Español Inner

Articles Posted in Arbitration

Published on:

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined LPL Financial $10 million fine and ordered it to pay $1.7 million in restitution to investors who lost money with LPL brokers.  The charges levied by FINRA alleged widespread supervisory failures involving securities such as nontraditional exchange-traded funds, variable annuities and non-traded real estate investment trusts (or REITs).

15.6.10 moneyand house in handsLPL’s failure to supervise sales of nontraditional ETFs continued into 2015, according to FINRA.   FINRA also alleged that LPL failed to have adequate supervisory systems and guidelines for sales of nontraded REITs from January 2007 to August 2014. LPL consented to the fine without admitting or denying the charges.

This was not LPL’s first regulatory issue concerning lack of supervision concerning high-commission investments such as non-traded REITs.  In March 2014, FINRA fined LPL $950,000 for supervisory deficiencies related to sales of a wide range of alternative investment products. These include nontraded REITs, oil and gas partnerships, business development companies, hedge funds, managed futures and other illiquid investments.

Published on:

Investor lawyers say the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) found supervisory deficiencies related to investment concentration at leading independent broker-dealer LPL Finanical.    As a result of alleged unsuitable recommendations, FINRA has announced a penalty in the form of a $950,000 against LPL Financial.

Supervisory Failure Leaves LPL Financial with Heavy Fines

Alternative investments can include a variety of products, including oil and gas partnerships, hedge funds, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), business development companies (BDCs) and other related categories.  Though LPL Financial set forth guidelines to manage investment concentration, FINRA reports that from January 2008 until July 2012, there was no internal effort to enforce these guidelines.  As a result, some clients may have received investment advice that resulted in levels of concentration that were excessive.

 If you suffered significant losses as a result of an unsuitable recommendation to purchase or over-concentrate your portfolio in non-conventional investments (whether from LPL or 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 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.

Published on:

Securities arbitration attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company Equi-Vest or Accumulator variable annuity contracts — specifically those invested in the managed funds, AXA Tactical Manager Strategy or ATM-managed funds.

Equi-Vest, Accumulator Variable Annuity Investors Could Recover Losses

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

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

Published on:

While former stock promoter Robert J. Vitale sits in prison for two years for lying to investigators in a previous investigation about another matter, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided to file fraud charges against him. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accuses Vitale of defrauding investors in a real estate venture in Florida. While this investigation continues, victims of Vitale’s fraud are encouraged to begin talking with investment fraud lawyers, who may be able to help them recover their losses.

Investors May Recoup Losses as SEC Charges Robert J. Vitale with Fraud

Vitale is being charged with selling unregistered securities and acting as an unregistered broker. According to the charges, Vitale and his firm (Realty Acquisitions & Trust Inc.) were able to raise $8.7 million from their investors, many of whom were seniors who may now be looking to hire securities fraud lawyers to represent them in filing their claims. In a news release, the SEC stated that Vitale allegedly led the investors to believe that their money was “100% protected” even though that was untrue. That charge (if found guilty) could give the defrauded victims and their investment fraud lawyers great leverage during arbitration.

To get investors, Vitale also allegedly claimed to hold a business degree from the University of Notre Dame, and that he was a financial expert. While Vitale did go to Notre Dame high school in West Haven, Connecticut, he did not go to the South Bend, Indiana college. Also named in the complaint was the Coral Springs Investment Group (also known as Lauderdale-by-the-Sea Company), which stands accused of holding onto assets of the investors that should have been returned.

Published on:

Investor arbitration lawyers continue to investigate claims on behalf of customers of VSR Financial Services regarding the unsuitable recommendation and sale of alternative investments.

More Claims Filed Against VSR Brokers for Unsuitable Alternative Investments

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
Published on:

Securities attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of the customers of Christopher B. Birli and Patrick W. Chapin, who suffered significant losses as a result of misrepresentations and unsuitable recommendations of variable annuities. Reportedly, Birli and Chapin received significant sales commissions for allegedly unsuitable recommendations to their customers.

Customers Could Recover Losses for Unsuitable MetLife Variable Annuity Recommendations

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

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

Published on:

Lawyers are investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in exchange-traded notes (ETNs) and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) issued by Credit Suisse and other full-service brokerage firms.

ETF, ETN Investors Could Recover Losses

According to Bloomberg, the $45,000 loss suffered by Jeff Steckbeck in TVIX, a Credit Suisse Group AG note, has set off a probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reportedly, ETNs became more popular with the TVIX in February 2012. That month, Credit Suisse stopped selling the ETN and rising demand caused the investment to veer up to 89 percent from the index. When Credit Suisse began issuing the notes again in March of that year, a FINRA warning cautioned investors that ETNs could trade at a price that was higher than their underlying index.

Bloomberg data indicates that the estimated initial value of the securities is typically 2 to 4 percent less than the price investors paid. Exchange-traded notes like TVIX mimic assets through the use of derivatives and their value is based on volatility shifts in the market. However, the ETN market is small beans compared to the ETF market, which has around $2.4 trillion in assets.

Published on:

According to one claim that was recently filed, Morgan Stanley advisors recommended that one couple invest all their money into bonds issued by Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Puerto Rico Public Finance Corp. and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, when a low-risk, safe, fixed-income portfolio would have been more suitable for the couple. The claim is seeking to recover $200,000 in damages. According to stock fraud lawyers, Puerto Rico Bonds and bond funds were unsuitable for many investors given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance.

Morgan Stanley Customers Could Recover Losses for Unsuitable Puerto Rico Bond Sales
Allegedly, Morgan Stanley did not adequately disclose the risk associated with the recommended investment strategy of concentrating all of their funds into these three investments. The firm also allegedly failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with low credit ratings and long-duration bonds. Allegedly, the couple was led to believe that the Puerto Rico Bonds were constitutionally guaranteed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Some of the bonds and bond funds currently being investigated by securities fraud attorneys are:

Published on:

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in non-traded real estate investment trusts, or non-traded REITs, in light of an investigation that is now underway by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities.

Pennsylvania Regulators Investigate Non-traded REIT Sales

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.

Published on:

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in variable annuities. Variable annuities are insurance products tied to an investment portfolio, which typically consist of mutual funds that hold bonds and stocks. In many cases, brokers receive commissions as high as 8 percent when selling variable annuities, which may motivate them to make recommendations that are unsuitable for investors.

Two MetLife Brokers Accused of Unsuitable Variable Annuity Sales

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

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

Contact Information