Investors 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.”

In early 2014, Aegis acted as the underwriter to an IPO for stock priced at $5.50 in Akers Biosciences, Inc. (“Akers”). Akers (Nasdaq: AKER), headquartered in Thorofare, NJ, “[d]evelops, manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers and consumers in the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and internationally.” As recently reported, on May 21, 2018, Akers filed a 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that “the Company has been reviewing the characterization of certain revenue recognition items for the quarter ended March 31, 2018.”

Following Akers’ May 21 disclosure with the SEC, its share price fell over 8% to $0.59 per share on May 22, 2018. Shortly thereafter, on May 29, 2018, Akers issued a press release indicating that “Raymond F. Akers Jr., Ph.D has resigned as a director of the Company…” As a result of this news release, shares of Akers fell another 33% in value to close trading at $0.39 per share on May 29, 2018.

On June 5, 2018, Akers filed another 8-K with the SEC, in response to a letter received from Mr. Akers’ attorney. This June 8^th 8-K characterized the previous 8-K as “false” and “totally misleading” and further, disclosed that Mr. Akers was purportedly acting as a whistleblower and had apparently refused to approve the annual 10-K for 2017. Following this disclosure, class action litigation was initiated against Akers and certain of its officers, alleging that during the class period (May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018, inclusive), acquirers of AKER shares were damaged due to alleged “false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies.”

Brokerage firms including Aegis have a duty to ensure that their business activities surrounding speculative low-priced securities are conducted in accordance with a reasonable compliance system which includes specific written supervisory procedures. Further, any recommendation by a financial advisor to invest in a speculative penny stock must conform to NASD Rule 2310 and FINRA Rule 2111 – the so-called suitability rule – which is premised on the brokerage firm and financial advisor obtaining information about the customer in order to ascertain that investor’s profile, including the investor’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment experience and risk tolerance. In instances when brokerage firms fail to adequately supervise their registered representatives, they may be held liable for losses sustained by investors.

Attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience resolving disputes on behalf of investors, including losses sustained due to instances of fraudulent conduct, market manipulation, and unsuitable investment recommendations. Investors may contact a securities attorney by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

As recently reported, the Board of Directors of The Parking REIT, Inc. have unanimously authorized a suspension of the company’s cash distributions and stock dividends, effective immediately. In conjunction with filing a Form 8-K with the SEC on March 23, 2018, the company issued a press release indicating, inter alia, that “The Board is focused on preserving capital in order to maintain sufficient liquidity to continue to operate the business and maintain compliance with debt covenants, including minimum liquidity covenants…”

Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, The Parking REIT (f/k/a MVP REIT II, Inc.) holds a real estate investment portfolio consisting of 44 parking facilities across 15 states, with an estimated aggregate asset value of $280 million. As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, The Parking REIT is a particularly complex and risky investment vehicle. Among the risks associated with non-traded REITs are their characteristically high up-front fees and commissions (as high as 15% in some instances), as well their illiquid nature.

Unlike exchange traded REITs, non-traded REITs do not trade on a national securities exchange, and therefore cannot be readily sold and resold on a liquid exchange. Further, as is the case with The Parking REIT, investors may unfortunately encounter a scenario where the Board elects to reduce or altogether suspend distributions and/or dividends. For many investors in non-traded REITs, one of their primary reasons for investing in the first instance has to do with the enhanced yield often associated with non-traded REITs. However, when the prospect of steady income through distributions disappears, the investor is left with an illiquid investment position that cannot be easily or readily exited.

Investors in The Parking REIT may have arbitration claims to be pursued before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), if their investment in The Parking REIT was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment was misrepresented by the financial advisor. 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.

Investors in American Realty Capital New York City REIT (“ARC NYC REIT”), may have arbitration claims to be pursued before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), if their ARC NYC REIT investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment was misrepresented by the broker or financial advisor. According to its website, ARC NYC REIT is structured to provide its investors with a combination of current income and capital appreciation through strategic investments in high-quality commercial real estate located throughout the five boroughs of New York City.

A publicly registered non-traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”), ARC NYC REIT was incorporated in December 2013 as a Maryland REIT and is registered with the SEC. Accordingly, ARC NYC REIT was permitted to sell securities to the investing public at large, including numerous unsophisticated retail investors who bought shares through the initial public offering (“IPO”) upon the recommendation of a broker or money manager.

In early 2018 — a Tel Aviv, Israel based private real estate investment fund, Comrit Investments 1 LP (“Comrit”) — launched an unsolicited tender offer to purchase up to 1.6 million shares of ARC NYC REIT for $14.68 per share. In response, ARC NYC REIT’s Board countered with a defensive tender offer, to purchase up to 1.9 million shares at a price of $15.50 per share. Both of these tender offers were set to expire on March 6, 2018.

By mid-February 2018, Comrit upped its offer price to $16.02 per share of ARC NYC REIT, and extended the expiration date on its unsolicited tender offer to March 20, 2018. In response to the increased Comrit tender offer, the ARC NYC REIT Board further increased their defensive tender offer price to $17.03 per share, and reduced the number of shares under its defensive tender to 1.6 million. This defensive tender offer is set to expire on March 20, 2018. Currently, Comrit and its affiliates own approximately 45,000 shares of ARC NYC REIT common stock.

ARC NYC REIT closed its IPO in May 2015, having raised a total of $772 million in investor equity. As of the end of the third quarter, 2017, ARC NYC REIT owns six investment properties in Manhattan, with an investment cost of $725 million. Investors who participated in the IPO paid $25 per share. Therefore, investors who elect to participate in ARC NYC REIT’s most recent defensive tender offer will be cashed out of their position at approximately $17 per share, sustaining losses of approx. 32% (net of distributions and commissions) on their initial investment.

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 ARC NYC REIT generally charge investors for certain due diligence and administrative fees, ranging anywhere from 1-3%. Such high fees (perhaps as high as 13-15%) act as an immediate ‘drag’ on any investment and can serve to compound losses.

Moreover, non-traded REITs are generally illiquid investments. Unlike traditional stocks and publicly traded REITs, non-traded REITs do not trade on a national securities exchange. Therefore, many investors in non-traded REITs like ARC NYC REIT, who may well have been uninformed of their liquidity issues, have come to learn too late that their ability to exit their investment position is limited.

If you have invested in ARC NYC REIT, or another non-traded REIT, and you have suffered losses in connection with your investment (or are currently unable to exit your illiquid investment position without incurring considerable losses), you may be able to recover your 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.

Investors in Roundstone Healthcare Capital V, L.P. (“Roundstone V” or the “Limited Partnership”) may be able to recover losses on their investment through initiating an arbitration proceeding with FINRA Dispute Resolution if the recommendation to purchase Roundstone V was unsuitable or if a broker or investment advisor who sold Roundstone V made a misleading sales presentation.

Roundstone V is structured as a Delaware limited partnership and is based in Acton, MA. The Limited Partnership was formed in 2009 as a capital investment entity, to invest in discounted portfolios of medical receivables. On March 27, 2009, Roundstone V first sold securities through its private placement offering pursuant to Regulation D (“Reg D”) of the federal securities laws.

Investors who participated in the offering were required to invest a minimum of $10,000. Shortly after commencing its initial offering of up to $25,000,000 in investor capital, the Limited Partnership sold $4,459,000 of securities through private placement by May 18, 2009.

As a general proposition, limited partnerships — particularly non-traded limited partnerships, such as Roundstone V — are very complex and risky investments. For this reason, investing in a limited partnership through a private placement is typically only available to accredited investors (to be accredited an investor must have an annual income of $200,000 or joint annual income of $300,000, for the last two years, or alternatively, have a net worth in excess of $1 million).

One of the primary risks associated with investing in securities through a private placement has to do with their illiquid nature. An investor who committed capital to the Roundstone V offering may not be able to readily redeem their investment with the issuer, nor can an investor seek to sell their Limited Partnership units on a national securities exchange. And even when investors can redeem their units or find a secondary market platform on which to sell out of their investment, they often find that the bid is at a significant discount to the initial investment price. This lack of liquidity and pricing inefficiency can prove very troublesome for retail investors who may need ready access to their investment dollars.

Furthermore, an additional risk associated with investing in non-traded partnerships has to do with their typically high fees (in many instances, a broker or promoter recommending such an investment will earn considerable commissions, perhaps as high as 10-15% of the initial investment). With regard to Roundstone V, publicly available information through the SEC indicates that the Limited Partnership “commissions are 10% of gross proceeds. Also, a placement agent is entitled to a portion of the GP’s incentive fees (if any).” Therefore, investors in Roundstone V who invested, for example – $50,000, would immediately have $5,000 taken off the top in the form of commissions, not to mention potential incentive fees to the General Partner. Such high fees act as an immediate ‘drag’ on investment performance.

Applicable industry rules and regulations mandate that broker-dealers and their financial advisors must perform adequate due diligence on an investment before recommending such a financial product to an investor. Further, a financial advisor must perform a suitability analysis in connection with the sale of a private placement offering to ensure that the investment is suitable based on the investor’s stated investment objectives and other criteria, including the investor’s net worth and income, age and experience with investing, in addition to risk tolerance.

If you have invested in Roundstone V, or a similar non-traded partnership, and you have suffered losses in connection with your investment (or are currently unable to exit your illiquid investment position without incurring considerable losses), you may be able to recover your 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.

On September 25, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued a fine of $3.25 million against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) in connection with the brokerage firm’s alleged failure to supervise its brokers’ short-term trades of unit investment trusts. Unit investment trusts (“UITs”) are a specific type of Investment Company, as defined by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ’40 Act), and subject to regulation by the SEC. Unlike mutual funds, closed-end funds, or ETFs, UITs are unique in that they are created for a specific, limited time period (e.g., 24 months). Furthermore, UITs consist of a static investment portfolio as part of a pre-selected pooled investment vehicle.

Typically, UITs impose a number of charges. Some of these charges include a deferred sales charge, a creation and development fee, as well as annual operating expenses charged as an annual fee to account for portfolio administration and bookkeeping. In aggregates, these various fees might total approximately 4% for a typical 24-month UIT. Thus, any investor in a UIT will experience a “drag” on the performance of their UIT portfolio in the form of various fees.

Because UITs carry a substantial fee structure and are subject to termination after a given time period, there exists the potential for some financial advisors to recommend to their clients that they roll-over, or switch, from one UIT to another. In its worst form, this sales practice amounts to a stock broker seeking enhanced income through switching clients out of one product to another on a short-term basis in order to earn commissions and fees, at the expense of the client.

After undertaking an investigation, FINRA alleged that hundreds of Morgan Stanley representatives “… executed short-term UIT rollovers, including UITs rolled over more than 100 days before maturity, in thousands of customer accounts” during a period from January 2012 through June 2015. In addition, FINRA alleged that Morgan Stanley did not provide sufficient guidance to Morgan Stanley supervisory personnel on, for example, how to review UIT transactions to discover unsuitable short-term trading. FINRA ordered the brokerage firm to pay approximately $3.5 million in fines, in addition to restitution of nearly $10 million to the approximately 3,000 customers who allegedly were negatively impacted.

As stated by FINRA Executive VP Susan Schroeder: “Due to the long-term nature of UITs, their structure, and upfront costs, short-term trading of UITs may be improper and raises suitability concerns. Firms must adequately supervise representatives’ sales of UITs – including providing sufficient training – and have in place a system to detect potentially unsuitable short-term UIT rollovers.”

Because UITs typically carry higher commissions and fees than many other retail financial products, there is a very real concern with some financial advisors switching, or rolling-over, from one UIT to another in order to earn enhanced commissions and fees. Before recommending an investment product, applicable rules and regulations mandate that a financial advisor must first conduct a suitability analysis in order to determine whether the product best meets the investor’s stated objectives and profile. Moreover, under applicable industry rules and regulations, brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley are charged with supervising their registered representatives.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience in recovering funds on behalf of investors who have suffered losses due to unsuitable recommendations by stockbrokers and financial advisors. Investors may contact our office at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

KBS I launched through its initial public offering (“IPO”) in early 2006 for issuance of up to 200 million shares. Through its IPO at $10 per share, KBS I raised $1.7 billion prior to closing in May 2008. The company’s portfolio includes nearly 200 properties, in addition to participation in various real estate loan receivables.

KBS I has gradually written down its estimated share value over the years, but no liquidity event has yet provided a public market that would establish the true value of KBS I shares. One secondary market that provides a limited platform for investors in non-traded REITs, Central Trade & Transfer, has recently listed shares of KBS I with a bid-ask spread of $1.90 – $1.80 a share, suggesting that investors in KBS I may have suffered principal losses of as much as 80% on their initial investments of $10.00 a share.

If you have invested in KBS I, or another non-traded REIT, and you have suffered losses in connection with your investment (or are currently unable to exit your illiquid investment position without incurring considerable losses), you may be able to recover your losses in FINRA 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 via email at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

When the client expressed his concern about his declining account, he was told “even a skinny cow could give milk.” The arbitration panel wrote that the investor’s portfolio was “clearly unsuitable” and provided a lengthy explanation for their award, which pointed the finger at UBS’s sales practices and alleged that brokers were under pressure to sell the closed-end funds and keep clients in them. The arbitration panel wrote that “Claimant’s lifetime pattern has been one of frugality, saving and employment of resulting capital and his own labor in business opportunities that he understands can earn a good return.”

UBS was ordered to pay $400,000 to buy back the investor’s portfolio and pay $600,000 in compensatory damages. The investor’s request for $1 million in punitive damages was reportedly denied by the arbitration panel. The FINRA award is accessible here ubs puerto rico.

Many investors report that UBS and other brokerage firms in Puerto Rico sold these funds to investors as safe fixed-income investments. Of course, they have proved to be anything but safe, and many investors have lost much or even all of their retirement savings. Adding more danger, many investors who needed to withdraw money from their accounts for personal reasons (such as to purchase a home or fund a child’s education) have reportedly been advised to borrow money from UBS and other brokerage firms instead of selling shares in UBS Puerto Rico funds. This was very dangerous advice, because if the funds lost value, the investor’s losses would be even greater than they otherwise would have been due to the borrowings. Now that the funds have lost value, some investors have lost almost all of their investments, or even ended up owing the brokerage firms money!

Many advisors told investors that the UBS closed-ends were safe because they were invested in safe bonds backed by the government. But Puerto Rico municipal bonds have been anything but secure of late. Since 2000, the Commonwealth has experienced an imbalance between recurring government revenues and total expenditures. In 2009, the deficit reached a record $3.306 billion. Further, as of June 2010, the unfunded public employees’ retirement accounts reportedly had an actuarial shortfall totaling approximately $25 billion. As a result of these poor fundamentals, investors are concerned about the creditworthiness of the Puerto Rico government and as a result the prices of some Puerto Rico government bonds have dropped. UBS closed-end funds have lost significant value due to their leveraged exposure to the underlying municipal bonds as well as selling pressure in the market for the funds. Shares that steadily paid dividends and appeared to maintain their value for several years have suddenly collapsed in value by 50% or more. Some investors who borrowed money from credit lines offered by brokerage firms have reportedly received margin calls and even had their UBS Puerto Rico fund shares liquidated.

Which Funds Are Affected?: Clients who invested in the following funds may wish to consider attempting to recover their losses through the FINRA arbitration process: Tax-Free Puerto Rico Fund, Tax-Free Puerto Rico Fund II, Tax-Free Puerto Rico Target Maturity Fund, Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Target Maturity Fund, Inc., Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund, Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund II, Puerto Rico GNMA & U.S. Government Target Maturity Fund, Puerto Rico Mortgage-Backed & U.S. Government Securities Fund, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund II, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund IV, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund VI, Puerto Rico Short Term Investment Fund, Multi-Select Securities Puerto Rico Fund, UBS IRA Select Growth & Income Puerto Rico Fund, Puerto Rico Investors Family of Funds, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund II, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund III, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund V, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund VI, Puerto Rico Tax-Free Target Maturity Fund, Puerto Rico Tax-Free Target Maturity Fund II, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I.

Attorneys are available to review possible cases involving UBS Puerto Rico closed-end funds. Investors who were not told the truth about these funds may have a claim against UBS or the firm that sold them the funds. In addition, investors who could not afford to take the risk of losing money in these funds may also have claims. Investors may fill out the form on this page to arrange to discuss their possible case. Investors may also contact the Christopher Gray firm in New York at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a confidential, no-obligation consultation.

Inland American is an enormous company- the largest of the giant non-traded REITS. The Company had raised a total of approximately $8.0 billion of gross offering proceeds as of December 31, 2008.

Inland American is a non-traded REIT, meaning that its shares are not listed on a national securities exchange. However, sales of shares in non-traded REITs, which file periodic reports with the Securities Exchange Commission as do listed companies, are not limited to accredited investors and shares are sold to the general public through brokers.

Non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) are highly risky products that pose a significant risk that the investor will lose some or all of his initial investment. Non-traded REITs are not listed on a national securities exchange, limiting investors’ ability to sell them after the initial purchase. Such illiquid and risky investments are often better suited for sophisticated and institutional investors, rather than retail investors such as retirees who do not wish to have their money tied up for years, or risk losing a significant portion of their investment.

Brokers and financial advisors are required to make investment recommendations that are consistent with their clients’ risk tolerance, net worth, investment objectives and experience in the market. However, due to the high sales commissions brokers typically earn for selling REITs – as high as 15%- brokers can be tempted to make “one size fits all” recommendations to investors in order to reap commissions. Brokerage firms are required by FINRA rules to supervise brokers and investment advisors- even those who work in independent branch offices- to ensure that the brokers make only suitable recommendations.

If you have suffered significant losses as a result of unsuitable recommedations of REITs or other non-conventional investments by a stockbroker or financial advisor, you may have a valid securities arbitration claim. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investor rights attorney at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Lucia, whose radio program is broadcast daily in most of the nation’s top markets, promotes his investment program at seminars held at upscale resorts throughout the country. Some of those seminars are reportedly co-hosted by financial columnist and actor Ben Stein, who has called Lucia “the best wealth manager I know.”

The SEC proceeding (Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 203(e), 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company act of 1940 (Exchange Act Release No. 67781, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15006 (“Order”)) alleges that Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (“RJL”) and Lucia presented materially misleading information at a series of investment seminars RJL and Lucia hosted for potential clients.

In the Order, the SEC alleges that Lucia, a registered investment adviser representative, used the investment seminars to promote his proprietary wealth management strategy called “Buckets of Money.” Lucia allegedly claimed that his Buckets of Money strategy would allow investors to retire comfortably, and generate inflation-adjusted income for life that would exceed the returns available from other investment strategies. Lucia claimed to have empirically backtested the strategy over actual bear market periods. Lucia and RJL allegedly claimed that the superior returns of the Buckets of Money Strategy could be proven by “backtesting” the results of the strategy during past downturns in the stock market. However, the SEC charges that this purported “backtesting” was misleading because (among other reasons) it failed to utilize actual prevailing inflation rates in its calculations of the purported returns for the Buckets of Money strategy.

More specifically, the SEC charges that the purported “backtesting” was minimal and that Lucia did not maintain adequate records to show the results. Lucia and RJL allegedly admitted during the SEC’s investigation that the only testing they actually performed were some calculations that Lucia made in the late 1990s — copies of which no longer exist — and two two-page spreadsheets that failed to duplicate the advertised Buckets of Money investment strategy.

The SEC Order is only an accusation, not a finding of wrongdoing. According to the SEC, a hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge, at which hearing Mr. Lucia will be entitled to dispute the SEC’s charges. Mr. Lucia has not been convicted of any crime and there has not been any finding that Mr. Lucia violated laws or regulations

Lucia and RJL reportedly have recommended that many investors place a portion of their money in a “bucket” of non-traded REITs Many customers may not be aware that non-traded REITs are generally illiquid, often for periods of eight years or more. Early redemption of shares is often very limited, and any secondary market for sales of the shares is typically limited.
Investors also often may not have realized that they risked potential losses of half or more of their investments in non-traded REITs. Many non-traded REITs have lost as much as half of their value in recent years due to their use of borrowed funds to invest in real estate as well as dropping commercial real estate values in the United States.

Investors who believe they may have been sold unsuitable non-traded REITs or who believe they may have a claim against RJL Investments may contact Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. for a confidential, no obligation consultation.