Robert Shapiro, the former chief executive officer of Woodbridge Group of Companies, has reportedly agreed to pay $120 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle allegations he defrauded investors in an alleged $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. Shapiro and his subordinates reportedly promised investors returns of as high as 10% from purported “hard money” loans to third parties. In reality, most of the “loans” were in fact extended to shell companies controlled by Shapiro that had no cash flows to repay the loans, and investors’ funds were instead commingled and used for other purposes.

Woodbridge, which is the subject on ongoing proceedings in Delaware bankruptcy court, received approval on October 29, 2018 for its plan of liquidation. Investors in Woodbridge securities reportedly will receive a refund of between 40-70% of their sums invested, depending on the type of investment and other factors.

Investors who have lost money in Woodbridge Wealth or in any of the Woodbridge Mortgage Funds may be able to pursue recovery of their losses through securities litigation or arbitration. Although so-called First Position Commercial Mortgages (“FPCMs”) and Woodbridge units are securities according to state and federal regulators, Woodbridge FPCMs were not registered as securities with government regulators as required by law, and in many instances were sold by unregistered, unlicensed persons.

In other instances, stockbrokers and financial advisors who were licensed and associated with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)-registered firms sold Woodbridge securities to investors, notwithstanding the fact that the Woodbridge securities were not registered.

A registered person who sells a security away from his or her firm without first obtaining written approval from the firm violates FINRA Rule 3270, and a registered person who engages in an outside business activity without prior notice to his or her firm, including the sale of non-securities products, violates FINRA Rule 3280. Associated persons are required to report, in writing, any and all types of business that they plan to conduct away from their brokerage firms, whether or not it involves a security, and to obtain written approval from their firms before they sell any security, including securities in the form of promissory notes.

In such cases, brokerage firms have typically taken the position that Woodbridge securities were sold without their knowledge or authority in what is typically referred to as a “selling away” scenario. However, denying knowledge of a broker’s activity (or the fact that the activity may be unauthorized) does not absolve a brokerage firm from its obligation to supervise all activities of its associated persons. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules including FINRA Rule 3110 have established that firms must properly supervise brokers’ activities while they are registered with the firm. If they fail to do so, the brokerage firms can be held responsible for the activities of their representatives and, thus, could be ordered to compensate their clients for losses sustained for the period they were registered with the firm.

The following Woodbridge investments could give rise to an arbitration claim against a stockbroker or financial advisor (or their employer/brokerage firm) if the recommendation to purchase them lacked a reasonable basis, or if the investments were sold based on misrepresentations or omissions of material fact:

* WMF Management, LLC

* Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC

* Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund 1, LLC

* Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund 2, LLC

* Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund 3, LLC

* Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund PA, LLC

* Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (DBA Woodbridge Wealth)

Investors in any Woodbridge fund who have suffered losses and purchased Woodbridge securities may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration. Investors may contact a securities arbitration lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or via email at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation. Attorneys at the firm are admitted in New York and Wisconsin and various federal courts around the country, and handle cases nationwide (in cooperation with attorneys located in those states if required by applicable rules).

Investors in Woodbridge, either through a First Position Commercial Mortgage (commonly referred to as a “FPCM” or “note”) or in any Woodbridge “units” upon the recommendation of former broker David Ferdwerda (CRD# 832431) may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. As recently disclosed by FINRA, as of October 30, 2018, FINRA barred registered representative David Carl Ferdwerda (“Ferdwerda”) from the securities industry due to his purported failure to provide requested documents and information to FINRA concerning his sales of Woodbridge securities.

According to publicly available FINRA records, from 2012 through March 2018, Mr. Ferdwerda was affiliated with broker-dealer Signator Investors, Inc. (BD No. 468) (“Signator”) in the firm’s Grand Rapids, MI office. Further, FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Ferdwerda was discharged from his employment with Signator on or about March 20, 2018 due to his alleged “Involvement in the sale of unapproved outside investments in violation of firm policy.” Through his alleged nonresponsiveness to FINRA Enforcement’s investigation, Mr. Ferdwerda neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s findings.

As has been alleged by the SEC, Woodbridge and its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly “used his web of more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.” According to Steven Peiken, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the Woodbridge “[b]usiness model was a sham. The only way that Woodbridge was able to pay investors their dividends and interest payments was through the constant infusion of new investor money.”

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3280(b), registered representatives are prohibited from participating in private securities transactions, without first providing written notice to their employer firm. Such written notice must set forth in detail the proposed transaction, as well as the financial advisor’s proposed role with regard to the contemplated transaction, and furthermore, whether he or she will receive any compensation in connection with the transaction

Regardless of whether Mr. Ferdwerda’s alleged outside business activity was conducted without Signator’s knowledge, employers in the securities industry have an affirmative duty to ensure that their brokers are adequately supervised. Accordingly, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their employees follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their brokers, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in connection with alleged securities fraud, including Ponzi schemes. Investors may contact us via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation. Attorneys at the firm are admitted in New York and Wisconsin and various federal courts around the country, and handle cases nationwide (in cooperation with attorneys located in those states if required by applicable rules).

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey (D. Delaware Case No. 17-12560-KJC) has overruled the final objection to the Chapter 11 Liquidation Plan (“Plan”) for the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC and its affiliated debtors in possession (collectively, “Woodbridge” or the “Debtors”). As we have discussed in recent blog posts, the Woodbridge bankruptcy cases arise out of a purported massive, multi-year fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Woodbridge’s founder and former CEO, Robert Shapiro (“Shapiro”). Judge Carey’s ruling paves the way for payment of creditor claims. Public investors in Woodbridge reportedly will receive around 60-70% of their net investment sums for investments in Notes (or so called First Position Commercial Mortgages or “FPCMs”) and 40-50% of their net investment sums for investments in units in so-called Units.

In connection with the alleged fraud, Mr. Shapiro — through a web of various affiliated entities, including several hundred limited liability companies — raised approximately $1.2 billion from approximately 10,000 investors nationwide. Upon information and belief, many of these investors were elderly retirees who were solicited to invest in either Woodbridge Notes or Units, as further defined below, by a nationwide network of Woodbridge’s own in-house promoters, as well as certain licensed and unlicensed securities brokers.

Woodbridge investments came in two primary forms: (1) “Units” consisting of subscription agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s seven Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” consisting of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

On December 20, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) initiated an action in Florida federal court against Shapiro and his affiliates, detailing much of the alleged fraud perpetrated by Shapiro prepetition. On December 28, 2017, the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee filed a motion seeking appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee to replace Shapiro’s own handpicked Debtors’ management team. Around this same time, certain groups of Noteholders and a group of Unitholders sought appointment of official committees of Noteholders and Unitholders.

Pursuant to the Plan, a Liquidation Trust will be created, which will be the sole equity holder of a Wind-Down Entity. Further, Woodbridge assets will vest in the Wind-Down Entity, which will be administered by a Wind-Down CEO. A Wind-Down Board will initially consist of Messrs. Richard Nevins, M. Freddie Reiss, and the Wind-Down CEO, Mr. Frederick Chin (or his successor). The Wind-Down CEO will proceed to liquidate the Woodbridge assets, which consist primarily of the real property owned by the Debtors, in an orderly fashion. Subsequently, on a quarterly basis, the Wind-Down Entity will remit cash to the Liquidation Trust.

As alleged during the course of the Chapter 11 proceeding, Shapiro perpetrated a massive Ponzi scheme, using investor money to pay approximately $64.5 million in commissions to brokers and sales agents who sold investments in Woodbridge to unsuspecting retail investors, many of whom sought a “safe” investment that could pay interest of 5-6%. Moreover, it has been alleged that Shapiro misappropriated approximately $21.2 million of investor for his personal benefit and the benefit of his related entities or family members. For instance, it has been alleged that Shapiro charged at least approximately $9 million dollars on credit cards, and purportedly charged personal items using investor monies, including: $200,000 at luxury hotels, $34,000 on limousine services, $1.6 million on home furnishings, $1.4 million on luxury retail purchases, $600,000 on political contributions, and $308,000 on wine.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in connection with alleged securities fraud, including Ponzi schemes. Investors may contact us via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation. Attorneys at the firm are admitted in New York and Wisconsin and various federal courts around the country, and handle cases nationwide (in cooperation with attorneys located in those states if required by applicable rules).

Investors in Woodbridge upon the recommendation of former financial advisor Joel Vincent Flaningan (“Flaningan”) (CRD# 5664958) may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration. According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Mr. Flaningan was discharged from employment with NYLife Securities LLC (“NYLife”) (CRD# 5167) on or about May 10, 2018, in connection with “allegations he was involved in the solicitation of New York Life (“NYL”) clients to invest in an unregistered entity named Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund… Mr. Flaningan failed to disclose any involvement with Woodbridge to NYL.” Furthermore, publicly available information via BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Flaningan is currently the subject of one customer dispute concerning allegations that he purportedly failed to disclose the material risks “associated with an unregistered investment in Woodbridge… .”

According to BrokerCheck, NYLife has disavowed any prior knowledge of Mr. Flaningan’s business activity conducted away from the firm in selling purportedly non-approved Woodbridge investments. However, sales of unregistered securities by a financial advisor who engages in such “selling away” activity while still affiliated with his or her brokerage firm may result in the broker-dealer (such as NYLife) being held vicariously liable for the negligence and/or misconduct of its registered representative.

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, and certain of its affiliated entities, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2017 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware – Case No. 17-12560-KJC). The SEC has alleged that Woodbridge, through its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly utilized “more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.”

Beginning as early as 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to numerous retail investors through a network of in-house promoters, as well as various licensed and unlicensed financial advisors. Woodbridge investments came in two primary forms: (1) “Units” that consisted of subscriptions agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s seven Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” consisting of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

Brokerage firms like NYLife have a duty to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. Consequently, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their brokers follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In those instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their registered representatives, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes involving broker misconduct, including selling away claims often associated with risky and illiquid unregistered securities. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Investors in Woodbridge Units or Notes, as further defined below, who purchased a Woodbridge investment based upon a recommendation by former financial advisor Alan Harold New (CRD# 2892508) may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. Publicly available information through FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Alan New was formerly affiliated with broker-dealer NYLife Securities LLC (“NYLife”) (CRD# 5167) in their Fort Wayne, IN office, from June 2004 – August 2016.

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) and certain of its affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12560-KJC) on December 4, 2017. Beginning as early as 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to numerous retail investors through a network of in-house promoters, unlicensed advisors, as well as various licensed financial advisors, including Mr. New. Woodbridge investments essentially came in two forms: (1) so-called “Units” that consisted of subscriptions agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” that consisted of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

As alleged by the SEC, Woodbridge and its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly “used his web of more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.” According to Steven Peiken, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the Woodbridge “[b]usiness model was a sham. The only way that Woodbridge was able to pay investors their dividends and interest payments was through the constant infusion of new investor money.”

As indicated through FINRA BrokerCheck, Alan New currently has five (5) pending customer disputes. Each of these disputes center on similar allegations concerning Mr. New’s alleged involvement in recommending “[u]nregistered and fraudulent investments in Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund.” Brokerage firms including NYLife have an affirmative obligation to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. Consequently, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their registered representatives follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In those instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their brokers, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

Under FINRA Rule 3280, if a financial advisor wishes to consummate a private securities transaction, then he or she must first provide the firm with prior written notice, detailing the contemplated transaction. Such a transaction must first be approved by the firm. Furthermore, in the event that the transaction is not approved by the firm, then the broker cannot participate in the transaction.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes involving broker misconduct, including claims concerning sales of risky, illiquid and opaque financial products. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

If you invested in a Woodbridge promissory note(s) upon the recommendation of broker Peter David Holler (CRD# 838897), you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration before FINRA. As disclosed by FINRA on May 21, 2018, registered representative Peter Holler has been suspended from the securities industry for a period of two years. From 2001 through August 2017, Mr. Holler was affiliated with Securities Service Network, LLC (BD No. 13318) (“SSN”) in their Bristol, TN office. FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Holler was discharged from his employment with SSN on or about August 10, 2017 due to his alleged participation in “unapproved and undisclosed outside business activity…”

Pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (“AWC”), through which Mr. Holler neither admitted or denied FINRA Enforcement’s findings, he accepted both the two-year suspension, as well as monetary penalties including a $10,000 fine and disgorgement of $49,790 in commissions received through the sale of unregistered Woodbridge securities to various investors. As encapsulated in the May 2018 AWC, Mr. Holler purportedly violated FINRA Rule 3280(b), an industry rule that prohibits brokers from participating in private securities transactions, without first providing written notice to their employer firm. Such written notice must set forth in detail the proposed transaction, as well as the financial advisor’s proposed role with regard to the contemplated transaction and whether he or she will receive any compensation in connection with the transaction.

According to FINRA Enforcement’s findings, from September 2016 – August 2017, Mr. Holler solicited various investors to purchase unregistered securities in certain Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Funds as offered through the Woodbridge Group of Companies (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA. Further, FINRA Enforcement determined that Mr. Holler sold approximately $1.4 million in Woodbridge promissory notes to some 19 individuals, 9 of whom were SSN customers. In derogation of FINRA Rule 3280, Mr. Holler purportedly did not provide SSN with prior written notification of these private securities transactions.

As has been alleged by the SEC, Woodbridge and its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly “used his web of more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.” According to Steven Peiken, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the Woodbridge “[b]usiness model was a sham. The only way that Woodbridge was able to pay investors their dividends and interest payments was through the constant infusion of new investor money.”

Irrespective of whether Mr. Holler’s alleged outside business activity was conducted without his employer’s knowledge, brokerage firms like Securities Service Network nonetheless have a duty to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. As such, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their brokers follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their financial advisors, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

Attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes involving broker misconduct, including claims against broker-dealers for their failure to supervise. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

If you invested in Woodbridge upon the recommendation of former financial advisor Frank Roland Dietrich (“Dietrich”), you may be able to recover your losses in arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). According to FINRA BrokerCheck, a number of investors have already filed claims against Mr. Dietrich and his former employer, broker-dealer Quest Capital Strategies, Inc. (“Quest Capital”) (CRD# 16783). Publicly available information suggests that Quest Capital has disavowed any prior knowledge of Mr. Dietrich’s alleged business activity conducted away form the firm in selling purportedly non-approved Woodbridge investments. Nevertheless, Mr. Dietrich’s alleged “selling away” activity, to the extent it may have occurred while he was still affiliated with Quest Capital, may give rise to Quest Capital being held vicariously liable for the negligence and/or misconduct of its former employee.

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, and certain of its affiliated entities, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2017 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware – Case No. 17-12560-KJC). The SEC has alleged that Woodbridge, through its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly utilized “more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.”

Beginning as early as 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to numerous retail investors through a network of in-house promoters, as well as various licensed and unlicensed financial advisors. Woodbridge investments came in two primary forms: (1) “Units” that consisted of subscriptions agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s seven Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” consisting of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

Brokerage firms like Quest Capital have a duty to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. Consequently, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their brokers follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In those instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their registered representatives, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

In the event that a financial advisor wishes to consummate a private securities transaction, then he or she must first provide the firm with prior written notice, detailing the contemplated transaction. Such a transaction must first be approved by the firm. If such a transaction is not approved by the firm, then the broker cannot participate in the transaction. In instances where a broker fails to notify the firm of the contemplated transaction, in the first instance, or proceeds with an unauthorized transaction in derogation of the firm’s directive to the contrary, then selling away has occurred, in direct violation of FINRA Rule 3280.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes involving broker misconduct, including selling away claims, in addition to claims against brokerage firms for their failure to supervise. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

If you invested in Woodbridge Units or Notes, as further defined below — based upon a recommendation by financial advisor Frank Capuano — you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Publicly available information through FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Frank Capuano was formerly affiliated with broker-dealer Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (“Royal Alliance”) (CRD# 23131) in Mount Holyoke, MA, from 1989 – July 2015.

Pursuant to an Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) entered into by Mr. Capuano and FINRA on or about May 2, 2016, the former Royal Alliance stock broker, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, consented to a one year industry suspension. In connection with the AWC, FINRA alleged that Mr. Capuano:

“engaged in undisclosed and unapproved private securities transactions. The findings stated that he offered and sold approximately $1.1 million in notes to nine of his firm’s customers … The findings also stated that he received over $34,000 in commissions in connection with these transactions. The findings further stated that he did not seek or obtain approval from his firm before participating in these private securities transactions, nor did he disclose them to his firm.” (emphasis added)

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) and certain of its affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12560-KJC) on December 4, 2017. Beginning as early as 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to numerous retail investors through a network of in-house promoters, as well as various licensed and unlicensed financial advisors. These investments came in at least two forms: (1) so-called “Units” that consisted of subscriptions agreements for the purchase of an equity interest in one of Woodbridge’s Delaware limited liability companies, and (2) “Notes” or what have commonly been referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgages” or “FPCMs” that consisted of lending agreements underlying purported hard money loans on real estate deals.

As has been alleged by the SEC, Woodbridge and its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly “used his web of more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.” According to Steven Peiken, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the Woodbridge “[b]usiness model was a sham. The only way that Woodbridge was able to pay investors their dividends and interest payments was through the constant infusion of new investor money.”

Brokerage firms like Royal Alliance have a duty to ensure that their registered representatives are adequately supervised. Consequently, brokerage firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that their brokers follow all applicable securities rules and regulations, as well as adhere to the firm’s internal policies and procedures. In those instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their registered representatives, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

In the event that a financial advisor wishes to consummate a private securities transaction, then he or she must first provide the firm with prior written notice, detailing the contemplated transaction. Such a transaction must first be approved by the firm. In the event that the transaction is not approved by the firm, then the broker cannot participate in the transaction. If the broker fails to notify the firm, in the first instance, or proceeds with an unauthorized transaction in derogation of the firm’s order, then selling away has occurred, in direct violation of FINRA Rule 3280.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes involving broker misconduct, including selling away claims, in addition to claims against brokerage firms for their failure to supervise. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

As we have detailed in numerous blog posts, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) and certain of its affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12560-KJC) on December 4, 2017. From the outset of this Chapter 11 proceeding, investors in Woodbridge Notes (“Noteholders”) have taken the position that they hold secured, perfected liens in various real estate deals.

By way of background, beginning as early as July 2012, Woodbridge and its affiliates offered securities nationwide to investors in at least two forms: (1) subscription agreements for the purchase of equity interests or units in one of Woodbridge’s seven Delaware limited liability companies (“Units”); and, (2) lending agreements, some of which were referred to as “First Position Commercial Mortgage Notes,” “mezzanine loans,” “construction loans,” and “Co-Lending Opportunities” (collectively, “FPCMs”).

On March 27, 2018, the Debtors, the Unsecured Creditors Committee and the Ad Hoc Noteholders Committee all agreed on a plan of reorganization that was encapsulated in a Term Sheet filed with the Bankruptcy Court. However, the Term Sheet failed to address whether or not Woodbridge Noteholders who invested in FPCMs do, in fact, hold secured, perfected liens. Accordingly, on March 27^th a Woodbridge FPCM investor – retired 85 year old attorney Lisa La Rochelle – filed an adversary proceeding (the “Owlwood Complaint”) in an effort to resolve the looming question of whether some $800 million in FPCMs should be treated as secured debt for purposes of disposition of the Chapter 11 proceeding.

In opposition to the Debtors and Creditors’ Committees’ stance that Noteholders are unsecured because they neither hold the original promissory note on their collateral, nor do they possess filed UCC-1 financing statements, Ms. La Rochelle has argued that a California statute offers protection to Noteholders. Specifically, the Owlwood Complaint relies upon Section 10233.2 of the California Business and Professional Code, as interpreted by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in In Re: First T.D. Investment, Inc., 253 F.3d 520 (9^th Cir. 2001). Under the holding of In Re FTD, Section 10233.2 is recognized as a consumer protection statute that enumerates certain requirements that will establish perfection, absent holding the underlying note or a filed UCC-1, as is the case with numerous Woodbridge Noteholders.

To begin, the borrower needs to be acting as a broker within the meaning of Section 10131 or 10131.1 of the California Business and Professional Code. Pursuant to 10131.1, the term real estate broker is defined as “a person who engages as a principal in the business of making loans or buying from, selling to, or exchanging with the public, real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property, or who makes agreements with the public for the collection of payments or for the performance of services in connection with real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property.”

Second, the statute mandates that the real estate broker has to have “…arranged a loan or sold a promissory note or any interest therein, and thereafter undertakes to service the promissory note on behalf of the lender or purchaser in accordance with Section 10233…” It is worth noting that the Ninth Circuit in In Re FTD used a very broad definition of “sold.” Third, the statute contemplates that the real estate broker undertakes to service the promissory note on behalf of the lender. In the Owlwood Complaint, Ms. La Rochelle has argued that Woodbridge was clearly servicing the note between the respective investment fund and the property company within the meaning of Section 10233. The Secured Noteholders received direct communications and checks from the Woodbridge Group. Further, the Secured Noteholders received monthly interest payments and statements from the Debtors.

Through Ms. La Rochelle’s Motion papers and the supporting Owlwood Complaint, Woodbridge Noteholders seek to terminate the Debtors’ exclusive period and be afforded the right to file their own completing plan of reorganization. As argued by Ms. La Rochelle:

“… this Court should allow the Secured Noteholders to explore filing their own plan. It is clear that certain California properties such as Owlwood hold the greatest value in this case and may provide a basis for significant recovery. To deny California noteholders the right to realize on their specific collateral, which they relied on at the outset when making the investment decision, would be a miscarriage of justice.”

Investors in Woodbridge FPCMs, Units and other securities may be able to recover investment losses through arbitration or litigation. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.