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.

• 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.

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 stock fraud lawyers, principal transactions usually involve an investment adviser who uses affiliate brokerage firms to act on behalf of its account. However, conflicts of interest frequently arise between adviser and client. Therefore, securities fraud attorneys say that advisers must disclose any monetary interest or conflicted role in written form when advising the client and obtaining permission.

Parallax Investments LLC, Tri-Star Advisors and three executives — John P. Bott II, Jon C. Vaughan and William T. Payne — all based in Houston, Texas, face securities charges regarding the unauthorized transactions. According to the SEC’s orders of administrative proceedings, Bott made at least 2,000 principal transactions without disclosing or receiving permission from clients from 2009 to 2011. Furthermore, for each transaction, the broker-dealer affiliate bought mortgage-backed bonds with its inventory account and placed them in the client accounts. Bott gained almost half the $1.9 million in sales credits the firm received on the transactions. Vaughan and Payne executed similar trades and received similar benefits.

According to Marshall S. Sprung, the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit co-chief, clients were prevented by the firms from knowing that “running the trades through an affiliated account” could benefit their advisers.

If your broker or adviser executed principal transactions without disclosing their actions or obtaining your permission, you may be able to recover your losses through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority 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.

Recently Behringer Harvard itself discovered it was being sued when an investor filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September. The investor, Lillian Hohenstein, purchased 1,275 shares between 2004 and 2008. The case alleges breach of fiduciary duty and negligence by the trust, members of its board and its executives. In addition to the class action, many brokerage firms who sold the investment are facing arbitration panels for their unsuitable recommendation of Behringer Harvard REIT I.

The main problem with Behringer Harvard REIT I is that many investors were led to believe the investment was safe and similar to high quality, fixed income securities and chose to invest because they believed it was a low-risk, income-producing investment. However, these investors were not aware of the high risks and illiquidity associated with non-traded REIT investments. Many investors also did not realize that they were not guaranteed distributions and some of the distributions that were made before distributions ceased came from loans, and not cash flows generate by the REIT. Furthermore, many retired individuals were overconcentrated in this investment because of its perceived income-producing feature. As a result, many investors have suffered significant REIT losses.

Typically, REITs carry a high commission, which motivates some brokers to make the recommendation to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Non-traded REITs carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to retired investors. However, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid, which limits access of funds to investors.

If you suffered significant REIT losses as a result of your investment in Behringer Harvard REIT I, 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 SEC’s Division of Enforcement’s allegations of misappropriation of funds state that Hunter promised guaranteed returns in both domestic and foreign bank investments while registered with HD Vest Investment Securities Inc. Further, the SEC’s claims allege that Hunter paid personal and business expenses with the funds and made false and misleading representations to conceal his actions from his clients. Reportedly, these misrepresentations included fabricating bank documents.

Based on the SEC’s allegations, securities arbitration lawyers believe that Hunter was a registered representative for HD Vest Investment Securities Inc. from November 15, 2006 through October 19, 2011. HD Vest Investment Securities is headquartered in Texas and is a registered broker-dealer. While registered there, Hunter reportedly became a partner in National Business Concepts LLC, purportedly in bookkeeping, accounting, business consulting, management and tax preparation.

Allegedly, Hunter recommended to two long-time elderly clients a Canadian bank investment in September 2010. One of the clients was told, by Hunter, that HD Vest’s trading platform did not offer the investment and, therefore, it was necessary for the investment to be held and funded outside the client’s HD Vest brokerage account.

A hearing to be held before an administrative law judge will be scheduled in order to determine whether the order’s allegations are true. Hunter will have an opportunity to respond the allegations against him, and any necessary sanctions will be ordered at that time.

“Selling away” occurs when a broker who is affiliated with FINRA conducts business outside his registered firm, according to investment fraud lawyers. If the firm does not have adequate supervisory procedures in place, the firm may be held liable for the broker’s actions when “selling away.” Therefore, if it can be proven that HD Vest failed to adequately supervise Hunter, the firm could be held liable for his actions and other victims of his fraud could recover losses through securities arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Lewis J. Hunter, 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.

Beginning May 1, 2007, Mewbourne Energy Partners has offered the public private placements, which certain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority registered broker-dealers then offered and sold, in order for Mewbourne to raise capital. The private placement offering consisted of general and limited partner interests and was a part of the Mewbourne Energy Partners ’07 Drilling Program. When the offering concluded on August 13, 2007, the total investor contributions, originally sold to accredited investors, amounted to $70,000,000. Of this total, accredited investors as limited partner interests amounted to $4,290,000 and accredited investors as general partner interests amounted to $65,710,000.

According to securities arbitration 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.

Stock fraud lawyers 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 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 your investment in Mewbourne Oil private placements, or another private placement, 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 securities arbitration 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.

Investment fraud lawyers 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. FINRA 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.

Current investigations regarding this investment are related to whether FINRA-registered brokerage firms can be held liable for improperly selling the Patriot Minerals Regulation D private placements and other high-risk private placements to their clients. Any investors who were recommended and sold the Patriot Minerals private placements that could not be considered sophisticated, high-net-worth investors could recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Patriot Minerals or another private placement, 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 securities fraud attorneys, 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.

Investment fraud lawyers 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. FINRA 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.

Current investigations regarding this investment are related to whether FINRA-registered brokerage firms can be held liable for improperly selling the Texas Energy Exoro Regulation D private placement and other high-risk private placements to their clients. Any investors who were recommended and sold the Texas Energy Exoro private placement that could not be considered sophisticated, high-net-worth investors could recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

If you suffered significant losses as a result of your investment with Texas Energy Exoro or another private placement, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities fraud attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

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

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

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

If you suffered losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation of either Lehman Return Optimization Security Note Losses or Maluhia Eight LLC, you may have a valid FINRA arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investment fraud lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

The general partner of Reef Oil and Gas Companies, Reef Oil & Gas Partners L.P., engages in the developing, producing, and exploiting of oil and natural gas. Furthermore, it operates wells that are, or will be, drilled. Reef Oil and Gas Partners L.P. is based in Richardson, Texas and was founded in 1987.

The substantial risks of oil and gas partnerships make them investments that are only appropriate for sophisticated investors. Nevertheless, many broker-dealers have recommended them to investors for which the investment was unsuitable. Under the rules of fiduciary duty, broker-dealers must adequately disclose the investment’s risks before recommending an investment. Furthermore, they must perform adequate due diligence in determining whether or not the investment is suitable for each investor, given their individual risk tolerance and investment objectives. If a broker does not perform these necessary actions, they have committed broker misconduct in the form of making an unsuitable recommendation and can be penalized and required to return investors’ losses through securities arbitration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. According to investment attorneys, many brokerage firms appear to have failed to perform due diligence when recommending oil and gas partnership investments to investors.

If you incurred losses as a result of oil and gas partnerships, and these investments were unsuitable for your risk tolerance and investment objectives, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Bank of America held commercial loans from small banks amounting to around $400 million in 2006. In 2007, securities packages were put together from these loans and then sold to investors. The subpoena arrives only one day after Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. settled allegations of engaging in abusive mortgage practices. These abusive practices included engaging in deceptive practices in the offering of loan modifications, a failure to offer other options before closing on borrowers with federally insured mortgages, submitting improper documents to the bankruptcy court and robo-signing foreclosure documents without proper review of the paperwork.

The settlement amounted to $25 billion and involved federal agencies plus authorities in 49 states. This settlement is designed to give $2,000 to around 750 borrowers whose homes were foreclosed upon after the home values dropped 33 percent from their 2006 worth, and to provide mortgage relief. In addition, all five banks will pay $766.5 million in penalties to the Federal Reserve. This is considered to be the biggest federal-state settlement ever. Bank of America will also pay $1 billion to settle allegations that it, together with its Countrywide Financial unit, engaged in fraudulent and wrongful conduct.

Needless to say, between the recent settlement, the subpoena regarding two of its CLOs, and numerous potential securities arbitration claims related to its CDOs, Bank of America is not off to a good start in 2012. If suspicions about the Bank of America CLOs turn out to be correct, investors who suffered losses as a result may have a valid securities arbitration claim. Investors are advised to stay informed on this issue as it holds potential for loss recovery.