Articles Posted in FINRA

Published on:

by

stock market chartInvestors in speculative microcap and nanocap securities may have arbitration claims to be pursued before FINRA, in the event that the recommendation to invest lacked a reasonable basis, or if the nature of the investment, including its risk components, was misrepresented to the investor.  Both FINRA and the SEC have issued ample guidance with regard to the numerous risks associated with investing in speculative microcap (or “penny”) stocks, including the potential for fraudulent schemes and market manipulation due to the lack of public information concerning the companies’ underlying business and management, as well as verifiable financials.

In certain instances, broker-dealers who transact business in the penny stock arena may expose themselves to regulatory scrutiny and related liability.  For example, Aegis Capital Corp. (“Aegis”) (CRD# 15007) has come under considerable regulatory scrutiny by both the SEC and FINRA with respect to its activities concerning low-priced securities transactions.  Formed in 1984 and headquartered in New York, New York, Aegis is a mid-sized, full service retail and institutional broker-dealer.  As of March 2017, Aegis employed approximately 415 brokers in its sixteen branches, with the bulk of its workforce centered in New York City and Melville, NY.

According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Aegis’ regulatory history includes a total of thirty (30) disclosure events, a number of which involve penny stocks.  For instance, in August 2015, Aegis entered into a settlement with FINRA, pursuant to which the broker-dealer agreed to pay $950,000 in sanctions over allegations of improper sales of unregistered shares of penny stocks, as well as certain AML violations.  In connection with that regulatory event, two of Aegis’ compliance officers were suspended for 30 and 60 days, and ordered to pay fines of $5,000 and $10,000, respectively.  On March 28, 2018, the SEC imposed a cease-and-desist order (“Order”) against Aegis for its alleged supervisory failures concerning penny stocks.  Further, the SEC penalized Aegis $750,000 after the brokerage firm admitted that it failed to file required suspicious activity reports (“SAR’s”) on numerous penny stock transactions from “at least late 2012 through early 2014.”

Published on:

by

Money MazeBased upon recent secondary market pricing, investors in certain publicly registered, non-traded business development companies (“BDCs”), may have suffered losses on their illiquid investments.  In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many retail investors have been steered into so-called non-conventional investments (“NCIs”), including non-traded REITs and BDCs, often premised upon a sales pitch or marketing presentation from a financial advisor touting the investment’s lack of correlation to stock market volatility and enhanced income via hefty distributions.  Unfortunately, in some instances, investors were solicited to invest in such NCIs without first being fully informed of the risk components embedded in these products.

In January 2017, FINRA issued the following guidance with respect to investments in non-traded NCIs:

“While these products can be appropriate for some customers, certain non-traded REITs and unlisted BDCs, for example, may have high commissions and fees, be illiquid, have distributions that may include return of principal, have limited operating history, or present material credit risk arising from unrated or below investment grade products. Given these concerns, firms should make sure that they perform and supervise customer specific suitability determinations. More generally, firms should carefully evaluate their supervisory programs in light of the products they offer, the specific features of those products and the investors they serve.”

Published on:

by

Oil Drilling RigsHard Rock Exploration, Inc. (“Hard Rock”) of Charleston, West Virginia and certain of its affiliate entities, including Blue Jacket Gathering LLC, Blue Jacket Partnership, Caraline Energy Company, and Brothers Realty, LLC (“Hard Rock Affiliates”), are independent oil and gas development companies.

On September 5, 2017, Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of West Virginia Bankruptcy Court (2:17-bk-20459).  Shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Hard Rock reported a monthly cash flow shortage of $325,000.  According to Hard Rock’s lender, Huntington National Bank, “rehabilitation of the Debtors’ business is impossible” due to their ongoing hemorrhaging of cash.

Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates operate approximately 390 well sites in the Appalachian Basin.  In addition, Caraline Energy Co. owns and maintains approximately 365 miles of pipeline developed to support natural gas collection.

Published on:

by

Oil Drilling RigsOn April 2, 2018, EV Energy Partners, L.P. (“EVEP”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10814 (CIS)).  While EVEP continues to operate its business, it now seeks to implement a prepackaged plan of reorganization, under which equity investors who purchased EVEP Units will likely sustain significant losses.

Investors who bought into EVEP upon a recommendation by their broker or financial advisor may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration, in the event the recommendation to invest lacked a reasonable basis, or if the investment was solicited through a misleading sales presentation.  EVEP is a publicly traded master limited partnership (“MLP”) specializing in the acquisition and operation and development of onshore oil and gas properties in the continental United States.  EVEP’s holdings include oil and gas properties in the Barnett Shale, the San Juan Basin, the Appalachian Basin, as well as the Permian Basin.

As most recently reported, under the currently proposed plan of reorganization, EVEP Unitholders will receive 5% of the new entity (post-bankruptcy), with 5-year warrants to buy up to 8% of the reorganized company’s new equity.

Published on:

by

financial charts and stockbrokerEffective March 13, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) imposed an industry bar against former financial advisor Gabriel “Gabe” Block (CRD# 2103543), of Rumson, New Jersey.  FINRA Enforcement’s sanctions stem from a prior Administrative Consent Order (“Order”) entered into on or about June 25, 2015, between the State of Delaware Investor Protection Unit through its Director and Mr. Block’s then employer, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (CRD# 249, “Oppenheimer”).

The 2015 Order encapsulates findings of fact and allegations that Block made unsuitable investment recommendations to an investor that earned Mr. Block and Oppenheimer substantial brokerage commissions and fees of $867,900 on approximately $3,023,242 that the investor had invested with Oppenheimer.

Pursuant to the Order, Oppenheimer was assessed a fine of $685,000.  The Delaware Investor Protection Unit found fault with Oppenheimer’s failure to take action, although the subject accounts reportedly appeared on a branch office compliance review report 23 out of the 24 months that the accounts were open.

Published on:

by

Money MazeSierra Income Corporation (“SIC”) recently extended a tender offer to its shareholders, which terminated on December 22, 2017, offering to purchase shares for $7.89 a share.  SIC is a publicly registered, non-traded business-development company (“BDC”).  This non-traded BDC invests primarily in first lien senior secured debt, second lien secured debt, and certain subordinated debt of middle market companies with annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion.  Investors who participated in the tender offer likely sustained losses on their initial capital investment at $10 per share (exclusive of fees, commissions and any distribution income received).  According to publicly available information, a total of 4,923,026 shares were validly tendered.

According to publicly available information, SIC is externally managed by SIC Advisors LLC, which in turn, is affiliated with Medley Management (NYSE: MDLY, “Medley”).  Medley operates a national direct origination franchise through which it seeks to market its financial products, including SIC.  As of December 31, 2016, Sierra reported that it had raised in excess of $900 million in connection with its equity capital raise.

Investors who purchased shares in SIC’s offering acquired shares at $10 per share.  Further, as outlined in SIC’s prospectus, investors who participated in the offering were subject to hefty up-front fees and commissions of nearly 10%, including a “selling commission” of 7.00%, in addition to a “dealer-manager fee” of 2.75%.

Published on:

by

money whirlpoolInvestors who have lost money on the recommendation of their broker or financial advisor to invest in volatility related financial products may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration.  As we discussed in a recent blog post, inverse volatility-linked investments are designed to return a profit when the market experiences periods of low volatility.  Unlike more traditional investments and corresponding strategies such as a buy-and-hold stock portfolio, investing in volatility-linked products is likely not a suitable strategy for the average, retail investor.  In fact, when volatility-linked ETFs first began rolling out in early 2011, Michael L. Sapir, Chairman and CEO of ProShare Capital Management, stated that “The intended audience for these ETFs are sophisticated investors.”

Put simply, investing in a volatility-linked product is a very risky enterprise that is likely only suitable for professional investors seeking to trade on a short-term basis (e.g., several hours or day trading).  Further, because the VIX or so-called ‘fear index’ is not actually tradeable, investors who wish to invest in the VIX must trade derivatives instead (including volatility-linked ETFs and ETNs).  And when it comes to investing in derivatives, such as future contracts and options on futures, the majority of retail investors do not fully understand the extreme volatility and risk associated with these complex investment products.

Earlier this month, equity indices declined sharply following a steady rally in the prior 12 months that saw the benchmark S&P 500 stock index gain nearly 20%.  It was during this year-long market rally that many retail investors were lured into investing in inverse volatility-linked products, essentially seeking to capture even bigger gains, provided that there was no price correction.  However, the idea of shorting volatility, or betting on calm stock market conditions, is a strategy best suited for sophisticated, institutional investors.

Published on:

by

stock market chartOn December 13, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) disclosed that registered representative Brian Michael Travers has been barred from the securities industry.  Specifically, pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (“AWC”), pursuant to which Brian Travers neither admitted or denied FINRA’s findings, Mr. Travers acknowledged that on November 1, 2017, he received a written request from FINRA seeking his on-the-record testimony.

FINRA’s request concerned: “[a]n investigation into, among other things, potential undisclosed outside business activities and private securities transactions…”  As set forth in the AWC, “By refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, Travers violates FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010.”

Publicly available information through FINRA indicates that Brian Travers (CRD# 4767891) first entered the securities industry in 2004, and was most recently a registered representative of MML Investors Services, LLC (“MML”) (CRD# 10409) until his former employer terminated his registration in April 2017.  Previous to working for MML (2013 – 2017), Mr. Travers was a financial advisor affiliated with Lincoln Financial Advisors Corporation (“Lincoln Financial”) (CRD# 3978).  According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Mr. Travers was discharged from his employment with MML on April 4, 2017, in connection with an “[u]ndisclosed outside activity.”

Published on:

by

Money in WastebasketBank of America Merrill Lynch’s (“Merrill Lynch”) brokerage unit offered Strategic Return Notes (“SRNs”) to customers, resulting in losses of as much as 95% of the principal invested.  First issued in November 2010 and maturing November 27, 2015, the SRNs were designed to be linked to Merrill Lynch’s own proprietary volatility index (the “VOL”) which was designed to calculate the volatility of the S&P 500 Index.  The SRNs, which were issued at $10 per share, ultimately matured at just $0.50 per share.  Thus, investors in Merrill Lynch’s proprietary SRN’s were subjected to an enormous 95% loss on their principal investment.

In recent years, many investors have been solicited by their financial advisor to purchase so-called structured notes, which are often presented to customers as a higher-yielding, but still relatively safe alternative to fixed-income investments such as bonds.  Structured notes are issued and backed by financial institutions.  As hybrid products containing both a bond component and an embedded derivative, structured notes are designed to provide an investor with a return based on an equity index (or some other benchmark), as opposed to an interest rate typically associated with a traditional bond investment.

In theory, a structured note is supposed to provide an investor with an opportunity to earn enhanced income (in excess of the very low interest rates offered in the current environment on most bond investments), while also providing some downside cushion.  In practice, however, many structured notes engineered by various investment banks and sold by their brokers have proved to be horrendous investments.

Published on:

by

https://i2.wp.com/www.investorlawyers.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/15.10.21-money-blows-away1.jpg?ssl=1
On November 15, 2017, H.R. Bill 4267 (the “Bill”), entitled the Small Business Credit Availability Act (the “Act”), passed the House Financial Services Committee by an overwhelming 58-2 vote.  This Bill seeks to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 (’40 Act), specifically the regulations currently governing business development companies (“BDCs”).  In recent years, financial advisors have increasingly recommended BDCs, allowing for Mom and Pop retail investors to participate in private-equity-type investing.  Many income-oriented investors are attracted to BDCs because of their characteristic enhanced dividend yield.

As an investment vehicle, BDCs were first made available pursuant to the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, as a result of a perceived crisis in the capital markets.  At that time, small businesses were encountering severe difficulties in accessing credit through traditional means.  BDCs are a special type of closed-end fund designed to provide small, growing companies with access to capital.

BDCs are structured as hybrid between an operating company and an investment company under the ’40 Act.  Regulated as an investment company, BDCs are required to file periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act, and further, are subject to a number of regulatory requirements.  Three of the most notable regulations currently governing BDCs are as follows: