New York Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

Banner picture of a key atop a balance sheet

EMPLOYEE RECOVERY $2M FOR A WHISTLEBLOWING TRADER

INVESTOR RECOVERY $7.2+M FOR PONZI SCHEME VICTIMS

INVESTOR RECOVERY $3.9M FOR TAX SHELTER FRAUD VICTIMS

BROKER PONZI SCHEME $7.4 MILLION

FAILURE TO SUPERVISE $4+ MILLION

BROKERAGE THEFT $3.8 MILLION

PONZI AT MAJOR FIRM $4+ MILLION

FAILED PRODUCT 28 EXPUNGEMENTS

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD MAX 30% BOUNTY

NO ACTION INSIDER TRADING CASE

NO ACTION EMBEZZLEMENT CASE

NO ACTION MARKET MANIPULATION

Successful, Strategic & Straight-Talking SECURITIES LAWYERS

START WITH A FREE CONSULTATIONReferrals Welcome

Representing investors, financial professionals, whistleblowers, witnesses
and commercial clients around THE US and the world since 1999

New York Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

Bitcoin Update: Alerts and Guidance Issued by the SEC, FINRA and IRS

May 9, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

It’s Buyer Beware, according to guidance and alerts issued recently by the SEC, FINRA and IRS concerning risks inherent in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is described by all three offices as a decentralized, peer-to-peer virtual currency that can be used in place of, and traded for, traditional currencies, though is not backed by any central authority, government bank or otherwise.

First, the IRS released Notice 2014-21 on March 25, 2014 in question and answer format to describe the tax implications of Bitcoin. Generally speaking, the IRS has taken the stance that Bitcoin will be considered property, and for investors, may constitute a capital asset, requiring reporting of gain or loss based on fair market value. Given the opaque nature of Bitcoin, this may cause further risks to investing, as investors may be required, by themselves, to calculate gains and losses, a job typically taken up by banks, wire houses and clearing firms.

The SEC, in its second Bitcoin alert dated May 7, 2014, reiterated risks associated with investments in the digital medium. Given that Bitcoin is a relatively new innovation, the SEC warned that it has a potential to give rise to frauds that may propose “guaranteed” high rates of return.

Oil and Gas Limited Partnerships Can Be Extremely Risky Investments

April 25, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Much has been made in the recent months about supposed growth in the oil and gas markets, including speculation, such as the recent article on www.forbes.com that increasing demand will be preceded by increased investment in infrastructure that would bring the product to market.

Regardless of the potential growth as an investment, limited partnerships and business development corporations have historically been, and will likely continue to be, extremely risky investments that demand a careful suitability analysis and due diligence by financial professionals before they are recommended for public investors. In addition to the risks listed in the Forbes article, such as “acts of God and man” (environmental, terrorist, war, etc.), there are the risks that the investment never yields the promised gains, or that the investment itself is completely false, fictional and fraudulent.

Further, these investments also tend to be highly illiquid and require long holding periods. This fact alone can render an investment unsuitable for a particular investor, if they are at an age or place in their lives where access to cash is important, or if the investor actually told their financial professional that liquidity was important to them.

Is Your Broker Charging You A Fair Commission?

April 25, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Is your broker charging you a fair commission? Not surprisingly, many investors do not fully understand how much they are paying in fees and commissions to their broker-dealer, and disparities from firm to firm can be wide and difficult to decipher. A recent study conducted by the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”), an association of state securities regulators, highlighted this issue, finding that investors would benefit from a “greater consistency and transparency in the disclosure of fees.”

The focus of the study was to examine the fee disclosures at thirty four (34) different broker dealers to compare methods of disclosure between firms and determine whether the customers were being adequately informed of the fee structure within their accounts.

As a result of the study, NASAA recommended that model fee disclosures be adopted to ensure that investors are accurately advised. The goal for model fee disclosures is to create something that will be simple and straight-forward, making it easier for customers to understand.

Biggest Recent FINRA Fines Point to Poor Supervision at Large Broker-Dealers

April 11, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Apparently the opportunity for bad brokers to engage in wrongful conduct is enabled by big brokerage firms, as recent Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fines indicate that these businesses fail to properly supervise their foot soldiers. The FINRA Rules, including Rule 3010, make clear that broker-dealers are the securities gatekeepers, because they are ultimately responsible for supervision of their brokers. Not all brokers take advantage of their customers, but those who do will certainly feel emboldened to continue their schemes if they know they can print account statements listing fictitious investments, or make misrepresentations to clients over emails they know will never be supervised.

InvestmentNews recent reported regarding the largest recent fines handed out by FINRA. The fines, some mentioned in prior blog posts, point to continued poor supervision at large broker-dealers.

For instance, we recently commented regarding FINRA’s announcement on February 24, 2014 of a $775,000 fine for Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. and its subsidiary for failure to supervise brokers on recommendations and sales of alternative investments such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Managed Futures Fund Fees: When Is Enough Enough?

April 4, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

When are money management fees too much? It is hard to imagine that any investor who has sought the guidance of professional financial advisors has not asked himself or herself this question at least once – most likely more. In the case of managed futures, the CFTC is asking that question for investors right now. Following an article in Bloomberg Magazine in the Fall of last year, 2013, the CFTC has launched a probe in to the fees charged by those who manage the more than $300 billion in the managed futures market.

According to the Bloomberg report, investors in 63 managed futures funds paid out 89% of the $11.51 billion in gains from managed futures investors in the form of fees, commissions and expenses from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2012 – more than $10.2 billion.

Bloomberg quoted Mr. Bart Chilton, a member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as saying:

FINRA Files LPL Financial for Failures to Supervise Alternative Investments

March 27, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

LPL Financial LLC has been hit again for supervisory failures stemming from the recommendation of non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), as well as other illiquid investments, begging the question whether the fines are large enough to deter future bad conduct. According to a news release dated March 24, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that LPL Financial has been fined $950,000 for the firm’s failures in supervision over alternative investments, including non-traded REITs, oil and gas partnerships, business development companies, hedge funds, managed futures and other illiquid pass-through investments.

LPL Financial submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 2011027170901 (AWC), in which it admitted to “fail[ing] to have a reasonable supervisory system and procedures to identify and determine whether purchases of [alternative investments] caused a customer’s account to be unsuitably concentrated in Alternative Investments in contravention of LPL, prospectus or certain state suitability standards.” LPL also admitted in the AWC that though it had a computer system to assist and supervision, this computer system did not consistently identify alternative investments that fell outside of the firm’s suitability guidelines. Additionally, LPL stated that its written compliance and written supervisory procedures failed to achieve compliance with NASD Rule 2310 and state suitability standards.

NASD Rule 2310 has since been superseded by FINRA Rule 2111. The current rule establishes the industry standard that FINRA members and their employees must have a reasonable basis to believe their recommendations are suitable for their customers. The Rule further dictates that the firm must establish suitability for each customer by considering the customer’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information, though this list is not exclusive.

Whistleblower Due To Receive $63+ Million Reward

March 21, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Keith Edwards, a former J.P. Morgan employee is due to receive a nearly $64 million payment from the U.S. government for the tips he provided as a whistleblower. Mr. Edwards provided information that led to a payment by J.P. Morgan to the government in the amount of $614 million stemming from insurance on home loans.

Allegedly, J.P. Morgan had been falsifying certifications for Federal Housing Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs loans, going back as far as 2002. As a result, the agencies reportedly suffered substantial losses.

It was reported that the $614 million was paid by J.P. Morgan to settle the charges levied against it as a result of Mr. Edwards’ tips. In settling, J.P. Morgan reportedly admitted to approving thousands of FHA and hundreds of VA loans that did not pass normal underwriting requirements.

Jenice Malecki Of Malecki Law Heads To Washington To Meet With Congressmen And Senators About Investor Protection

March 13, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Jenice Malecki of Malecki Law will be in Washington, D.C. tomorrow to meet with Congressmen and Senators along with others from the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) to advocate for the Investor Choice Act and federal legislation to increase transparency and accountability from our financial regulators.

Ms. Malecki will be meeting with Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO).

The primary significance of the Investor Choice Act will be the elimination of pre-dispute arbitration agreements that are commonly used in broker-dealer and investment advisor contracts. These agreements force customers who sue their broker, advisor or firm to pursue their claims only in arbitration. By eliminating these agreements, customers who have a dispute with their advisor, broker, or firm will have the option of electing to sue in arbitration or go to court and have their case heard by a jury.

Bitcoin Appears Headed for Regulation

March 6, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

As the old adage goes, one good deed deserves another. And so it is for bitcoin, which the Wall Street Journal reported may receive regulatory oversight in the not-too-distant future. It seems that enough people complained about what appears to have been a hacker-theft that led to the bankruptcy filing by Mt. Gox, until recently one of the major bitcoin exchanges. While the Federal Reserve appear unwilling, the WSJ noted that the Federal Trade Commission recently stated their goal “is to protect consumers, whether they pay by credit card, check, by some sort of virtual currency.” Despite Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy filing, the market for bitcoin continues to be routed through exchanges that up until now have operated with minimal to no oversight and bitcoins continue to be used to purchase services and goods, and likely, as a basis for investment.

The nature of Mt. Gox’s collapse is noteworthy. As reported on Tech Crunch, over the course of approximately one month, a supposed software bug caused Mt. Gox to lose approximately $500 million worth of bitcoin, including 750,000 bitcoin owned by investors and 100,000 bitcoin owned by Mt. Gox itself. Realizing the theft, Mt. Gox ceased investor transfers and shut down at the end of February 2014 and applied for bankruptcy protection from creditors. The WSJ reported on March 5, 2014 that the shutdown may have been caused by Mt. Gox’s bank refusing to process wire transfers after its repeated requests that Mt. Gox close its account.

Mt. Gox’s predicament may be the most publicized, but it certainly is not alone. According to the WSJ article on March 3, 2014, a recent study found that of 40 bitcoin exchanges, 18 have closed in the past three years, generally causing customer accounts to be completely wiped out. The WSJ reported that fraud is sometimes the cause of such closures. In other related bitcoin news, it was reported by the New York Post on March 5, 2014 that Autumn Radke, the CEO of bitcoin exchange firm First Meta, as a result of what may have been suicide.

Berthel Fisher and PNC Fined In Connection With The Sale Of ETFs

February 25, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Just yesterday, FINRA announced that it has fined Iowa-based broker-dealer Berthel Fisher $775,000 for failures to adequately train and supervise brokers selling alternative investments, such as real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and non-traditional exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), including leveraged and inverse ETFs.

In addition to REITs and ETFs, Berthel brokers also reportedly sold managed futures, oil and gas investments, equipment leasing programs and business developments companies, all while having “inadequate supervisory systems and written procedures for sales” of these investments.

Firms are required to have sufficient supervisory systems and written procedures for the sale of such investments to help ensure that these potentially risky and illiquid investments are only sold to investors for whom they are suitable and appropriate. Oftentimes, these investments are not appropriate for your average investor.