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.

Recently, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration claim was filed on behalf of a Texas investor against UBS Financial Services. According to the Statement of Claim, UBS Financial Services allegedly sold the investor, who was a brokerage customer of the firm at the time, $300,000 of the 100 Percent Principal Protected Notes.

According to the claim’s allegations, UBS was aware of the deteriorating financial condition of Lehman Brothers, but concealed its views from brokerage customers who owned the notes. Furthermore, UBS customers were allegedly kept unaware that the Lehman Brothers notes could quite possibly default and become worthless. In addition, the claim alleges that the sales of Lehman notes were halted twice by UBS Financial Services because of concerns regarding credit risk, but UBS did not disclose these halts to thousands of its customers who were already invested in Lehman notes.

In addition to the alleged failure to disclose relevant information to its customers, securities arbitration lawyers say that many investors may have received unsuitable recommendations of the Lehman Brothers 100 Percent Principal Protected Notes and other Lehman Brothers structured products. 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. Furthermore, investment fraud lawyers say brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Investors should be aware that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority imposes a six-year time limitation for filing arbitration claims. Therefore, investors who purchased Lehman Brothers structured products in late 2007 or early 2008 should consider consulting an attorney as soon as possible if they wish to explore filing a claim.

If you are a UBS Financial Services customer who suffered significant losses in Lehman Brothers products, 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.

While many investors have filed claims in Lehman’s bankruptcy proceedings, it now appears that these individuals will receive only about 20 cents on the dollar for their investment losses. Investors must consider alternate methods of loss recovery, including filing a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority securities arbitration claim. Furthermore, investors will have to determine if any statute of limitations issues exist relating to their case.

Despite the fact that a class action lawsuit related to these notes has been filed, investors should be aware that they may only recover a nominal amount as a part of a class action lawsuit. It may, therefore, be in investors’ best interest to acquire a securities arbitration lawyer to file an arbitration claim on their behalf.

Since Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in 2008, many cases involving Lehman structured notes have been brought up in securities arbitration. In many cases, investors have been granted their request for reimbursement of losses. It has been established, in previous cases, that these structured products were unsuitable for many investors given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. As a result, these investors were entitled to recover their losses because of the violation of the suitability standard. Furthermore, many of these products were sold for far more than they were worth even before Lehman declared bankruptcy, because of the firm’s significant credit risk at the time of the transaction.

If you have suffered significant losses as a result of your investment in Lehman Brothers 100% Principal Protected Notes, Return Optimization Notes, Auto-call Notes or another Lehman Brothers-issued structured product, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. 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.

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.

Lehman Return Optimization Security Notes were allegedly marketed by brokers as investments designed to guarantee safety much like the safety associated with “capital preservation.” Furthermore, they were marketed as “low-risk investment,” according to investment fraud lawyers. However, the investment’s safety was actually dependent upon the solvency of Lehman Brothers, which acted as the issuer of the note. Following Lehman Brother’s September 2008 declaration of bankruptcy, investments such as this one that were backed by Lehman Brothers suffered disastrous losses. The potential liability of brokerage firms that sold the note to investors is now being investigated.

Brokerage firm liability for a Hawaii real estate deal, Maluhia Eight LLC, is also under investigation by securities arbitration lawyers. Chapter 11 bankruptcy was declared by Maluhia Eight in 2010 in the Northern District of Texas. Many investors have suffered losses as a result of the declaration of bankruptcy, but investors who purchased Maluhia Eight because of an unsuitable recommendation may be able to recover losses.

Prior to recommending an investment to a client, brokers and firms are required to perform the necessary due diligence to establish if the investment is suitable for the client given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Brokerage firms which recommended Maluhia Eight will most likely be unable to demonstrate that the necessary due diligence was performed, based on what attorneys know about the investment.

If you suffered losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation of either Lehman Return Optimization Security Note Losses or Maluhia Eight LLC, you may have a valid FINRA 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.

Many claims have been filed on behalf of Lehman note holders in the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings, but there are many more investors who must take action if they wish to recover these losses. Though many investors hope to recover losses through the class action that has been filed, individual securities arbitration claims may prove to return a larger percentage of losses to investors. Based on the Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers, it appears that investors will only receive about 21 cents on the dollar through the class action lawsuit. Therefore, investors should attempt to recover losses by any means available to them, including securities arbitration. Furthermore, investors should act immediately due to potential statutes of limitations.

Customers of UBS Financial Services who suffered losses as a result of their investments in Lehman Brothers 100 Percent Principal Protection Notes are encouraged to contact a stock fraud lawyer immediately for more information about filing a securities arbitration claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Office of Dispute Resolution. One way to do this is to look for an attorney who is experienced at representing clients with these kinds of claims. You will want someone who knows the history of rulings relative to these claims, as well as someone who understands how to recover as much money as possible for his or her clients.

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.

The now infamous class action suit against Lehman Brothers has its roots in the claim that the risks associated with PPNs were not disclosed to investors. When Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the principal on the PPNs — for which Lehman was the borrower — became unprotected and investors were left with unexpected losses. According to claimants in the case, they were led to believe that as long as they held them to maturity, their PPNs were 100 percent principal protected. Claimants also say they were told that as long as their underlying indices maintained their worth, the PPNs were principal protected. Furthermore, the risks associated with PPNs were not disclosed and customers were not notified of the decline of Lehman Brothers which could affect the value of the investments.

The case against Lehman Brothers deals primarily with broker misconduct in misleading investors about the safety of their investments. However, if other allegations are true and firms truly pushed PPNs at the same time that they were reducing their own PPN holdings, it is a question outright broker fraud as opposed to failure to disclose.

If you’ve invested in PPNs and believe your losses were a result of broker misconduct, contact an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

The outside advisers handling Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy – mostly bankers and lawyers – have made over $1.4 billion for their services since Lehman Brothers went bankrupt three years ago. If you’re a Wall Street insider, Lehman Brothers, which is bankrupt and out-of-business, is a fantastic place to work.

Meanwhile, investors holding Lehman Brothers structured notes are slated to get back only about one fifth of the money they invested in the notes when the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy litigation finally winds up. Financial advisers at UBS and other brokerage firms peddled Lehman Brothers structured notes with great-sounding names like “100% principal protected” notes and “Return Optimization” notes. But for investors getting back only twenty cents on the dollar, their principal wasn’t protected and their returns weren’t optimized.

Of course, if you’re a Wall Street insider working on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, your principal is well-protected and your returns are fully-optimized.

If UBS sold you one of these notes, or if you’ve lost money in any Lehman Brothers note, give us a call. We may be able to help.

Here’s a list of some of the names of Lehman Brothers notes sold by UBS – –

*100% Principal Protection Absolute Return Notes Linked to the Euro/U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate

*100% Principal Protection Notes with Interest Linked to the Year-Over-Year Change in the Consumer Price Index

*Aussie Bull Notes 100% Principal Protected at Maturity

*Principal Protected Note with Enhanced Participation Linked to a Basket of Commodities

*Principal Protected Note with Enhanced Participation linked to a Global Currency Basket

*Annual Review Notes with Contingent Principal Protection Linked to the S&P 500® Index

*Partial Protection Participation Notes Linked to a Basket of Global Index Funds

*Return Optimization Securities Linked to an International Index Basket

*Return-Enhanced Notes Linked to a Basket of Ten Commodities

*Reverse Exchangeable Notes Linked to Common Stock

*FX Basket-Linked Notes

Though it may appear that the most recent UBS incident and Lehman Brothers’ collapse are different events, according to Forbes’ article, “The players may be different but the rules are the same.” The “Delta One” trading desk used by the UBS trader and ETFs he was trading have a similar concept to the Lehman Brothers Principled Protected Notes sold by Lehman and UBS and both were excessively risky. Furthermore, UBS and Lehman worked cooperatively to dump the PPNs on investors, causing them significant losses.

Since the fiasco began, claimants been victorious in almost all securities arbitration cases against UBS and recovered their losses that resulted from the Lehman Structured Product Notes. However, criminal charges have not been brought against any Lehman executives, a measure of justice that is yet to be realized. According to an article in The New York Times, this is a case in which “brokers selling complex securities that they once contended were safe and sound have saddled individual investors with billions in losses since the credit bubble burst. Remember auction-rate securities? Those were peddled to investors as just as good as cash — until they no longer were after that market seized up in 2008.”

According to the Forbes article, “The legacy of Lehman is that Wall Street’s greed trumps any sense of obligation the banks might have to their own customer.” If this is true and nothing is done to prevent situations like this in the future, an already risky investment world will continue to be a perilous one for the average investor.

In 2008, the claimants were persuaded by broker Brian Hahn to invest in Lehman Brothers Structured Notes, named comBATS and XLF, despite the customers’ previous insistence to avoid any Lehman investments. According to investment attorney Alan Block, “The way the notes were sold it wasn’t clear that Lehman was the underwriter.”

Nicholas P. Lavarone, who also represented the claimants in securities arbitration, said, “The customers were all told that the principal of the structured notes were either fully protected or partially protected.” It was clear, however, once Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and the structured notes became practically worthless, that Lehman was, in fact, the underwriter and they were neither fully nor partially protected. In addition to the structured notes, one of the claimants invested a sum of $1 million in a private-equity hedge fund named Libertyview Credit Select. The assets of this fund were lent to Lehman Brothers.

FINRA arbitration involving Lehman structured notes is nothing new since the company filed for bankruptcy, and panels have ruled in favor of investors several times since 2008. Though the FINRA panel did not issue a reason for deciding in favor of the claimants, Dr. Craig McCann of SLCG Securities Litigation and Consulting Group did testify that the structured products were “unsuitable,” which would make them a violation of the suitability standard that stock brokers adhere to. Furthermore, because of Lehman’s significant credit risk at the time of the transaction, the products were sold for far more than they were worth, even before Lehman went bankrupt.