investment attorney

Published on: July 2, 2018

Former Financial Advisor Kyusun Kim Barred From Securities Industry by FINRA

Money Maze As recently reported, former broker Kyusun Kim (a/k/a Kyu Sun Kim, a/k/a Kenny Kim) (CRD# 2864085) has consented to a “sanction and to the entry of findings [by FINRA] that he made unsuitable recommendations to numerous senior customers, who were retiring or had retired that they concentrate their retirement assets and liquid net worth in speculative and illiquid securities.” Pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) accepted by FINRA on June 26, 2018 — and under which Mr. Kim neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s findings — the former financial advisor voluntarily consented to a “bar from association with any FINRA member in any and all capacities.”

Publicly available information via FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Kim first entered the securities industry in 1997, and most recently was affiliated with Independent Financial Group, LLC (CRD# 7717) from 2006 – 2016 and, thereafter, Sandlapper Securities, LLC (CRD# 137906) from March 2016 – April 2017. Furthermore, BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Kim has been the subject of or otherwise involved in 23 customer disputes. With regard to these customer disputes, 13 of these complaints resulted in settlements, while 9 complaints remain pending (1 complaint was denied in October 2010). As to the pending customer complaints, the allegations raised center on Mr. Kim’s purported “… breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral and written contract, violation of state and federal securities laws, violation of FINRA rules of fair practice … [and] unsuitable investments.”

As encapsulated within the June 26, 2018 AWC, it has been alleged that Mr. Kim “falsely inflated the net worth figures of several customers on their new account forms and other documents so that they appeared eligible to purchase certain speculative investments, in violation of NASD Rules 3110 and 2110 and FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010.” Moreover, as set forth in the AWC, Mr. Kim allegedly made unsuitable investment recommendations to senior customers in violation of NASD Rules 2310 and 2110, as well as FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010.

Published on: June 29, 2018

Former NY Life Broker Joel Flaningan Allegedly Sold Unregistered Woodbridge Investments

by InvestorLawyers

woodbridge mortgage funds 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.”

Published on: June 28, 2018

Alan H. New Allegedly Sold Unregistered Woodbridge Investments While Employed By NYLife Securities

by InvestorLawyers

woodbridge mortgage funds 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.”

Published on: June 20, 2018

Edward Wedbush Under Regulatory Scrutiny by NYSE Concerning Allegations of Failure to Supervise Certain Trades

by InvestorLawyers

financial charts and stockbroker On October 16, 2017, NYSE Regulation — the regulatory enforcement subsidiary of NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE”) — filed a Complaint against Wedbush Securities Inc. (“Wedbush”) (CRD# 877), and its founder, Mr. Edward Wedbush. The Complaint centers on Wedbush’s alleged systemic failure to supervise certain trading purportedly conducted by its owner and founder, Mr. Wedbush, who allegedly devoted “several hours each trading day actively managing and trading in more than 70 accounts.”

As alleged by NYSE Regulation, “Despite Mr. Wedbush’s active trading in dozens of customer, personal, and proprietary accounts, Respondents failed to implement any process to monitor or supervise Mr. Wedbush’s order entry, trade executions, or trade allocations…” in certain accounts controlled by Edward Wedbush (“Controlled Accounts”). Further, NYSE Regulation has alleged that Mr. Wedbush utilized a separate trading platform only accessible to him and, moreover, “regularly instructed a Firm employee to enter orders under a general account, waiting until the end of the trading day to allocate executed trades…” among the various Controlled Accounts. In this manner, as has been alleged by NYSE Regulation, Respondents’ practice of allocated trades in the Controlled Accounts at the conclusion of the trading day violated Wedbush’s own written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”).

By purportedly failing to properly designate the Controlled Accounts for which orders were being entered (and “[i]nstead allocating trades to accounts after the fact based on Mr. Wedbush’s discretion”), NYSE Regulation has asserted that such activity exposed numerous customers to a host of conflicts of interest, as well as “opportunities for fraud, manipulation and customer harm” in contravention of NYSE Arca Rule 9.14-E (Account Designation). Additionally, NYSE Regulation has alleged violations of various NYSE Arca and Exchange Act Rules, including NYSE Arca Rule 2.28 (Books and Records), as well as Exchange Act Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. Among other things, these rules are designed to prevent against practices such as “cherry picking,” whereby traders choose to allocate the best performing and most profitable trades to certain accounts, to the detriment of non-favored accounts.

Published on: June 11, 2018

Woodbridge Investors Solicited by Former Quest Capital Broker Frank Dietrich May Have Arbitration Claims

by InvestorLawyers

woodbridge mortgage funds 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.

Published on: May 30, 2018

Recent Secondary Market Pricing Suggests Investors in Certain Non-Traded BDCs Have Sustained Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Money Maze Based 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: May 25, 2018

Woodbridge Noteholders Seek Role in Bankruptcy Restructuring

by InvestorLawyers

money backing hard money real estate deal 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.

Published on: May 22, 2018

Cole Credit Property Trust IV Tender Offer Suggests Investors Have Substantial Principal Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Money in Wastebasket Investors in Cole Credit Property Trust IV, Inc. (“Cole Credit IV”) appear to have incurred substantial principal losses, based on the pricing of a recent tender offer. Recently, third party real estate investment firm MacKenzie Realty Capital, LP (“MacKenzie”) initiated a tender offer to purchase shares of Cole Credit IV at a price of $6.01/share. Therefore, investors who invested in Cole Credit IV through the offering at $10/share will incur substantial losses on their initial investment of approximately 40% (exclusive of commissions paid and distributions received to date).

Cole Credit IV’s real estate portfolio is geographically diverse, and is focused on investments in “income-producing, necessity single-tenant retail properties and anchored shopping centers subject to long-term net lease,” as stated on the company’s website. As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, Cole Credit IV was permitted to sell securities to the investing public at large, including numerous unsophisticated retail investors who bought shares through the IPO upon the recommendation of a broker or money manager. Cole Credit terminated its offering on April 4, 2014.

Non-traded REITs pose many risks that are often not readily apparent to retail investors, or adequately explained by the financial advisors and stockbrokers who recommend these complex investments. One significant risk associated with non-traded REITs has to do with their high up-front commissions, typically between 7-10%. In addition to high commissions, non-traded REITs like Cole Credit IV generally charge investors for certain due diligence and administrative fees, ranging anywhere from 1-3%.

Published on: May 10, 2018

Investors in Illiquid REITs and Real Estate Limited Partnerships May Encounter Considerable Difficulty in Redeeming Shares for Cash

by InvestorLawyers

investing in real estate through a limited partnership Investors in numerous non-traded REITs and real estate limited partnerships may have recently encountered difficulty in exiting their investment position through redemption of shares with the sponsor. As we have highlighted in several previous blog posts, non-traded REITs and similar limited partnership investments (often sold via private placement), are extremely complex and risky investments.

Unlike exchange traded REITs that trade on deep and liquid national securities exchanges, publicly registered non-traded REITs are sold through an offering or successive offerings to the retail investing public, often over the course of several years. Once the offering has closed, investors may find that their ability to redeem shares with the sponsor is severely restricted, or in some instances, outright suspended. This is particularly problematic for retail investors who quite often were steered into the investment by a financial advisor who, in some instances, may have failed to fully disclose the nature of the investment, including its illiquid nature.

In the same vein, investments in real estate limited partnerships are often conducted via a private placement, pursuant to Regulation D as promulgated by the SEC. As a general rule, a private placement investment in real estate carries with it many of the same risks embedded in investing in non-traded REITs. These risks include: (1) high fees and commissions, (2) a general lack of transparency concerning the investment (while publicly registered non-traded REITs will typically provide more information than a private placement, the fact remains that many non-traded REITs are structured as blind pools, and accordingly an investor will not be able to readily ascertain the nature of the underlying property portfolio), and (3) difficulty exiting an illiquid investment position.

Published on: May 8, 2018

Laidlaw & Company (U.K.) LTD. Consents to Sanctions Concerning Sales of Non-Traditional ETFs

by InvestorLawyers

financial charts and stockbroker On May 1, 2018, FINRA Department of Enforcement entered into a settlement via Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”) with Respondent Laidlaw & Company (UK) LTD. (“Laidlaw”) (BD# 119037). Without admitting or denying any wrongdoing — Laidlaw consented to a public censure by FINRA, the imposition of a $25,000 fine, as well as agreeing to furnish FINRA with a written certification that Laidlaw’s “[s]ystems, policies and procedures with respect to each of the areas and activities cited in this AWC are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws, regulations and rules.”

In connection with its investigation surrounding the matter, FINRA Enforcement alleged that “From April 2013 through December 2015… Laidlaw failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) reasonably designed to ensure that” Laidlaw registered “representatives’ recommendations of leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds (“Non-Traditional ETFs”) complied with applicable securities laws and NASD and FINRA Rules.”

Non-Traditional ETFs are extremely complicated and risky financial products. Non-Traditional ETFs are designed to return a multiple of an underlying benchmark or index (or both) over the course of one trading session (typically, a single day). Therefore, because of their design, Non-Traditional ETFs are not intended to be held for more than a single trading session, as enunciated by FINRA through previous regulatory guidance: