CHARACTERISTICS AND SOME DISADVANTAGES OF NON-TRADED REITS

To begin, a non-traded REIT is not listed for trading on a securities exchange. Consequently, the secondary market for non-traded REITs is typically very limited in nature. Furthermore, while some of an investor’s shares may be eligible for redemption after a certain passage of time (e.g., one year), and, even then, on a limited basis subject to certain restrictions, such redemption offers may well be priced below the purchase price or current price of the non-traded REIT. Thus, lack of liquidity and pricing inefficiency are two disadvantages to non-traded REITs, as opposed to REITs that trade on an exchange (e.g., NYSE: BXP – Boston Properties).

Beyond such liquidity and pricing concerns, non-traded REITs often are sold with very high front-end fees. These fees may include selling compensation and expenses (not to exceed 10%), as well as additional offering and organizational costs which are essentially passed along to the investor from the outset. Conversely, purchasing a REIT which trades on a major exchange will only entail the associated brokerage commission. Because of the fees associated with non-traded REITs, they are rarely suitable for an investor with a short-term time horizon; even long-term investors must remain mindful of the liquidity issues.

Finally, with non-traded REITs, investors may not always be aware of the anticipated source of returns on the underlying investments. Often, with a non-traded REIT, income is passed along to the investors from distributions over several years – and it may also be the case that the income distributions include return of capital from other investors. And upon liquidation, investors in a non-traded REIT may receive less than their initial investment depending on the value of the underlying assets. On the other hand, investors who purchase exchange traded REITS are typically seeking capital appreciation on the share price, in addition to income via dividends or distributions to shareholders.

RESOURCE OFFICE INNOVATION REIT

Recently, one such non-traded REIT – Resource Office Innovation REIT (“Resource Office”) – elected to suspend its public offering, effective April 21, 2017. Resource Office’s suspension of its offering was approved by its Board in connection with a plan to restructure its $1.1 billion IPO into a NAV REIT, as well as a perpetual life entity that will give the company the ability to conduct offerings for indefinite duration. In addition to suspending its offering, Resource Office’s Board voted to suspend the company’s distribution reinvestment plan effective May 1, 2017, as well as its share repurchase program effective May 21, 2017.

If you have invested in a non-traded REIT that you believe was an unsuitable recommendation, and you have suffered significant losses as a result, you may be able to recover your losses in FINRA arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Another claim was filed recently against one broker registered with VSR Financial Services, Dennis Van Patter. This particular claim is regarding the following alternative investments:

• Inland American Real Estate Trust
• Cole Credit Property Trust II
• KBS Real Estate Investment Trust Inc.
• Cypress Equipment Fund 15
• CNL Lifestyle Fund
• Boston Capital Series 44
• Boston Capital Series 47
• United Development Funding III
• MPF Income Fund 25
• Penneco Oil Company 2008-1
• Atlas Energy Public 17-2008B
• Atlas Energy Public 17-2009B

According to securities arbitration lawyers, these investments were unsuitable for the claimant and may have been unsuitable for other VSR customers. The claim, filed on behalf of a Texas widow, is attempting to recover damages of more than $475,000. According to the claim, the widow received around $750,000 in insurance proceeds after the death of her husband. She then opened an account with Van Patter at VSR Financial.

The claim alleges unsuitability and negligent misrepresentation on the part of Van Patter as well as breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision on the part of VSR Financial. 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, lawyers say firms have an obligation to properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm.

In addition, VSR Financial was sanctioned and fined, while its CEO and co-founder, Donald Beary, was suspended and fined in May 2013 for failure to adequately supervise non-conventional investment sales to investors.

If you are a VSR Financial Services customer who suffered significant losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation of alternative investments, 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 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Reportedly, Pennsylvania regulators are currently looking into non-traded REIT sales conducted by Securities America employees. Securities America is owned by broker-dealer Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., which also owns two more independent brokerage firms. Ladenburg stated in its annual report that Pennsylvania regulators wanted to be provided with data regarding non-traded REITs purchased by Pennsylvania residents since 2007.

Securities arbitration lawyers are currently unsure if the non-traded REIT sales investigation will extend to firms other than Securities America.

Last year, multiple independent brokerage firms, including Securities America, paid to settle charges regarding non-traded REIT sales with the Massachusetts Securities Division. Securities America’s piece of that pie included a $150,000 fine and restitution to clients totaling $8.4 million. The Massachusetts probe found that several firms had trouble abiding state rules, as well as their own policies, regarding non-traded REIT sales.

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. 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 and those who need easy access to funds.

If you are a Securities America customer, or customer of another full-service brokerage firm, who suffered significant losses because of the unsuitable recommendation of non-traded REITs, 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 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the claim, the woman was sold non-traded REITs and other alternative investments by Jonathan Pyne, a broker for Berthel Fisher. The claim argues that her age and low risk tolerance made the investments unsuitable for her. The investments included:

• Inland American Real Estate Trust
• Wells REIT
• Cornerstone Core Properties REIT
• Gulf Coast Rig & Equipment
• REEF Oil & Gas Income and Development
• Leaf Equipment Leasing Income Fund III

Securities arbitration lawyers say that these investments are illiquid and, in many cases, may have been negligently misrepresented. In this woman’s case and possibly many others, the investments also allegedly represented a concentration level of her liquid net worth that was too large to be suitable.

Firms have an obligation to properly supervise their brokers and 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 attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high dividend or interest. According to investment fraud lawyers, however, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors and makes them unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances and those who need easy access to funds, especially when over-concentrated. Leveraged and inverse ETFs are designed to meet daily objectives, and “reset” each day. As a result, the performance of these investments can diverge from the performance of the underlying benchmark or index very quickly, and the problem is exasperated in volatile markets, making these investments unsuitable for many investors as well.

If you were sold unsuitable alternative investments from a Berthel Fisher broker, including non-traded REITs, inverse and leveraged ETFs and/or Oil & Gas Partnerships, you may be able to recover your losses through a 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 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

These investments included:

• Non-traded real estate investment trusts, or REITs
• Oil and gas partnerships
• Business development companies, or BDCs
• Hedge funds
• Managed futures
• Other illiquid pass-through investments

For many alternative investments, offering documents, state regulations and the firms themselves impose concentration limits. FINRA’s investigation found that LPL did not adequately supervise alternative investment sales from January 1, 2008 to July 1, 2012 and, as a result, these concentration limits were allegedly violated. In addition, LPL’s supervisory staff allegedly was not adequately trained in analyzing suitability standards.

According to stock fraud lawyers, firms have an obligation to properly supervise their brokers and fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations. In addition, those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Securities fraud attorneys believe that many LPL customers may be able to recover losses for unsuitable alternative investments.

“In order to sell alternative investments, a broker-dealer must tailor its supervisory system to these products,” FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett stated. “LPL exposed customers to unacceptable risks by not having an adequate system in place that could accurately review whether a transaction complies with suitability requirements imposed by the states, the product issuers and the firm itself — and it failed to train its registered representatives to apply all the suitability guidelines appropriately.”

If you were an LPL customer who received an unsuitable recommendation of non-traded REITs, oil and gas partnerships, managed futures, BDCs or other illiquid investments, 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 newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the FINRA investigation’s findings, Berthel Fisher did not have adequate written procedures and supervisory systems in place from January 2008 to December 2012 for the following alternative investments:

• Non-traded REITs
• Oil and gas programs
• Managed futures
• Business development companies
• Equipment leasing programs

Allegedly, the firm did not accurately calculate alternative investment concentration levels in some cases and, as a result, did not correctly adhere to suitability standards in those instances. Furthermore, Berthel Fisher staff was not adequately trained on the suitability standards for individual states.

In addition, from April 2009 to April 2012, Berthel Fisher allegedly did not have a “reasonable basis” for certain leveraged and inverse ETF sales, according to FINRA’s findings. FINRA investigators also found that non-traditional ETFs were not adequately researched or reviewed, and that the sales force was not adequately trained before registered representatives were allowed to make customer recommendations. Stock fraud lawyers believe that many customers may have suffered significant losses as a result of the recommendation and sale of these products, which were unsuitable for many investors.

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, securities fraud attorneys say that firms have an obligation to properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm.

If you suffered significant losses in non-traded REITs or inverse and leveraged ETFs sold by Berthel Fisher or Securities Management & Research Inc., 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 newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

• NetREIT Common
• Florida Capital Real Estate Partners 27
• Bradford Drilling Associates 27, LP
• Arcitera Whitefish Opportunity Fund
• Arciterra Strategic Retail Echelon
• Alliance Petroleum Corp 2006-B
• Atlas America Public #17-2007A Ltx.
• Cypress Equipment Fund 13
• Mewbourne Energy Partners 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A
• Waveland Vanguard Partners
• Waveland Resource Partners
• Waveland Drilling Partners 2006-B, 2007-A, 2008-B
• Reef SWD 2007-A
• Odyssey Properties III
• Odyssey Residential Realty II LLC 9% Note

According to the claim, the allegedly unsuitable investments were sold by John H. Towers, a former broker for VSR Financial. The claim also alleges negligent misrepresentation by Towers and negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty by VSR Financial Services.

Under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (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, stock fraud lawyers say firms have an obligation to properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm.

Reportedly, FINRA suspended Towers in January 2014. His suspension was in connection with real estate investment trusts and private placements. In that case, a couple who had done business with Towers claimed that they did not authorize the high risk investments.

In addition, VSR Financial Services was sanctioned and fined in May 2013 in connection with sales of non-conventional investments including private placements that were found to be excessive. Securities fraud attorneys believe there may be other VSR Financial Services investors who were the victims of securities fraud.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation and sale of private placements or 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 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.

[if gte mso 9]>

Non-traded REITs are illiquid investments, not listed on public exchanges and with a very limited market for sale of shares if the investor wishes to sell subsequent to his or her initial purchase.. Their offering documents typically claim that after some period of time, perhaps 5-10 years, the REIT intends to list on an exchange, merge with another company, or in some other way allow investors to sell their shares- a so called “liquidity event.” However, for many non-traded REITs that began to be sold to investors eight to ten years ago, such a “liquidity event” has failed to take place. Further, non-traded REIT investments have greatly underperformed other asset classes and in many instances have made distributions to investors that are derived not from income derived from their underlying assets, but rather from the proceeds of the sale of additional shares in the REITs to subsequent investor.

Even if a non-traded REIT lists on a major exchange, that does not mean that its original investors have benefited from being sold such an illiquid investment. An example of a non-traded REIT that has consistently underperformed similar liquid and publicly-traded investments is Columbia Property Trust (CXP, formerly known as Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II). Columbia/Wells II was first sold as a non-traded REIT in 2004 and subsequently listed on the New York Stock Exchange in October 2013. Before it was listed, it sold shares to new investors at $10 per share. After its first day trading on the NYSE, its per share value was $22.52.

However, this $22.52 a share valuation resulted from a four-for-one stock split, meaning that the shares sold for $10.00 a share prior to the IPO were effectively worth only $5.63 a share. .

Typically, non-traded REITs carry a high commission, sometimes as high as 15 percent, which motivates some brokers to make unsuitable recommendations to their clients. Non-traded REITs are attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high distributions of cash representing income and/or return of capital. According to stock fraud lawyers, however, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid because there is a limited market for reselling shares. This illiquidity and volatility makes non-traded REIT shares unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances and those who need easy access to funds, especially when their portfolios are over-concentrated in illiquid investments.

According to securities fraud attorneys, brokers 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 broker or firm fails to make suitable recommendations, investors may be able to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of an unsuitable recommendation to purchase shares in Wells II/Columbis or other non-traded REITs from 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 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.

Reportedly, from January until May 2013, investors spent $10.3 billion on real estate funds. However, in May 2013, the Federal Reserve began discussing tapering its purchase of assets under the so-called “quantitative easing” policy, causing a spike in interest rates, and REITs suffered a loss of 5.9 percent in that month alone. As prices fell, investors pulled $2.5 billion out of REITs, suffering significant losses. Then, last month, the Federal Reserve tapered its bond-buying program from $85 billion per month to $75 billion per month.

According to a Wall Street Journal article last month, “You should own REITs because you want to diversify some of the risks of stocks and bonds and to combat inflation — not because you are chasing high dividend yields or because you think the hot returns of the past will persist.” The articles goes on to say, “Anyone who overpays for lower-quality, higher-yielding assets could be crushed if interest rates rise sharply.”

According to securities arbitration lawyers, firms and 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. Investment fraud lawyers believe that many investors may have received unsuitable recommendations of real estate investment trusts, or that their portfolios may have been unsuitably over-concentrated in REITs.

If you suffered significant losses because of the unsuitable recommendation or over-concentration of REITs, you may have a valid Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 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 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

The alleged misconduct relates to the time period from 2009 to 2012, but Chackman was registered with LPL between 2001 and 2012. In 2012, his registration was terminated by the firm for violating the firm’s policies and procedures regarding alternative investment sales.

According to the letter of acceptance waiver and consent, Chackman “recommended and effected unsuitable transactions in the accounts of at least eight LPL customers, by overconcentrating his customers’ assets in [REITs] and other illiquid securities.” The letter, dated December 12, 2012, also states that by submitting falsified documents, Chackman “was able to increase his customers’ accounts’ concentration in REITs and other alternative investments beyond the allocation limits established by [LPL].”

Typically, non-traded REITs carry a high commission, often as high as 15 percent, which motivates some brokers to make unsuitable recommendations to their clients. Non-traded REITs are attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high distributions of cash representing income and/or return of capital. According to stock fraud lawyers, however, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid because there is a limited market for reselling shares. This illiquidity and volatility makes non-traded REIT shares unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances and those who need easy access to funds, especially when their portfolios are over-concentrated in illiquid investments.

Reportedly, one of Chackman’s clients made seven $75,000 purchases of one non-traded REIT over a six month period. After a year, 25 percent of the client’s liquid net worth and 35 percent of her assets were invested in REITs and other alternative investments. Another client, who purchased the same REIT, made seven purchases over seven months totaling $135,000 and had over one-third of his liquid net worth invested in REITs and other alternative investments after about two years.

According to securities fraud attorneys, brokers 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 broker or firm fails to make suitable recommendations, investors may be able to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with Gary Chackman or received an unsuitable recommendation of non-traded REITs 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.

According to the claim, Paul Larsen, a financial advisor, liquidated the claimants’ mutual funds, blue chip stocks and fixed income investments. Allegedly, he told his clients he was doing this to get away from the market risk of these investments. Furthermore, he represented the replacement investments as safe and claimed they would generate income and were opportunities he offered to his “best clients.” However, the products he invested his clients’ funds in were risky, unsuitable investments including:

• KBS REIT
• Atlas America Public Fund #14
• Colorado Water Capital Group LLC
• Ridgewood Energy Fund S
• Ridgewood Energy Fund Q
• Platte Water Group I LLC/Yokam
• Puritan Capital Group LLC
• Issacher Global Management LLC
• UKAG Group LLC

According to stock fraud lawyers, Larsen was eventually fired from the investment firm but, reportedly, his clients were not notified and he was listed as the clients’ broker on their account for just under two years after he was fired. Allegedly, the clients did not find out there were any problems with Larsen until after FINRA barred him from the securities industry permanently.

Typically, non-traded REITs carry a high commission, often as high as 8-10 percent, which motivates brokers to make unsuitable recommendations to their clients. Non-traded REITs such as the KBS REIT are attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high distributions of income on a quarterly or monthly basis. According to securities fraud attorneys, however, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid, and many of them have suffered significant declines in value, resulting in investor losses.

The claim is seeking compensatory damages of over $2 million for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation. If you suffered significant losses as a result of the negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, or the unsuitable recommendation of non-traded REITs or other risky, illiquid products, 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.

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.

An announcement from Behringer Harvard Holdings LLC stated that affiliates of Behringer Harvard and a board of directors special committee of Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I had entered into contractual arrangements, initiating the process of making the REIT self-managed. However, the management team for the REIT will remain basically unchanged. Five of the executives will become employees of the REIT instead of employees of Behringer Harvard. Furthermore, Mark T. Alfieri will replace Robert S. Aisner, who will remain an employee of Behringer Harvard, as the REIT’s CEO.

Typically, non-traded REITs carry a high commission, sometimes as high as 15 percent, which motivates brokers to make unsuitable recommendations to their clients. Non-traded REITs such as the Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I are attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high dividend or interest. However, in some instances brokers have sold the REITs without disclosing the risks of principal loss and/or the fact that the investor’s funds may be tied up for several years due to the limited market for resale of non-traded REIT shares.

If you suffered significant losses because of an unsuitable recommendation of Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I, or another non-traded REIT, 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 Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Reportedly, a claim has already been filed on behalf of one investor against Kathleen Tarr, a former representative of Royal Alliance Securities. Allegedly, Tarr recommended taking an early retirement option and then sold the investor unsuitable variable annuities and non-traded REITs. Prior to taking the early retirement option, the investor’s portfolio consisted of diversified retirement investments.

In addition, securities arbitration lawyers are investigating recommendations made by Brian Brunhaver, a former registered representative for LPL Financial. Allegedly, Brunhaver unsuitably recommended the purchase of the non-traded REITs, specifically Inland American and Inland Western, to a client. This client was seeking to make investments that would fund future college expenses. Because of the illiquidity of non-traded REITs, the investments could not be sold in time to meet the client’s needs.

Typically, non-traded REITs carry a high commission, often as high as 15 percent, which sometimes motivates brokers to make unsuitable recommendations to their clients. Non-traded REITs may appear attractive to investors because they carry a relatively high dividend or interest. However, these investments are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors and makes them unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances and those who need easy access to funds.

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 you received a recommendation to purchase non-traded REITs or variable annuities that were unsuitable given your investment objectives and risk tolerance, and suffered significant losses as a result, 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.

Despite the name change which, according to the REIT’S president Scott Fordham was supposed to symbolize “how the company reflects the goals and objectives of its tenants and stockholders in everything it does,” investors continue to be trapped in an investment they can’t sell except at a significant discount on the secondary market. Furthermore, according to stock fraud lawyers, the REIT continues to pay zero distributions.

To make matters worse, the REIT’s latest SEC quarterly report disclosed some disturbing information for investors. Reportedly, notes payable amounting to approximately $221.8 million will come due in 2013 and this amount may increase significantly because of several of the REIT’s loans, which are in default. As a result, the REIT may have to pay over $300 million before the end of 2013 because of its outstanding loans. In addition, the REIT had cash and cash equivalents of only $40.7 million and $71.3 million in restricted cash as of March 31, 2013.

Currently, securities fraud attorneys say that the TIER REIT, which is currently valued at $4.01 per share, has lost nearly 56 percent of its value. Furthermore, it is the only major non-traded REIT that does not allow any kind of redemption. Non-traded REITs in general are also inherently risky, which may make them unsuitable for many individuals with conservative risk tolerances and those who need easy access to funds.

If you purchased the Behringer Harvard REIT I, now known as TIER REIT, as a result of your broker or advisor’s recommendation and this investment was unsuitable for you given your age, investment objectives, or risk tolerance, 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.

According to the allegations made by one investor, Berthel Fisher failed to make the proper disclosures and perform adequate due diligence regarding the TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program. A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on July 8, which stated, “Berthel Fisher had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omission in the 2008 [private-placement memorandum] and failed to investigate red flags that pointed to other misrepresentations and omissions.”

The deal’s sponsor, Thompson National Properties LLC, and chief executive Tony Thompson have also been under investigation by securities arbitration lawyers for the TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., a non-traded REIT, and the TNP 12% Notes Program. Allegedly, the TNP Strategic Retail Trust was recommended to many investors for which it was unsuitable, given their age, risk tolerances and investment objectives. Reportedly, the 12% Notes Program, which was designed to raise capital for tenant-in-common real estate operations, suspended interest payments to investors and was in danger of defaulting on two loans.

In addition, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleged “misrepresentations, mismanagement, misappropriation of investor funds and other misconduct” on the part of Thompson and his team regarding another TNP-sponsored deal, TNP Kodak, or TNP 6700 Santa Monica Boulevard. According to stock fraud lawyers, it is possible that some brokerage firms may be held liable for inadequate due diligence or the unsuitable recommendation of TNP investments to investors.

If you suffered significant losses in the TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program LLC, TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., TNP 12% Notes Program or TNP Kodak, 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 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 order, “Steadfast’s decision to publicly announce an offering price increase 59 days prior to implementation of the price increase created a sale period that may have artificially increased investor demand for its securities.” The cease-and-desist order only orders a halt in the valuation price and does not stop sales of the Steadfast Income REIT.

On July 12, 2012, an estimated per share value of $10.24 was disclosed for the Steadfast Income REIT. However, securities arbitration lawyers say that the REIT continued to sell at the lower, $10 per share value until September 10, 2012. Reportedly, the announcement of a future valuation change harms shareholders by undercutting the investment’s current value.

The Ohio Division of Securities registration chief counsel, Mark Heuerman stated, “It’s in the best interest of prior shareholders that the REIT sells shares for what it’s worth.” The order does not include any fines restitution for investors and, as a result, many investors are seeking the help of an investment fraud lawyer in order to regain their losses.

The Steadfast Income REIT primarily invests in multifamily real estate or apartment houses. It was launched in 2009 and has assets totaling $691.4 million.

This issue resembles a similar problem that occurred with Tony Thompson’s TNP Strategic Retail Trust, which reportedly continued to sell at $10 per share, despite an estimated NAV increase on November 9, 2012, to $10.60 per share. Furthermore, the REIT stopped paying investor dividends in March, and Thompson is under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority investigation.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of the premature announcement of the Steadfast Income REIT’s value, 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, some non-traded REITs may have carried a high commission, which in the past has motivated brokers to recommend the product to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Many non-traded REITs carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. However, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid, which causes them to be unsuitable for many investors.

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 his or her age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. Furthermore, securities fraud attorneys say brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Hartman is an FSC Securities Corporation-registered representative, but does business under the company name of Rocky Mountain Financial. During his financial services career, he has reportedly been involved in multiple customer complaints and a regulatory investigation.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with a stockbroker or financial advisor and have reason to believe that the broker or advisor made unsuitable recommendations or improperly handled your account, 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 letter was sent by Corvex Management LP and Related Fund Management LLC. Corvex and Related are separately managed investment funds. Together, they own around 9.6 percent of all outstanding CommonWealth REIT common shares.

The letter from Corvex and Related states: “An outdated management structure, abysmal corporate governance, and mismanagement of operations have in our view been a significant driver in the 45 percent decline in CommonWealth REIT’s stock price over the last five years. We believe this continued value destruction is by design — the direct result of self-interested actions taken by CommonWealth’s current Board of Trustees and its external manager, REIT Management and Research LLC (RMR) which is owned by Barry Portnoy and his son, Adam.”

According to the letter, in the last six months, the Portnoys and RMR have attempted to change bylaws and Maryland law in an effort to prevent the removal of trustees and “further entrench management.” Corvex and Related assert that these actions “make it clear that RMR is not operating CommonWealth for the benefit of shareholders, but, rather, for the benefit of the Portnoys. Not only has the Company repeatedly taken action to eliminate shareholder rights, in March they enacted a highly dilutive equity offering in a purported attempt to maintain ‘investment grade ratings’ — only to be downgraded to junk status by Standard & Poor’s as a result of ‘weak’ management and corporate governance.”

In addition to the issues outlined in the letter to shareholders, securities arbitration lawyers are investigating potential investor loss recovery on the basis of allegations that CommonWealth did not disclose certain facts, including the fact that leased office spaces had fallen below expectations, existing tenants were receiving concessions which were eroding CommonWealth’s income and, as a result, CommonWealth’s positive statements about its occupancy rate, dividend payout and leverage ratio were not reasonably founded. For more information about these allegations, please see the previous blog post, “CommonWealth REIT Investors Could Recover Losses.”

If you have suffered significant losses as a result of your investment in the CommonWealth REIT, 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.

Worchester was the co-chief compliance officer of TNP Securities LLC, a broker-dealer under Thompson’s control. Worchester and TNP Securities were suspended from working with a FINRA affiliated broker-dealer and Worchester was fined $15,000. According to FINRA, Worchester’s failure in due diligence was regarding three TNP Securities-sponsored private placement offerings.

According to stock fraud lawyers, TNP suffered almost $25.8 million in losses in 2009, resulting in negative $13.6 million net equity while launching the TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., a REIT. Allegedly, both of the note programs and two of the private placements offered by Thompson used new investor money to pay old investors. Both note programs are now in default.

According to FINRA, Worchester did not “examine and reasonably evaluate historical and current financial statements of the issuer (Thompson National Properties) and its affiliates to identify and reasonably evaluate negative trends indicated by the financial statements and the requirements for significant capital infusions, increased revenues from operations or decreased expenses.” Securities fraud attorneys say that in some cases of inadequate due diligence, firms and individuals can be held responsible for investor losses.

Reportedly, Worchester held a number of positions at TNP. From May 2009 until October 2010 she held a compliance position and she was the TNP Strategic Retail Trust CFO from September 2008 to July 2010.

If you suffered significant losses in TNP private placements, 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.