Audits and Investigations

MetLife Broker Andre Paul Young Suspended By FINRA

April 16, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

A Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent was recently accepted by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement from Andre Paul Young. Mr. Young was accused of borrowing more than $200,000 from customers in violation of FINRA rules while a registered representative of MetLife Securities, Inc. Specifically, Mr. Young was accused of violating NASD Rule 2370, FINRA Rule 3240 and FINRA Rule 2010.

It was alleged that from June 2010 through June 2012, Mr. Young borrowed roughly $208,000 from two MetLife Securities customers for personal expenses, including those associated with the settlement of certain estate matters. Per the AWC, the customers issued five checks from their MetLife Securities brokerage account payable to a bank account number for an account owned by Mr. Young.

Per FINRA, this conduct was in violation of MetLife Securities policies and FINRA Rules. FINRA Rule 3240 (and formerly NASD Rule 2370) expressly prohibits brokers from borrowing funds from customers. In addition to those violations, Mr. Young allegedly failed to timely and completely respond to requests for documents and information in violation of FINRA Rule 8210.

All Eyes On The SEC After Recent Losses

February 21, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

In recent weeks, attention has turned to the Securities and Exchange Commission‘s declining success rate when going to trial against alleged wrongdoers. Publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have run multiple articles recently about this surprising decline. Per the Wall Street Journal, the SEC’s success rate has dropped to 55% since October, as opposed to the more than 75% success rate in the three consecutive years prior.

While the cases at the center of this decline were in the works well before Mary Jo White took the helm at the SEC, many are beginning to speculate how the Commission will react. Ms. White recently touted the then 80% success rate last year, citing it as a potential reason why attorneys counsel their clients to settle rather than face trial. However, this may be on the verge of changing. Emboldened by the newfound success of defendants in defending trials against the Commission, those who may find themselves in the SEC’s crosshairs may begin to opt to go to trial.

Recent cases, such as the insider-trading investigation and trial of billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban, have only intensified the public interest in the Commission and the work it does to investigate violations of the securities laws.

I Just Got An SEC Subpoena: Now What Happens?

February 7, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

The recent string of cases brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the US Attorney’s Office against members of SAC Capital for insider trading has shone a bright light on the world of SEC investigations. Though all financial professionals surely hope that they will never be involved in an SEC investigation, the truth of the matter is that many unfortunately will.

Receiving a subpoena from any government agency can be a worrisome event in anyone’s life, but for a financial professional, receiving a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission can be especially intimidating. More often than not, the recipient may be confused as to, “Why is the SEC contacting me?”

Individuals are typically contacted by the SEC for two reasons: 1) You are the subject of its investigation; or 2) The SEC believes you may have valuable information related to its investigation of an entity or someone else.

All in the Timing: What Judge Rakoff’s Decision Against Madoff’s Trustee Teaches Us About Managing Our Securities

October 14, 2011 | Nick Curley

In a follow up to our recent critique of dividing defrauded consumers into “net winners” and “net losers” comes a decision from U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who has dismissed Bernie Madoff trustee Irving Picard’s claims filed to regain nearly $1 billion from Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the owners of baseball’s New York Mets. The decision may potentially limit Picard’s future chances of recouping investors’ initial investments with Madoff, in what analysts have dubbed “clawback suits” filed by the trustee against the defrauded.

The judge’s decision illustrates a difference between U.S. bankruptcy law and securities law regarding when investors should return money previously received from their broker. A thorough, easy-to-read explanation of fraud can be found on our home site. For New York law, that period spans up to six years prior to a broker’s bankruptcy, while Federal law caps that limit at only two years. What Picard will be able to recoup depends greatly upon whether he will continue to be held to Federal standards. Several district court judges have in recent months sided with Madoff investors’ requests to move cases out of bankruptcy court, a setting that typically favors the trustee.

What we can all learn from these rulings is that where and when an investment is made – as well as where and when any necessary litigation takes place – can be just as important as the venture you’ve chosen to pursue. For one, it’s notable that our national standard for “clawback” measures is more favorable than that of New York, a state housing Wall Street and an immense amount of high stakes real estate, as well as many entertainment and banking endeavors. Clearly, it pays for investors to be informed about their state’s “clawback” legislature: for those of us engaging the market longterm, timing is everything, and how recently you’ve been the victim of fraud sets crucial perimeters.

Malecki Law Announces Investigation of IRA Services Trust Company and Fiserv, Inc. Arising Out of Investments with the Van Zandt Agency

August 25, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law, a New York securities law firm based in Manhattan, is currently investigating claims against IRA Services Trust Company and Fiserv, Inc. arising out of investments solicited and promissory notes issued through the Van Zandt Agency in relation to real estate investments in the Bronx, New York and elsewhere.

The Attorney General of the State of New York is currently investigating the practices of the Van Zandts and on April 6, 2011, filed an application in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for an order of discovery and preliminary injunction against the Van Zandts and other related agencies.

Based on the initial inquiry of the securities fraud lawyers of Malecki Law and the Attorney General’s investigation, there are questions about whether or not the Van Zandt Agency broke the law by engaging in the fraudulent issuance, promotion offer and sale of securities to the public in the State of New York. It is believed that hundreds and possibly thousands of investors may have lost money invested with the Van Zandts.

Kovel Rule no Guarantee of Accounting Privacy in New York Audits and Investigations

June 24, 2011 | Jenice L. Malecki, Esq.

In Why Your CPA Might Blab, by Arden Dale, the Wall Street Journal reports what your CPA knows could be subject to disclosure. As New York business lawyers know from experience, your accountant is not your attorney and he or she is not your priest.

Certainly when facing an audit or investigation, the first order of business is to consult an experienced New York business attorney to help protect your rights. As a decision we secured earlier this month illustrates (Salt Aire Trading LLC v. Enterprise Financial Services Corp.), communications involving your accountant may be privileged if assisting your law firm in your defense.

In that case, plaintiffs submitted to an in camera review of IRS audit documents for which attorney-client privilege was claimed. Plaintiffs claimed the documents were produced by plaintiffs’ attorneys and accountants for the purpose of legal advice. Defendants in the case contested attorney-client privilege. As the court noted, generally attorney-client privilege cannot be asserted in the presence of a third party, in this case the accountant. An exception would be if the accountant was facilitating attorney-client conversation, such as acting as an interpreter.The court found in this case that the accountant did act as a facilitator and that the plaintiffs met their burden of proof. Still, the court ruled portions of the documents not covered by attorney-client privilege must be disclosed.