciary duty, 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.

Citigroup is the third major bank to settle with the SEC for failing to disclose betting against a collateralized debt obligation, or CDO, and then marketing it to customers. JPMorgan settled for $153.6 million in June and Goldman Sachs settled for $550 million in July 2010.

In November 2007, the CDO defaulted and, while investors faced losses, Citigroup made $160 million. This contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis and is, therefore, a part of the mission to reduce broker fraud and hold Wall Street figures accountable for triggering the recession. According to the SEC, the Citigroup employee who was primarily responsible for structuring the transaction was Brian Stoker. In response to the files charged against him by the SEC, one of his lawyers said the allegations had “no basis.”

Credit Suisse Group AG, the collateral manager of the CDO, as well as Samir Bhatt, Credit Suisse’s portfolio manager who was primarily responsible, have settled separate charges with the SEC. Bhatt is suspended for associating with an investment advisor for six months and Suisse will pay $2.5 million. Citigroup represented Credit Sussie in marketing materials outlining the deal, according to the SEC.

Citigroup will forfeit $160 million in “alleged improper fees and profits,” $30 million in interest and will also pay a fine of $95 million. The settlement, according to Citigroup, “resolves all outstanding SEC inquiries into those activities.” Citigroup neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

Under this new program, cash awards will be issued to corporate employees who report fraud to the SEC in order to expose corporate crime. Individuals who report fraud under this program could receive up to 30 percent of the amount that is collected from the guilty party. To qualify, the tipster must volunteer new information that leads to a successful collection of at least $1 million in fines.

“Through their knowledge of the circumstances and individuals involved, whistleblowers can help the commission identify possible fraud and other violations much earlier than might otherwise have been possible,” SEC officials say. “That allows the commission to minimize the harm to investors, better preserve the integrity of the United States’ capital markets, and more swiftly hold accountable those responsible for unlawful conduct.”

Though many are singing the praises of this new program, it has been a hotly-contested issue for quite some time with many objections, especially from corporations and corporate lawyers. Plans for the office were announced in November and a six-month corporate interests lobbying campaign followed. Participants in the campaign included Citigroup, Google, General Electric, JP Morgan Chase and the United States Chamber of Commerce. This campaign included more than 1,300 forms letters and 200 comments about the program. Sean McKessey, Chief of the SEC Office of the Whistleblower, said that he was prepared for the negative reactions to the proposal because “virtually every side of the argument told me that they were going to sue me — or us.”

The central argument that corporations have asserted is that the program will discourage whistleblowers from reporting fraud within the company first, thereby undermining company policies. However, McKessey maintains that the way the office policies are set up is valid because employees will be able to report fraud even if their bosses are involved. Furthermore, any whistleblowers will have incentive to report fraud internally first, as doing so can increase the amount of the award.

Secret deals allowed the bank inside information about competitors’ bids and were aided by a minimum of 11 bidding agents. JPMorgan Chase maintains that any illegal actions were concealed from management as a whole and were conducted against the firm’s policies. The illegal conduct was, according to JPMorgan, made by former employees. Furthermore, the division in which these employees used to work has been shut down and the firm has increased their ethics training for staff and implemented an improved compliance program. This settlement will undoubtedly send a message to the financial world of the repercussions of tampering with the fairness of the bond market.

In addition to the most recent settlement, last month JPMorgan settled with the SEC for $154 million, paid in response to allegations that it mislead buyers of complex mortgage investments. In connection with this settlement, James Hertz, a former JPMorgan executive, pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Hertz is one of 18 financial services executives to be brought up on criminal charges, nine of which have pleaded guilty. In this case, The New York Times says “Investors harmed in the JPMorgan transaction, known as Squared CDO 2007-I, will receive all their money back,” a happy ending in financially-turbulent times for many investors.