On October 31, 2017, Carmel, Indiana financial advisor Thomas J. Buck, 63, was charged under federal securities laws with one count of securities fraud. The unsealed criminal charges brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana allege that Mr. Buck defrauded his clients by charging excessive commissions. Mr. Buck has agreed to plead guilty to the charge.

From 1981-2015, Mr. Buck was a registered financial advisor with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (“Merrill Lynch”), which since January 2009 has operated as a division of Bank of America. The unsealed criminal charges allege, that in recent years, Mr. Buck defrauded some clients by charging excessive commissions, while intentionally failing to advise them of cheaper options for services rendered. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Buck took discretion over certain accounts, and in these accounts placed trades without client authorization, resulting in clients paying commissions on these trades. It is further alleged that Mr. Buck informed clients that they were paying less in commissions than were actually charged, and that he also allegedly failed to inform certain clients that a fee-based payment structure was available which could result in financial savings to the client(s).

As a result of the alleged fraudulent enterprise, it is estimated that Mr. Buck’s activities caused clients to incur aggregate losses of approximately $2 million. According to Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cynthia J. Ridgeway and Nick Linder, who are handling prosecution of the case, Mr. Buck has agreed to plead guilty and could face up to 25 years in prison. Contemporaneous with the unsealing of the criminal charges, Mr. Buck has also agreed to a monetary settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in the amount of approximately $5 million.

FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Buck has been barred from the securities industry. As disclosed by FINRA, on March 4, 2015, Mr. Buck was discharged from his employment with Merrill Lynch in connection with “allegations including failing to discuss service level and pricing alternatives with a customer, providing inaccurate information to firm management during account reviews regarding this issue, mismarking bond cross trade order tickets as unsolicited, and providing information to a client during an active account review that did not correspond to the firm’s records.”

Since May 2006, Mr. Buck has been involved in a total of 39 customer complaints; currently 36 of these complaints resulted in a settlement. The majority of these complaints reportedly concern allegations including unauthorized trading, misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in connection with commissions charged, as well as excessive trading.

Brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch have a duty to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. Brokerage firms must also take reasonable steps to ensure that their financial advisors follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, in addition to internal policies and procedures. In instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their registered representatives, they may be liable for losses sustained by investors.

At Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., our securities attorneys have successfully resolved a number of disputes on behalf of aggrieved investors, including losses sustained due to instances of excessive trading or churning, and related broker misconduct. Investors may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration. Investors who wish to discuss a possible claim may contact a securities arbitration attorney via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Lawrence’s most recent history as a broker was with Southwest Securities, where he was registered from August 2011 through December 2013. Prior to that, he worked for Oppenheimer & Co. from June 2008 through July 2011, and Merrill Lynch from April 2003 through June 2008. During his time at both Southwest Securities and Oppenheimer & Co., there were several complaints issued against Lawrence by customers who claimed to have received unsuitable recommendations. One client even alleged that Lawrence borrowed $850,000 and failed to return the funds. This alleged borrowing occurred while Lawrence was with Oppenheimer & Co. and the FINRA report states that he intended to “…pay for the losses. I [Lawrence] then voluntary resigned and left the appropriate funds in my personal account to be used to cover the losses.” Despite this response, Lawrence failed to appear for testimony with FINRA regarding this, or any of the other complaints, which included additional allegations of misappropriated funds and failure to provide appropriate investment recommendations.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with Wade James Lawrence or believe that another stockbroker or financial advisor led you to inappropriately use investment funds, you may be able to recover your 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, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Prior to starting with Merrill Lynch in 2009, Zeng worked for UBS Financial Services and before that for Morgan Stanley.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with David Zeng or received an unsuitable recommendation in any of the mentioned investment categories from another stockbroker or financial advisor, you may be able to recover your losses through securities 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.

Lawrence is also the defendant in two lawsuits filed in November. According to the allegations in these lawsuits, Lawrence failed to repay $1 million in loans made by private individuals. Reportedly, Lawrence stated in November 2013 that he would turn himself over to regulators “regarding allegations of illegal securities trading practices.”

According to FINRA reports, Lawrence has been accused of causing $140,000 in customer losses because of inappropriate trades during the time he worked with Southwest Securities and $71,000 in customer losses because of unauthorized trading when he was with Oppenheimer.

Under FINRA rules, 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, firms have an obligation to properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm. According to securities fraud attorneys, Lawrence reportedly worked for Southwest Securities since August 2011. Prior to that he reportedly worked for Oppenheimer until he resigned, following these allegations, in July 2011.

If you suffered significant losses because of unsuitable or unauthorized trades executed by Wade James Lawrence, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about their 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.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission data indicate that in dozens of managed-futures funds, 89 percent of the gains were used to pay commissions, fees and expenses instead of being returned to investors. Furthermore, securities arbitration lawyers say that in light of the fees, stcckbrokers and financial advisors who recommended such funds may have and made that recommendation despite the investment’s unsuitability.

According to investment fraud 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. If a firm fails to make suitable recommendations, investors may be able to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

Morgan Stanley and Ceres managed-futures funds include:

• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P.
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Global Balanced L.P.
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Technical L.P.
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency and Commodity L.P.
• Managed Futures Premier Aventis II L.P.
• Managed Futures Premier BMH L.P.
• Managed Futures Premier Warrington L.P.
• Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P.
• Meritage Futures Fund L.P.
• LV Futures Fund L.P.
• Polaris Futures Fund L.P.

Merrill Lynch managed-futures funds include:

• ML BlueTrend FuturesAccess LLC
• ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC
• ML Transtrend DTP Enhanced FuturesAccess LLC
• ML AHL FuturesAccess LLC
• ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess LLC
• ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC

Other managed-futures funds include:

• Altegris Winton Futures Fund L.P.
• RJO Global Trust
• Grant Park Futures Fund L.P.
• Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.

If you suffered significant losses because of an unsuitable recommendation of managed-futures funds, 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.

In one case, registered representative Jane E. O’Brien reportedly borrowed client funds amounting to more than $2 million. O’Brien allegedly used client funds that should have been invested in a software company for personal expenses. According to Massachusetts prosecutors and regulators, O’Brien has pleaded guilty to charges of fraud. She was sentenced to 33 months in prison and was barred from the securities industry.

In addition, regulators say that Merrill Lynch should have suspected that O’Brien was in financial trouble when she removed $380,750 from her retirement account prematurely, incurring tax penalties, but they didn’t inform regulators about a conduct review until almost a week after the Justice Department indicted her. Merrill was ordered to pay a fine of $500,000 for allegedly failing to adequately supervise O’Brien.

The firm agreed to pay the fine but did not admit to violating the law. Reportedly, O’Brien earned $903,734 in revenue in her first year and brought in client assets amounting to almost $154 million. According to William F. Galvin, the secretary of the commonwealth for the state of Massachusetts, “This is in my estimation yet another example of top producers often being held to a different standard because of the revenue they bring to the firm.”

Massachusetts has also fined Sentinel Securities Inc. for failure to supervise. This case regarded the actions of an operations manager who allegedly moved funds to his own account from the firm’s accounts. Sentinel Securities has been ordered to pay a fine of $50,000.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that firms must properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm. If they fail to do so, the firms can be held responsible for the activities of their representatives and, thus, could be ordered to compensate their clients for losses sustained for the period they were registered with the firm.

If you have suffered significant losses as a result of misappropriation by a stockbroker or financial advisor, 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 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Investment fraud lawyers at the Law Office of Christopher J. Gray P.C. recently filed a securities arbitration claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regarding UBS Puerto Rico investments. This case, which was filed on behalf of a retiree, focuses on one of a group of closed-end funds structured by UBS Puerto Rico, known as the Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund I.

According to the allegations stated in the claim, Fund I was marketed and sold as a safe fixed-income investment, and was primarily invested in bonds issued by the Puerto Rican government. However, according to securities arbitration lawyers, because these funds suffered heavy exposure to the Puerto Rico government-issued bonds, there were substantial risks associated with the fund’s concentration these bonds in the event that they lost value. Due to their leveraged exposure to Puerto Rico government bonds, the value of the close-end funds has significantly declined as the underlying municipal bonds have dropped in price.

Fund I had a stated value of $8.55 per share as of July 2013. However, the value per share dropped to $6.06 in September and, as of October 1, shares of Fund I were only valued at $3.73. There are 23 closed-end funds currently in question, some of which have lost more than half their value, according to recent reports. Some of the funds currently being investigated by investment fraud lawyers are:

• Puerto Rico Mortgage Backed & US Govt. Fund
• Puerto Rico Fixed Income Funds I-VI
• Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Funds I and II
• Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Target Maturity Fund
• Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund II
• Puerto Rico Investor’s Tax-Free Funds I-VI
• Puerto Rico GNMA &US Gov. Target Maturity Fund
• Puerto Rico Tax-Free Target Maturity Fund I and II
• Tax-Free Puerto Rico Target Maturity Fund
• Tax-Free Puerto Rico Funds I and II

If you suffered significant losses as a result of the improper recommendation of, or an over-concentrated investment in, one of the Puerto Rico closed-end funds, 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 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.

The following firms have reportedly been subpoenaed: Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS Securities LLC, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Wells Fargo Advisors, ING Financial Partners Inc., TD Ameritrade Inc., LPL Financial LLC, MML Investor Services LLC, Commonwealth Financial Network, Investors Capital Corp., WFG Investments Inc. and Signator Investors Inc.

According to securities arbitration lawyers, the state sent subpoenas to the firms on July 10, 2013, requesting information regarding the sale of certain products to Massachusetts residents 65 or older over the last year. Nontraditional investments include private placements, hedge funds, oil and gas partnerships, tenant-in-common offerings, and structured products.

The subpoenas reportedly requested the following information related to these investments: The method of review of the sale, commissions generated, training materials, marketing materials and any relevant compliance. The firms have been instructed to respond no later than July 24.

In some cases, the recommendation of alternative investments to seniors with low risk tolerances may be unsuitable. According to investment fraud 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.

This investigation follows the recent Massachusetts crackdown on improper sales of non-traded REITs, which resulted in over $8 million in restitution to Massachusetts investors paid by six different brokerage firms. According to William F. Galvin, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, the recent investigations into non-traded REIT sales “heightened my concern that the senior marketplace is being targeted for the sales of these high-risk esoteric products.” The fifteen firms that were recently subpoenaed were not parties to the previous restitution payments, and the firms have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

About the alternative investments, Galvin stated, “While these products are not unsuitable in and of themselves, they are accidents waiting to happen when they are sold to inexperienced investors by untrained agents who push the products to score… large commissions.”

If you received an unsuitable recommendation to invest in alternative investments, 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 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to stock fraud lawyers, the investigation began when one of Becker’s clients filed a complaint with the bureau. The complaint alleged unsuitable and excessive trading by Becker in the client’s account. Reportedly, it wasn’t until five months after the complaint was received by Merrill Lynch, in September 2010, that Merril Lynch required heightened supervision of Becker.

“After a thorough investigation and review by Bureau auditor William Masuck, we determined that there was a basis for the client’s complaint of excessive trading, especially with regard to mutual funds and structured products,” says Deputy Director of Enforcement Jeff Spill. “These kinds of investments are not suitable for frequent, short-term trading.”

Becker was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and Merrill Lynch was ordered to pay $80,000 in fines and investigation costs. Furthermore, Becker received a cease and desist order for the improper conduct and Merrill Lynch was censured. Securities fraud attorneys say the client was reportedly able to recover his losses from the unsuitable trading through an arbitration settlement.

Neither Merrill Lynch nor Matthew Becker admitted or denied the bureau’s allegations.

If you are a client of a Merrill Lynch agent and suffered significant losses as the result of unsuitable short-term trading in investments such as mutual funds and structured products, 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.

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC was ordered to pay a $1.25 million fine and restitution of approximately $2 million for losses sustained by 239 customers. As Banc of America’s successor, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith was ordered to pay a $900,000 fine and restitution of approximately $1.1 million for losses sustained by 214 customers.

Floating-rate bank loan funds can be illiquid and carry significant risks because they invest in loans to entities with below-investment-grade ratings. According to FINRA’s findings, Banc of America and Wells Fargo made recommendations of concentrated purchases of these investments to customers for whom the recommendation was unsuitable. Stock fraud lawyers say that most investors with conservative risk tolerances or who want to conserve principal should not have received a recommendation to invest in a floating-rate bank loan fund.

Vice President and Chief of Enforcement for FINRA, Brad Bennett, said, “As investors continue to look for yield in a low-interest-rate environment, these actions should serve as a reminder that brokers and their firms need to ensure that investment recommendations are consistent with customers’ investment objectives and risk tolerances. Wells Fargo and Banc of America allowed their brokers to sell floating-rate bank loan funds to investors for whom the positions were unsuitable, resulting in significant losses to many customers.”

Furthermore, securities fraud attorneys say FINRA’s findings indicated that the firms did not properly train their sales force on the funds’ unique characteristics and risks.

If you received an unsuitable recommendation to invest in floating-rate bank loan funds from any full-service brokerage firm, 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.

In many cases, the company stock was used as collateral for a “hypo loan,” which is obtained through the pledging of the securities to secure a loan. However, full-service brokerage firms may not have informed UPS employees of the risks associated with this type of loan. Those employees suffered significant losses from October 2008 through April 2009 when the value of UPS stock declined and they liquidated their investment.

One of the risks of maintaining a hypo loan is that of a margin call, which can result in a forced liquidation. As a result, the investor is not able to recover losses when or if the price of the stock rebounds. In the case of many UPS employees, securities arbitration lawyers say some of their losses could have been recovered as the company’s stock value rose since 2009. However, due to the hypo loans some employees were forced to liquidate their UPS stock and therefore did not benefit from the subsequent recovery in UPS’s share price.

Furthermore, many UPS employee full-service brokerage accounts contained a concentrated position in UPS scotk. Some individuals were not made aware of zero-cost collars, stop-loss orders, protective put options and/or exchange funds and how these risk management strategies could have protected their investment. Some UPS employees may have sustained substantial losses that could have been prevented by these common risk management strategies.

If you are a current or former UPS employee who suffered significant losses in UPS stock in your full-service brokerage firm account, 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 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

At least six customer complaints have been filed against Scott since 2008, according to the Phil Scott Group’s securities license. All of these complaints allege that Scott made misrepresentations and/or unsuitable recommendations of investments.

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. Furthermore, brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer. In addition, securities arbitration lawyers say firms like Merrill Lynch have a duty to properly supervise their brokers and can be held liable for broker misconduct if they fail to do so.

So far, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panels have awarded around $3.7 million to Phil Scott Group customers as a result of complaints filed since 2008. Most recently, FINRA ordered Merrill Lynch and Phil Scott to pay compensatory damages of $1,100,000, attorneys’ fees of $540,144 and other costs of $74,341 for the unsuitable recommendation of a client’s 100 percent asset investment in the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team Income and Blue Chip Portfolios. According to investment fraud lawyers, both of these investments consisted entirely of equities and were unsuitable for the client. The claim also alleged that Merrill Lynch did not adequately supervise the Phil Scott Group.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendations of the Phil Scott Group, 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 The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Missouri stated that “from 2008 to 2012, Respondent Greg John Campbell made unauthorized transfers in excess of $1,500,000 from at least five client accounts. A majority of the transferred funds from these client accounts were used for Campbell’s benefit.” According to Missouri, a portion of the funds went to payments on a BMW lease and two of Campbell’s properties.

Campbell’s activity reportedly went undetected because clients stopped receiving account statements from LPL Financial and Merrill Lynch. The addresses used by the firms for mailing account statements were changed without authorization from the clients. When questioned about the changes in address, Campbell reportedly stated that “they were the result of administrative errors.”

Campbell was registered with Merrill Lynch from June 2006 through October 2011. Following his employment with Merrill Lynch, from November 2011 through November 2012, Campbell was registered with LPL Financial. LPL Financial and Merrill Lynch were obligated to adequately supervise Campbell’s activities under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rules while he was registered with them.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of the actions of Gregory Campbell or have another reason to believe you were the victim of securities fraud, 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.

The feeder funds used by full-service brokerage firms to invest in Paulson’s Advantage and Advantage Plus Funds went by a variety of names, such as LionHedge Paulson, UBS Paulson Advantage Fund, Morgan Stanley HedgePremier Paulson, Paulson Advantage Access Fund and CAIS Paulson. Stock fraud lawyers say that all of the aforementioned funds invest in Paulson’s funds and that in some cases they may not have provided oversight or due diligence in the funds, despite representations made to investors.

Following the Advantage Fund’s decline, in May 2012 the fund was put on Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s “watch list” and investors are now being advised to redeem. Three months later, Citigroup reportedly made a similar decision, pulling $410 million from Paulson’s funds. In light of the fact that the Paulson funds were sued by an investor in February 2012, many investors are contacting securities fraud attorneys about their losses. In the 2012 lawsuit, both Paulson & Co. and its funds were charged with deeply investing into SinoForest without conducting adequate due diligence and accused of breach of fiduciary duty.

If you invested in one of the Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch or UBS Financial Services feeder funds listed above, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. 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.

In particular, these stock fraud lawyers are looking into the sales practices of Merrill Lynch and its brokers in regards to the Coast Access II LLC hedge fund. Coast Access II LLC is a “feeder fund,” investing substantially all of its assets in Coast Diversified Fund LLC, a multi-manager, multi-strategy “fund of funds” which invests through the market neutral or relative value trading of several securities and commodities trading advisors, according to Coast Access’ SEC Form D filing. Coast Access II LLC’s place of principal business operations and executive offices are listed as Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments and the investment was offered through Merrill Lynch. However, securities fraud attorneys now believe that the hedge fund was recommended to certain Merrill Lynch clients, despite its unsuitability for those clients.

A recent FINRA arbitration proceeding concluded with an order for Merrill Lynch to pay two of its investors $1.34 million in connection with their Fannie Mae preferred shares investments. Allegedly, Merrill Lynch misrepresented the risks involved in this investment, marketing them as “safe.” As a result, the investors, clients of broker Miles Pure, suffered significant losses. Their claim included allegations that the firm was negligent in its supervision of Pure and had committed civil fraud. Pure now works for Morgan Keegan.

If you are a customer of Merrill Lynch and purchased the Coast Access II LLC hedge fund or Fannie Mae preferred stock and suffered significant losses as a result of the unsuitability of the investment, or because the risks associated with the investment were misrepresented to you, you may be able to recover your losses. 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.

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.

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.

According to FINRA’s findings, Merrill Lynch failed to provide an adequate supervisory system from April 2003 to December 2011. This lack of adequate supervision allegedly resulted in customer billing that was not in accordance with contract and disclosure documents. This inaccurate billing affected almost 95,000 customer accounts. The unwarranted fees, plus interest, have since been returned to the affected customers by Merrill Lynch. Securities fraud attorneys say that when firms do not provide adequate supervisory systems, they can be held responsible for investor losses. This applies to both overcharges and instances where the firm does not supervise its brokers, some of whom then commit fraud.

In addition, Merrill Lynch did not provide customers with timely trade confirmations, as a result of computer programming errors, in certain advisory programs. Because of these errors, over 10.6 million trades in more than 230,000 customer accounts did not receive trade confirmations. Furthermore, Merrill Lynch did not properly identify its role on account statements and trade confirmations in certain transactions, specifically whether it acted as principal or agent. Securities arbitration lawyers, and FINRA’s decision, support the idea that computer programming errors are never an excuse for improper conduct on the part of a securities firm.

FINRA’s Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, Brad Bennett, stated that, “Investors must be able to trust that the fees charged by their securities firm are, in fact, correct. When this is not the case, investor confidence is threatened.”

If you have questions or concerns about your investment with Merrill Lynch, and believe you may have been the victim of securities fraud, find out more about your legal rights and options, by contacting a securities fraud attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Securities that are backed by underlying pools of loans or bonds are CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. While these investments are inherently risky, they are relatively common among “qualified investors.” Currently, stock fraud lawyers are also investigating if Merrill Lynch properly disclosed the CDO risks to investors in the sale of Mars CDO I. Furthermore, the value of Mars CDO I may have been inflated and over-stated by Merrill Lynch. Many investment attorneys believe that Merrill Lynch either knew or should have known the 2007 CDO deals were bad in the existing mortgage market conditions, given the poor performance of the CDOs.

On January 31, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel awarded $1.38 million to Bobby Hayes, an investor who purchased Collateralized Debt Obligations from Merrill Lynch in 2007. For more on this case, see the previous blog post, “After Securities Arbitration, Merrill Lynch Must Pay $1.4 Million to Investor Over CDO Loss.”

Numerous securities arbitrations have already been filed on behalf of CDO investors who suffered significant losses. If you believe you may have a valid claim, 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.