Reportedly, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) launched an investigation in 2011 concerning alleged omissions on the part of AXA Equitable regarding its applications for approval to alter the Equi-Vest and Accumulator variable annuities. The change would substitute ATM-managed funds for previous managers. According to DFS’ allegations, AXA Equitable misled DFS regarding the change’s impact and failed to disclose the underperformance of the ATM funds under the previous managers. Allegedly, these actions resulted in a reduced return for investors, especially for those who paid fees to receive guaranteed minimum benefits and those who wanted to be more aggressive in their investment strategy. In order to settle the investigation, AXA Equitable agreed to pay $20 million on March 17, 2014.

Some AXA Equitable investors may have been misled about the variable annuity contract changes. In addition, certain characteristics of variable annuities, including high penalties for early withdrawal, long surrender periods and low rate of return, make these products unsuitable for many investors. Many brokers are motivated to make unsuitable recommendations because of the large commissions associated with variable annuities.

Variable annuities are a type of insurance product. With this product, the investor pays into an account now in exchange for the guarantee of a future payout. The investment is tied to a stock index return, making it variable. According to attorneys, 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 believe you were misled regarding Equi-Vest or Accumulator variable annuity contracts, or that you received an unsuitable recommendation to invest in variable annuities, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

On March 27, a complaint was filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Office of Hearing Officers against Birli and Chapin regarding the State University of New York retirement program. According to the complaint, Birli and Chapin recommended their customers switch MetLife variable Annuities with new ones held outside the retirement plan in MetLife IRA accounts.

Allegedly, Birli and Chapin circumvented their firm’s general prohibition of direct annuities exchange by recommending to their customers that they surrender their annuities to purchase another product available within the retirement program, wait 90 days, and then sell the second product in order to purchase the MetLife IRA annuity.

According to stock fraud lawyers, the new annuities were unsuitable because their liquidity was affected by the seven-year surrender schedules they came with. Furthermore, investors lost accrued death benefits above and beyond their contract value. Allegedly, Birli and Chapin each received commissions of 7.15 percent through the switch.

Variable annuities are a type of insurance product. With this product, the investor pays into an account now in exchange for the guarantee of a future payout. The investment is tied to a stock index return, making it variable. According to securities fraud attorneys, 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 an unsuitable recommendation regarding variable annuities, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a stockbroker claims lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently filed a complaint against two MetLife Securities Inc. brokers, Patrick Chapin and Christopher Birli. According to the complaint, Chapin and Birli focused on advising State University of New York employees on their retirement plan. Both were terminated in 2012 and do not work in the securities industry at this time.

According to the complaint, Chapin and Birli allegedly made recommendations to 45 of their customers to unload their plan’s MetLife variable annuities by cashing in their annuities, purchasing another security within the plan to be held for 90 days, and then selling that security to switch to new variable annuities outside the university plan, held in IRAs. The alleged misconduct took place between 2004 and 2007. According to FINRA, this scheme generated commissions for the brokers amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

According to stock fraud lawyers, the brokers’ actions exposed investors to unnecessary risks. Reportedly, in order to cash in their plan’s annuities, some investors were required to pay fees, and investor funds were tied up in the new annuities for up to seven years. Brokers 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. Securities fraud attorneys say that many investors may have received unsuitable recommendations related to variable annuities.

If you received an unsuitable recommendation regarding variable annuities and suffered significant losses as a result, 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.

A claim was recently filed on behalf of a former client of Luis Fernandez and Angel Canabal against UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico and UBS Financial Services Inc. According to the claim, the retired client invested the majority of his life savings based on the recommendation of Fernandez in UBS proprietary bond funds, which were primarily invested in Puerto Rican debt. Allegedly, these investments were risky, illiquid and unsuitable for the investor.

The claim also alleges that the risks of the investments were not explained to the client, and that UBS made a recommendation that he borrow more money to be invested in the proprietary funds from a UBS-related company. The account was later taken over by Canabal, who allegedly told the investor that the recommendations were sound, the account wasn’t invested aggressively, and no changes were required.

According to investment fraud lawyers, 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. Reportedly, many UBS clients received unsuitable recommendations regarding investments that consisted largely of Puerto Rican debt.

If you suffered significant losses in UBS Puerto Rico bonds sold by Fernandez, Canabal or another UBS broker, you may be able to recover your losses. 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.

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.

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of the victims of securities fraud perpetuated through schemes such as advanced fee scams. Reportedly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed charges against Frederick D. Scott, a New York money manager. Scott owns ACI Capital Group, an investment advisory firm. According to the SEC, Scott made false claims regarding the company’s assets under management. He allegedly claimed the assets to be $3.7 million so that he would appear more credible when promoting “too good to be true” investment opportunities.

Allegedly, Scott targeted individual investors and small businesses with multiple financial scams. The SEC claims that he promised high rates of return in order to get money from investors and then stole their money. Reportedly, Scott used investor funds to pay his personal expenses, such as private school tuition for his children, department store purchases, air travel, dental bills and hotels, and his clients never received the promised returns.

According to securities arbitration lawyers, one of Scott’s alleged scams was an advanced fee scheme in which investors were told that the firm would give multi-million-dollar loans after a percentage of the loan amount was advanced to the firm. Reportedly, investors were told they would receive the remaining balance after the loan was made but they never received this sum.

Investigators have identified more than $1 million in investor losses caused by Scott to date, FBI officials note. However, there may be more investor losses not yet uncovered by authorities, and customers of Scott are advised to contact an investment fraud lawyer immediately. Scott has pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing over $1 million from investors through a wire fraud scheme, making false statements to examiners for the SEC and other securities fraud allegations.

If your broker or investment advisor promised you returns that you never received, you may have been the victim of securities fraud. 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 by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

In May 2011, a complaint was filed against Lerner by FINRA, regarding the firm’s Apple REIT marketing practices. In October 2012, FINRA ordered Lerner to pay $2.3 million for allegedly overcharging clients who had purchased other securities. Lerner was also ordered to pay $12 million to the trust investors. Founder and chief executive, David Lerner, was barred for one year from the securities industry and fined $250,000.

The class action raised allegations that Lerner breached fiduciary duty, was unjustly enriched and negligent in the sale of over $6.8 billion in Apple REITs. Though the class action has been dismissed by a federal judge, Lerner still faces many arbitration claims alleging the unsuitable recommendation of Apple REITs. According to securities arbitration lawyers, the question of misrepresentation is completely different than the question of suitability. Even if an investment firm adequately discloses all the risks of the investment, the investment must still be suitable for each investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Furthermore, in some cases oral misrepresentations at the time of sale- which were not at issue in the class action- can be a basis for liability in a FINRA arbitration if a stockbroker misrepresented the nature of an investment to a customer.

Non-traded REITs have given rise to a significant number of arbitration proceedings alleging that they are that they are risky and illiquid, were unsuitably recommended for sale, or formed an unsuitable over-concentration in an investor’s account at the recommendation of a broker or adviser. Stock fraud lawyers continue to file claims on behalf of investors who purchased a number of non-traded REITs from their full-service brokerage firm, including the Apple REITs sold by Lerner.

If you purchased the Apple REIT or another non-traded REIT that was unsuitable for you at the recommendation of your broker or adviser, 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.

According to the complaint, which was filed in Manhattan federal court, John Picket, the CSO’s founder, leveraged the assets of the fund in order to purchase debt in the German firm’s offering worth around 558 million Euros, or $730 million. Allegedly, following Pickett’s actions, the CSO fund suffered significant losses. Reportedly, in December 2007, Pickett resigned.

Beach’s investment fraud lawyers stated in the complaint that, “investors were not informed that his departure was the result of his breaches of the fund’s investment restrictions.” Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos declined to comment in relation to the suit.

According to securities fraud attorneys, this is not the first case against Citigroup in relation to the CSO fund. In April 2008, a hedge fund firm filed a lawsuit against Citigroup. The case is Robeco-Sage Capital v. Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, 601030/2008, New York Supreme Court (Manhattan). Robeco-Sage Capital alleged that Pickett’s “disastrous” investment had resulted in damages to the firm. According to Manhattan court records, this case is no longer active.

The current case is Beach v. Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, 12-cv-7717, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

According to the bank, Citigroup Alternative Investments has, since the alleged misconduct occurred, been restructured. Part of the bank was renamed Citi Capital Advisors.

If you suffered significant losses in the now-defunct Citigroup CSO, 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.

Currently, Credit Suisse Securities and affiliates are being sued by the state of New York based on claims that the firm misled investors about the evaluation of residential mortgage-backed securities.

“We need real accountability for the illegal and deceptive conduct in the creation of the housing bubble in order to bring justice for New York’s homeowners and investors,” says Eric Schneiderman, the state’s attorney general.

However, in these cases brought by governments and other regulators, investment fraud lawyers note that the focus is often on punishing the investment banks, not acquiring restitution for the individual investor.

In a settlement earlier this year, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $6.58 million in response to allegations that it did not adequately inform investors of mortgage securities risks. However, some securities arbitration lawyers say many Wells Fargo investors have still not been fully compensated for fraud losses. While Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $6.58 million to settle the charges, a meager $81,571 of that amount will go to restitution, plus interest. The rest, $6.5 million, will go toward a civil fine. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, based in Minneapolis, sold the high-risk mortgage securities improperly in 2007. Now, the firm is based in Charlotte, N.C., and is called Wells Fargo Securities.

A task force has been established by President Barack Obama, the goal of which is to investigate misconduct in the sales and pooling of securities.

“Our investigations and legal actions demonstrate that there must be one set of rules for all — no matter how big or powerful the institution may be — and that those rules will be enforced vigorously,” Schneiderman adds.

If you purchased mortgage-related securities from Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse or another large investment bank, you may be able to recover losses sustained in the 2008 financial crisis. 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.

FINRA’s latest charges against Hotton are separate from the charges that he defrauded the producers of the musical. These charges state that since 2006, Hotton allegedly stole at least $5.9 million from clients and caused funds amounting to at least $2.6 million to be rerouted from the Oppenheimer Inc. brokerage accounts of his clients. These rerouted funds were wired to Hotton’s outside business activities, other entities and individuals affiliated with Hotton. Furthermore, securities arbitration lawyers say Hotton reportedly lied when filling out third-party wire request forms, forged letters of authorization signatures and created investments that were completely fictitious.

In 2009, Hotton left Oppenheimer and he was last registered, until May 2012, with Obsidian Financial Group. Hotton faces serious charges in both cases, including 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud related to the musical and monetary sanctions and/or a bar from the securities industry related to the most recent charges. Clients of Hotton are encouraged to contact an investment fraud lawyer as soon as possible to explore their options for recovering their losses through all possible avenues, including securities arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Mark Hotton, 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 FINRA’s findings, Cashmore distributed “Power Optimizer” packages during the relevant period, which is at least from January 2006 through December 2010. These packages consisted of documents that contained investment information and portfolio recommendations and typically included a Cash Flow Report, a Power Optimizer Report, a Portfolio Recommendations/Asset Allocation page, a Fee and Asset Summary Report and Morningstar Reports for each recommended mutual fund. These packages were distributed to at least 100 clients and potential clients. However, according to stock fraud lawyers and FINRA, these packages contained misleading information. Specifically, FINRA says the documents provided incomplete and oversimplified information which did not provide a sound basis for investors to be able to evaluate facts about the information provided by the package.

Reportedly, the Cash Flow Report’s cash flow summary was based on only one projected rated of return, rather than including alternate cash flow scenarios, and did not include any possible cash flows that would illustrate a negative rate of return. Furthermore, the Morningstar Reports allegedly included in the package all addressed Class A investments while Cashmore recommended and sold Class C investments almost exclusively. Securities fraud attorneys say that Class A and C investments have differing rates of return, surrender charges and fees, despite being similar investments when in the same mutual fund.

According to FINRA, Cashmore has entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent. According to the terms of the letter, Cashmore has been fined $5,000 and suspended for one month.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Jeffrey A. Cashmore and LPL, 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.

According to FINRA’s findings, in 2012, Hudson Valley, through Gillis, improperly day traded stock worth millions using the firm’s Average Price Account. Following the improper trades, Gillis manipulated the stocks’ share prices and withdrew his day trading proceeds using accounts under his control. Following significant losses caused by this fraudulent trading, Gillis made unauthorized trades in customer accounts in order to cover the losses. Thousands of shares in securities were purchased by Gillis and then allocated to customers at excessive markups from 177 percent to 280 percent. In addition, he paid for an unauthorized purchase of stock by converting customer funds. One customer suffered losses of around $400,000 because of Gillis’ fraudulent activity.

When two customers became aware of unauthorized trading in their accounts, they confronted Gillis, who attempted to hide his misconduct by lying to them. He later lied during sworn testimony to FINRA staff. Investment fraud lawyers stress to investors the importance of diligently monitoring their accounts and statements for fraudulent activity. If investors suspect unauthorized trading or any other type of securities fraud has occurred in their accounts, they should contact a securities fraud attorney immediately.

If, after reviewing your account statements, you believe your representative broker or firm has committed fraud through unauthorized trading, 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.

Hochfeld Capital Management LLC had an office at Park Avenue in New York that reportedly functioned as a Heppelwhite Fund general partner. According to the allegations against Hochfeld, he stole investor funds for his own use during the period of April 2011 to October 2012. The complaint also states that a private placement memorandum for the Heppelwhite Fund stated it would not purchase debt obligations issued by, or make loans to, Hochfeld Capital Management and/or principals of the LLC. Furthermore, according to the sworn complaint by U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Michael Howard, in monthly statements provided by Hochfeld, the value of the fund was falsely inflated, concealing his withdrawals from investors. Private placement fraud like this is routinely investigated by stock fraud lawyers in order to recover stolen funds from investors.

Customers of Berton Hochfeld and/or Hochfeld Capital Management LLC who were customers of the firm during the time period stated above are encouraged to contact a securities fraud attorney as soon as possible. If convicted of both charges, Hochfield could face as many as 40 years in prison.

“Berton Hochfeld and others like him who allegedly use their businesses to lure and deceive investors and then steal their money will not be tolerated by this office,” the U.S. Attorney for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) stated.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Berton Hochfeld, 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 stock fraud lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

David Lerner Associates is the sole distributor of Apple REITs, including the $2 billion Apple REIT Ten. According to the press release, David Lerner Associates “solicited thousands of customers, targeting unsophisticated investors and the elderly, selling the illiquid REIT without performing adequate due diligence to determine whether it was suitable for investors.” According to securities arbitration lawyers, selling non-traded REITs to customers for whom the investment is unsuitable is one of the biggest problems with non-traded REITs. Furthermore, misleading marketing materials were used in order to sell the REIT. These materials presented performance results but did not disclose that the REIT’s income was insufficient for supporting owners’ distributions.

In addition to the $12 million in restitution, David Lerner Associates was fined over $2.3 million for supervisory violations and charging unfair prices on collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and municipal bonds. These unfair prices occurred over a 30-month period. According to investment fraud lawyers, victims of CMO and municipal bond fraud can also recover their losses through FINRA arbitration.

David Lerner, president, CEO and founder of David Lerner Associates, and William Mason, Head Trader for David Lerner Associates, were also fined and suspended from the securities industry.

If you purchased shares of an Apple REIT from David Lerner Associates, and the investment was recommended to you despite its unsuitability given your age, investment objectives and risk tolerance, 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.

Johnson’s attorney reportedly said that Johnson would likely plead guilty. Securities regulators in Maine and Florida have apparently scrutinized Johnson in the past and, in addition, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has already barred him from association with FINRA-registered firms. Securities arbitration lawyers say Johnson previously was associated with Kovack Securities and Next Financial Group Inc.

If Johnson defrauded clients through his company while also registered with Kovack Securities or Next Financial group, he may have been “selling away.” From 2002 until 2009, Johnson was registered with Kovack Securities, and was registered with Next Financial Group from May 2010 to June 2010. According to securities fraud attorneys, “selling away” occurs when a FINRA-registered broker-dealer executes transactions outside his or her registered firm. Investment firms can still be held liable for a broker that is “selling away” if their supervision of that broker is deemed to have been negligent. As a result, it is possible for investors to recover their losses through securities arbitration.

If you suffered significant investment losses because of business conducted with William T. Johnson, 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.

The clients of these brokers may have thought they were getting a great deal as, according to the SEC’s complaint, the brokers purported incredibly low commissions, often fractions of pennies or pennies per transaction. However, in actuality, when executing customers’ purchase and sell orders, they were reporting false prices. Reportedly, the hidden markups and markdowns were intentionally charged at times when the market was volatile. Investment fraud lawyers say this made the fraud particularly difficult to detect. The markups and markdowns occurred over a period of four years, involved over 36,000 transactions and ranged from only a few dollars up to $228,000. This resulted in fees that were sometimes altered from what had been reported to customers by over 1,000 percent.

In another part of the scheme, a customer sought to buy shares and specified a limited price. The brokers allegedly filled the order at the maximum price, but sold part of the order in order to obtain a profit for their firm. Next, they informed the customer that they were unable to complete the order at the maximum price set. During this time, millions of dollars were being made by these brokers through performance bonuses based on fraudulent earnings. In total, the brokers received over $15.6 million in performance bonuses, part of which resulted from earnings related to fraud.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced a parallel action earlier this month. Chouchane and Leszczynski are facing criminal charges and Condron pled guilty to charges against him.

In total, the scheme allegedly lasted from 2005 until 2009 and profited the firm, in addition to the brokers. Stock fraud lawyers are currently investigating what liability the firm has for the actions of these four brokers.

If you believe you are one of the victims of Condron, Chouchane, Leszczynski and Reyftmann’s trading scheme, you may be able to recover your losses through FINRA 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.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed the class action lawsuit that was reportedly filed in 2009. According to securities arbitration lawyers, reports indicated that the plaintiffs’ claims that certain risks were omitted from the registration statements disclosures were rejected by the courts. Reportedly, these omitted risks were associated with holding inverse and leveraged exchange-trade funds, or ETFs, for periods exceeding one day.

In a warning issued by FINRA, the regulatory authority stated that leverage inverse ETFs are unsuitable for ordinary investors and that these investments should be held for a short time period only. Brokers have been known to sell ETFs and ETNs as conservative ways to track a sector of the market, or the market as a whole. However, complicated trading strategies are necessary to accomplish this, and using these investments to track a sector of the market may or may not be a conservative trading strategy. This depends on the sector of the market and assets in the account relative to the investment’s concentration level. For more information on ETFs and ETNs, see the previous blog post, “Investors Could Recover Losses from their Inverse ETF and ETN Investments.”

Following the dismissal of the class action lawsuit, investors who suffered losses as a result of their investment in the ProShares ETF are seeking alternative methods for recovering their losses. Those investors can contact a securities fraud attorney about filing a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration claim against the broker-dealer or financial advisor that recommended the investment. In many cases, firms, brokers and/or advisors can be held liable for investor losses if they failed to fully disclose the risks associated with the investment or recommended an investment that was unsuitable for the investor.

If you suffered losses in ProShares exchange-traded funds, you could 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.

New York City investor Margaret Hill filed the case in 2011 and requested over $3.5 million in damages. Her losses were a result of Citi’s Rochester Municipal Fund. Investment fraud lawyers say Hill’s case alleged that she was sold unsuitable investments by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. which, in addition, misrepresented facts.

According to the allegations against Citigroup, Hill bought the Rochester Fund as an alternative to her individual municipal bond funds because Citigroup said it would pay more interest and would be a “safe” alternative to her funds at that time. However, the Rochester Fund reportedly consisted primarily of tobacco bonds and risky derivative securities. After purchasing the bond in 2007, Hill sold the funds in 2009, suffering losses amounting to $2.9 million.

Securities fraud attorneys say it is often falsely assumed that wealthy investors are more sophisticated investors than the average investor. However, brokerage firms and financial advisors are still responsible for adequately disclosing all risks associated with a particular investment. In this case, the value of the derivative securities that made up the fund depends on the underlying assets’ performance which can experience significant fluctuations.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment in a municipal bond that was falsely represented as “safe,” you may be able to recover you 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.

Like any private placement, the high risks associated with Icon Leasing Fund Eleven investments are only appropriate for sophisticated, high-net-worth investors. However, according to securities arbitration lawyers, the commissions offered to brokers and brokerage firms for this investment were high enough that some broker-dealers recommended this investment to clients for whom it was unsuitable without adequately disclosing the risks associated with the investment. Furthermore, stock fraud lawyers say information that is now available indicates that many of the firms selling the product did not adequately perform the necessary due diligence.

The following investments made up the bulk of Icon Leasing Fund Eleven’s portfolio as of March 21, 2012:

• A term loan to Northern Leasing Systems Inc. affiliates.
• The Teal Jones Group and Teal Jones Lumber Services plant, equipment and machinery.
• A 45 percent interest in a semiconductor manufacturing equipment ownership joint venture.
• A Heuliez SA and Heuliez Investissements SNC auto parts manufacturing equipment lease.
• A 55 percent interest in a plastic films and flexible packaging manufacturing equipment for consumer products ownership joint venture.
• The Senang Spirit, a crude oil tanker.
• A 6.33 percent interest in a machining and metal working equipment ownership joint venture.

If you are an Icon Leasing Fund Eleven investor, 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 stock fraud 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 that those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance.

If you suffered losses as a result of your investment in a Bradford Drilling or Bradford Exploration private placement, 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.