Investment Fraud

New York Attorney General Announces Civil Suit Against Van Zandt to Recover Funds for Investors

May 21, 2012 | Malecki Law Team

On Thursday May 17, 2012, the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a press release announcing the filing of a summons and complaint to recover funds for investors. The filing coincided with an earlier press release disclosing that Mr. Robert (Bob) H. Van Zandt had been indicted and arrested for criminal charges stemming from some of the same activity that formed the factual basis for the civil filing.

The New York Attorney General’s civil filing noted that Mr. Van Zandt issued promissory notes totaling over $35 million to over 250 investors, most of whom were unsophisticated and invested the bulk of their life savings in the scheme. The filing alleged that these promissory notes were securities sales that were not properly registered with the requisite governmental offices in New York State and, while stated to be suitable for self-directed IRAs, were at best “highly speculative.”

The civil filing also alleged that while the Van Zandt Agency, by Mr. Van Zandt, sold the promissory notes with the understanding that the money collected would be used to fund real estate purchases and real estate development, in reality bank loans were used to fund certain purchases and construction, while other projects were never even commenced. The civil filing further alleged that no investors received security in the form of mortgages or otherwise, and that the money was converted for personal use or used to pay interest claims of other investors, essentially a Ponzi scheme.

New York Attorney General Announces the Arrest of Robert Van Zandt

May 14, 2012 | Malecki Law Team

The New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced today the unsealing of a 35-count indictment of and the arrest of Robert H. Van Zandt, a Bronx tax preparer who for years sold promissory notes in alleged real estate investments “guaranteeing” high rates of interest return. He sold these promissory notes out of his tax preparation business, the Van Zandt Agency, while he was licensed by various broker-dealers to sell securities.

Malecki Law currently represents a large group of investors who purchased promissory notes totaling almost $10 million in aggregate from Mr. Van Zandt in an arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA“), the independent regulator of securities companies. The arbitration is pending against MetLife Securities, Inc., a broker-dealer who employed Mr. Van Zandt during a period in his career. While investors purchased the promissory notes directly from Robert Van Zandt and through the Van Zandt Agency, he was then licensed by MetLife Securities, Inc. to sell securities, and MetLife was required to perform certain supervisory and audit duties as a result of that employment relationship.

Malecki Law is also investigating the potential for other actions against other broker-dealers arising from Mr. Van Zandt’s alleged real estate investments.

Malecki Law Announces an Amendment to the Civil Complaint with FINRA Against MetLife Securities, Inc. in Connection with Alleged Ponzi Schemer Robert H. Van Zandt

March 7, 2012 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law announces the filing of an Amended Statement of Claim against MetLife Securities in connection with the real estate investments solicited by Robert H. Van Zandt of The Van Zandt Agency in the Bronx, NY as part of an alleged Ponzi scheme currently under investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office.

This past December, Malecki Law announced the filing of a civil arbitration complaint with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority against MetLife Securities for more than $4 million on behalf of twenty-four investors. The attorneys at Malecki Law continue to take calls and anticipate either adding future victims to the existing claim or commencing a second action, if necessary.

In the following months, many more investors contacted the attorneys at Malecki Law requesting to be part of that action. So, on March 5, 2012, Malecki Law amended their complaint with FINRA to add an additional nineteen investors to the action. In total, Malecki Law’s forty-three clients have suffered losses of over $9.2 million as a result of their investments through Mr. Van Zandt and the Van Zandt Agency.

Investor Complains About Behringer Harvard REIT

February 9, 2012 | Malecki Law Team

We recently posted about the Behringer Harvard family of REITs and the devastation that these funds have had on investors’ portfolios. Some investors have now begun to seek answers. Investment News reports that a 70 year old woman who has seen her share in Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund drop 96% has recently filed a letter with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to complain about her investment.

The shares of BH Short-Term Opportunity Fund have dropped to $.40 from $6.48 just one year ago, and from the $10 per share they were offered at just six years ago. Since the BH Short-Term Opportunity Fund had $130 million in total assets, it is clear that this investor is not alone. Many firms, such as Capital Financial Services, Inc. sold these products to senior citizens.

Since REITs can deliver regular income of up to 7-8% a year, they are attractive to seniors who live off the income generated by their investments. Since these products offer high commission, they are very attractive to the brokers who sell these products. However, all too often, the risks involved with investing in REITs are hidden from investors by their brokers, and these same seniors can see their entire life’s savings disappear in the blink of an eye. Downplaying and failing to fully disclose the risks of an investment to a client is illegal, and investors who have suffered losses as a result may have the right to recover their entire loss.

Trouble with Behringer Harvard REIT Family

January 18, 2012 | Malecki Law Team

Recently in the news have been stories about the devastation that the Behringer Harvard family of Real Estate Investments Trusts (REITs) has had on investors’ portfolios. It was reported by Investment News that the value of the popular Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I is down 46% from its value this time a year ago, with prices down to just over $4 per share. The value of the Behringer Harvard REIT I has also seen substantial declines as well.

Unfortunately for many investors, a quick recovery does not appear to be in store. According to Investment News, Mr. Robert Aisner (Behringer Harvard’s Chief Executive) “said in an interview … that since the REIT is shedding assets, its valuation will go down in the long run.” That is bad news for investors.

Investors who bought into this fund , believing it to be a safe investment, are now seeing substantial portions of their savings disappear. Too often, investors in REITs do not fully understand the risks of investing in these illiquid and oftentimes speculative products. These products often require investors to “lock in” their money for a set time period and are difficult if not impossible to sell in the interim, even amid sharp declines in value. For more information on the risks of REITs and other investments, click here.

In Light of MF Global: Knowing the Risks of European Investment

December 20, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

It has been difficult to not hear about the recent events surrounding MF Global Holdings Ltd and former Senator and New Jersey Governor, John Corzine. However, many investors do not really understand what happened or why. A recent article in Forbes Online titled “MF Global: Were the Risks Clear?” helps to break down just how these events transpired. The article details how overexposure to European sovereign debt (government bonds) leveraged by using borrowed money (called “margin”) coupled with declines in the value of those bonds caused the downfall of the fund.

The almost overnight collapse of such a prominent and public investment fund as MF Global has brought many issues to light, and the Forbes article characterizes this “as the latest reminder to investors that it’s important – and sometimes very difficult – to understand the entire spectrum of risk they’re exposed to.” These events also raise many questions that should be asked by investors, such as “Do I really understand how my advisor is managing my savings?” and “Have the risks in my portfolio been adequately explained to me?”.

Many investors in MF Global have said that they did not understand what their money was being invested into, but rather trusted that the firm would do the right thing by them. One investor cited by the article said on his blog that “I am supposed to know the difference between an ethical operator and one that is not. The truth is that it often is very difficult to tell them apart.” This has unfortunately come to be a fairly common sentiment by many individual investors, in reference to their personal broker and the funds they invested in.

Malecki Law Announces Filing of a Civil Complaint with FINRA Against MetLife Securities, Inc. in Connection with Alleged Ponzi Schemer Robert H. Van Zandt

December 6, 2011 | Jenice L. Malecki, Esq.

Malecki Law announces the filing of a civil arbitration complaint in excess of $4 million, plus punitive damages, against MetLife Securities, Inc. The case is being filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) today for alleged improper supervision and selling away, relating to an alleged Ponzi scheme that devastated a Bronx community. The complaint alleges that the firm failed to properly supervise and maintain the compliance of one of their registered representatives, Mr. Robert H. Van Zandt, in violation of federal and state securities laws, as well as financial industry rules and regulations. Robert H. Van Zandt is apparently already under investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. “I believe there are a lot of victims out there who don’t know what is going on, nor their rights under the rules and regulations of the securities industry,” securities fraud attorney Jenice Malecki indicates.

In November of this year FINRA and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission jointly released Regulatory Notice 11-54 stressing the importance of supervision over registered representatives. Shortly before the release of Regulatory Notice 11-54, FINRA filed a regulatory action against Merrill Lynch and fined the firm $1 million for failing to properly supervise a registered representative and catch a Ponzi scheme that he was running out of a San Antonio, Texas branch office that victimized clients and non-clients of Merrill Lynch, all to which Merrill Lynch was responsible for its failure to supervise.

The complaint filed by Malecki Law relates to the alleged conduct of Robert H. Van Zandt of the Van Zandt Agency, who is believed to have sold unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes that were represented to prospective investors as part of a secured real estate investment, which appears improperly set up and not secured at all. It is alleged that these notes were part of yet another “Ponzi” scheme in what Ms. Malecki opines to be “an era filled with ponzi schemes for which the industry should closely monitor to avoid harm to unwitting victims,” this alleged ponzi scheme one run through a series of shell companies including Burke and Grace Avenue Corp.

Watching the Watchers: Charting the SEC’s Increased Pursuit of Negligent Execs

November 4, 2011 | Nick Curley

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has in recent weeks seemingly broadened its pursuit of wrongdoers by filing cases against defendants on the charge of negligence alone. Negligence can be defined as a situation in which one should have known that information given to investors was inadequate. In recent years, negligence fines have been what accused bigwigs would accept and pay to avoid more severe charges of fraud, which carry heavy costs and the potential to be banned from the finance industry. Such admissions were usually made out of court and out the public eye. Readers looking to learn more about the role of negligence in securities law proceedings can visit our firm’s informational Practice Areas and Investors sections.

As of today, these ramped-up regulations have been sparsely utilized, though the Wall Street Journal speculates that more actions against negligence are forthcoming. It’s the SEC’s recently united “Structured and New-Products Enforcement” unit that’s claiming to be newly insistent about information being more fairly provided to investors.

Criticism of the SEC’s post-2008 methods has come in part because they have seemingly failed to catch many financial criminals in the act. Detractors believe that in many cases, outright fraud or recklessness is the issue: branding such failures as negligence would then only diminish or downplay their severity. The penalties for fraud are far more severe, but are in turn more challenging to obtain, as they require proof of intentional malfeasance. The charge of “Recklessness” falls between fraud and negligence in severity, and can be defined as one turning a blind eye to potentially harmful activity.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $1 Million for Supervisory Failures that Permitted a Registered Representative to Operate a Ponzi Scheme

November 2, 2011 | Malecki Law Team

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA“), issued a news release on October 4, 2011 announcing that it had fined the broker-dealer Merrill Lynch for failing to have a supervisory system in place that would properly monitor employee accounts. FINRA stated that Bruce Hammonds, who at the time was a registered representative of Merrill Lynch, was permitted to open a business account but failed to supervise funds that customers deposited and Hammonds withdrew. Mr. Hammonds ended up “convincing more than 11 individuals to invest more than $1 million in a Ponzi scheme” run through the business account, FINRA disclosed.

FINRA further reported that Merrill Lynch’s “inadequate supervisory system and the firm’s reliance on employee self-reporting enabled Hammonds to facilitate his Ponzi scheme, to the detriment of investors.” Merrill Lynch’s system, one that could only be effective if an employee did not properly set their social security number as the primary number associated with the account was found by FINRA to properly capture the account, which allowed Mr. Hammonds to perpetuate his scheme.

Firms’ failures to properly supervise their registered representatives is something Malecki Law takes very seriously, and we have launched investigations into several such alleged schemes, including one allegedly perpetrated by Carr Miller Capital, LLC and the Van Zandt Agency.

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.