Investors in FS Energy and Power Fund (“FSEP” or the “Company”) will likely encounter difficulty in selling out of all or a substantial portion of their FSEP position, in the event they seek to redeem their shares directly with FSEP’s sponsor, Franklin Square. Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, FSEP was formed as a Delaware Statutory Trust in September 2010, and subsequently commenced its investment operations on July 18, 2011. Structured as a regulated investment company, or RIC, for federal tax purposes, FSEP qualifies as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Upon information and belief, as a publicly registered, non-traded BDC, FSEP was marketed and recommended to numerous retail investors nationwide. As set forth in its most recent quarterly 10-Q as filed with the SEC, “The Company’s investment objective is to generate current income and long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in privately-held U.S. companies in the energy and power industry.”

As we have highlighted in recent blog posts, BDCs have been around since the early 1980’s, when Congress first enacted legislation amending federal securities laws allowing for BDCs — which are simply types of closed-end funds — to make investments in developing companies and firms that would otherwise have difficulty accessing financing. Because they provide financing solutions for smaller, private companies, BDCs have been likened to private equity investment vehicles for retail investors in various marketing pitches by BDC sponsors and the financial advisors who recommend these financial products.

BDCs characteristically offer high yields to investors, both as a function of their collecting much higher than average interest income on loans to more thinly capitalized businesses, as well as their use of internal leverage. In light of a BDC’s leveraged structure and its typical investment portfolio, however, uninformed investors may come to learn too late that their investment carries considerable risk. Moreover, non-traded BDCs such as FSEP carry additional risks, including their lack of liquidity and high upfront fees and commissions.

Investors who wish to sell their FSEP shares through the Company’s Share Repurchase Program are limited as to timing, and may only do so quarterly pursuant to FSEP’s redemption program. Further, the Company limits the amount of shares which it allows for repurchase each quarter. For example, on July 2, 2018, FSEP “repurchased 4,554,498 common shares (representing 20% of common shares tendered for repurchase…) at $6.60 per share….” Thus, a FSEP investor seeking to sell out of their entire for the quarter ending July 2, 2018, would have been limited to only selling 20% of their FSEP investment.

For investors seeking immediate liquidity on their non-traded FSEP shares, there does exist a limited and fragmented secondary market. Unfortunately, however, recent pricing suggests that FSEP investors wishing to sell on a thinly traded secondary market may only do so at disadvantageous pricing of approximately $5.25 – $5.61 per share. This recent secondary market pricing suggests that FSEP investors who recently sold their shares on the secondary market likely incurred substantial losses of approximately 45% on their initial investment, excluding distributions paid to date.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in connection with complex non-conventional investments, including non-traded BDCs and REITs. 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 Strategic Realty Trust, Inc. (“SRT”) may have arbitration claims to be pursued before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), if their SRT 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 financial advisor. SRT, formerly known as TNP Strategic Retail, is a San Mateo, CA based non-traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that seeks to invest in certain West Coast urban and street retail properties.

Over the past several years, many retail investors were steered into investing in non-traded REITs such as SRT by stockbrokers or financial advisors. Frequent selling points for non-traded REIT investments include presenting these securities as steady income-producing investments and as solid long-term investments due to their underlying investments in real estate. Some investors may not have been informed of the complexities and risks associated with non-traded REITs, including the investment’s high fees and illiquid nature.

Currently, investors who wish to sell their shares of SRT have limited options available to exit their investment position. For example, SRT suspended its share redemption program effective as of January 15, 2013. During the years ended 2013 and 2014, SRT did not redeem any shares under the redemption program. Thereafter, on April 1, 2015, SRT’s Board approved the reinstatement of the share redemption program, but only as it relates to the death or qualifying disability of the shareholder.

SRT investors seeking liquidity may opt to sell their shares on a secondary market, but the market is thinly traded and, therefore, the pricing is inefficient and disadvantageous to SRT investors who acquired shares through the IPO at $10 per share. For example, SRT shares were recently listed on Central Trade & Transfer at $4.60 per share. This recent pricing suggests that investors in SRT who wish to sell out of this non-traded REIT in the near term will incur losses of approximately 54%.

If you have invested in SRT, 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 such 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.

DISTINGUISHING A PRIVATE PLACEMENT FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS

When an investor decides to purchase shares in a publicly traded company, or for that matter purchase shares in a mutual fund or exchange traded fund (“ETF”), he or she will have the opportunity to first review a comprehensive and detailed prospectus required to be filed with the SEC. When it comes to a private placement, however, no such prospectus need be filed with the SEC – rather, these securities are typically offered through a Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”).

The majority of private placements are offered under an exemption from registration requirements known as SEC Regulation D (“Reg D”). Among other things, Reg D provides certain safe-harbor exemptions to securities registration, and furthermore specifies the amount of money that can be raised in an offering, as well as the type of investor who may be solicited to invest in such a non-public offering. With certain exceptions, only retail investors who meet the “accredited investor” standard are permitted to invest in a private placement. Rule 501 defines an accredited investor as any person whose net worth exceeds $1,000,000 (excluding their residence), or alternatively who has income in excess of $200,000 per year ($300,000 jointly with a spouse) for the two most recent years.

Private placements might involve investing in a company’s stock in the form of shares, preferred stock, or even a debt instrument such as a bond, promissory note or debenture offering. When making an investment in a private placement, you should first receive and carefully review the PPM. The PPM is required to disclose all material facts about the investment. Any misrepresentation or any omission of a material fact necessary to make the statements in the PPM not misleading could give rise to liability where an investor suffers losses and the PPM is misleading or omits certain critical information.

SOME RISKS AND RED FLAGS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIVATE PLACEMENTS

An investor considering a private placement should be aware of their risks and be on the lookout for any potential red flags. In fact, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) has previously issued an investor alert to inform the public about the risks and the potential for fraud and sales abuse concerning private placements.

To begin, FINRA has cautioned that by virtue of their limited offering documents (PPM versus more detailed prospectus), private placements will likely only provide prospective investors with limited information concerning a company and its financials. In addition, FINRA has warned investors about the illiquid nature of most private placement investments — before investing, an informed investor should first determine if he or she can allow their money to remain tied up for an extended period of time (usually several years) because private placement securities cannot be easily resold due to restrictions on their resale and the lack of a public market such as a stock exchange on which to sell them.

FINRA has also alerted investors to be very cautious of any private placements that you hear about through spam email or cold calling. Often, this is a red flag and a sign of fraud, and an investor should proceed with the utmost caution.

HAVE YOU INVESTED IN SECURITIES THROUGH A PRIVATE PLACEMENT?

If you have purchased unregistered securities through a private placement – and you have suffered considerable losses due to what you believe involved fraud, sales abuse or an unsuitable recommendation by a broker – 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 attorney at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Specifically, the Department alleges that Thrivent violated the Act by “… replacing its clients’ existing variable annuities for new variable annuities which required the clients to pay surrender charges and various fees.” According to the Department, possible violations of law in the case include (i) failure to maintain and enforce a supervisory system with adequate written procedures to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, (ii) failure to adequately review the sales and replacements of VA’s for suitability, (iii) failure to enforce its written procedures regarding documentation of sales and replacements of VA’s, and (iv) failure to adequately train its salespersons, registered representatives and principals.

Prior to 2012, Thrivent rolled out a new feature to its VA. This feature consisted of adding a Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit (“GLWB”) to the VA in return for a rider fee. During the time period of January 2011 – June 2012 and July 2013 – June 2014, Thrivent allegedly recommended that certain customers purchase new variable annuities with GLWB riders to replace existing variable annuities, without performing any analysis of whether the customers would economically benefit from the variable annuity switch. Some customers who were advised to switch allegedly would have received greater payments over the life of the policies if they had kept their original variable annuities in place.

In general, VA products have a checkered history with regulators. Both the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have issued numerous rulings, advisory documents and investor alerts warning that the sale of VA’s might be unsuitable and inappropriate under certain circumstances. Specifically, the SEC has warned about the risks and costs of switching VA contracts, encouraging investors to consider whether they can buy the insurance features embedded in a VA less expensively as part of the VA or separately. FINRA has warned investors that switching, or exchanging, a VA contract is generally not a good idea, due to bonus recapture charges, surrender charges, higher charges accompanying the new contract, unnecessary riders on the new contract, and whether the advisor is motivated by commissions.

When a broker or financial advisor recommends that a client purchase or sell a security, the broker must have a reasonable basis for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the investor. In making this assessment, a broker must consider the investors income and net worth, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and other security holdings.

If you received an unsuitable recommendation of securities from a broker or investment adviser, including variable annuities, and suffered significant losses are a result, 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 newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

The five firms that settled with Massachusetts are Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., Commonwealth Financial Network, Royal Alliance Associates Inc., Securities America Inc., and Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.

“Our investigation into the sales of REITs, triggered by investor complaints, showed a pattern of impropriety on the sales of these popular but risky investments on the part of independent brokerage firms where supervision has historically been difficult to monitor,” Mr. Galvin said in a statement.

Reportedly, many seniors are being persuaded to invest in non-traded REITs but are not being made aware of the risks and illiquidity of these products. According to securities fraud attorneys, many brokers and advisers with full-service brokerage firms may be tempting senior investors with promises of better returns while failing to adequately disclose the risks. Many retirees have a low risk tolerance and want conservative, income-producing portfolios and are attracted by brokers’ promises of a steady stream of distribution income from non-traded REITs. What brokers and advisors often times do not disclose is that distributions may be suspended or stopped completely. Another problem retirees face with REITs is that they may need access to their funds, but many non-traded REITs have suspended redemptions, leaving investors with limited options in the event that they need to sell REIT shares to access their funds.]

“The enforcement section’s investigation revealed significant and widespread problems with the firms’ compliance with their own policies, practices and procedures rules and adherence with Massachusetts prospectus requirements leaving investors often trapped in illiquid and underperforming financial products,” according to a statement by the Massachusetts Securities Division.

If you or a loved one suffered significant losses as a result of the unsuitable recommendation by any advisor to invest in non-traded REIT, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a stock fraud lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.