Representing investors, financial professionals, whistleblowers, witnesses
and commercial clients around THE US and the world since 1999
Recognized in the Industry
Badge - AV Preeminent 2020
Badge - Best Attorneys of America
Super Lawyers
Badge - Badge - Avvo Rating 10.0 Top Attorney
Martindale-Hubbell Client Reviewed
Expertise - Best Employment Lawyers in New York City
Avvo Reviews
NYC Bar Association

The broker-dealer LPL, Linsco Private Ledger, has been in the news a lot recently – for all the wrong reasons. LPL was even recently featured in The New York Times for its frequent “tangles” with state and federal regulators.

LPL is the nation’s fourth largest brokerage firm, with more than 13,000 brokers who currently service over 4 million customers. LPL attracts brokers from other brokerage firms by reportedly paying a higher percentage of the commissions generated directly to the broker – roughly 80% at LPL versus as low as 15-25% elsewhere. While this model can be very lucrative for well-minded brokers, this model can also attract deceitful brokers who do not have their clients’ best interests in mind and seek to skirt the law.

LPL’s network of brokers is very spread out by brokerage firm standards, with many brokers operating out of an office of only one or two individuals – versus other brokerage firms which may have up to several hundred brokers under one roof.

Jenice Malecki of Malecki Law will be appearing on Fox Business News tonight, March 26, 2013 between 6pm and 7pm.

Ms. Malecki will be appearing on The Willis Report to discuss the recent Rasmussen Reports that indicate 50 percent of Americans want the government to break up the country’s big banks. The report also found that only 23 percent of Americans oppose such a breakup, with 27 percent remaining undecided.

Critics have said that the size of several US banks are a threat to the country’s economy. This notion became widely known during the recent recession as “Too Big To Fail.” The US Attorney General recently made a shocking revelation that some banks are even too large to even prosecute effectively.

Jenice Malecki of Malecki Law will be appearing on Fox Business News tomorrow, March 21, 2013, at 5pm.

If you have suffered losses in an investment with a hedge fund or other financial adviser, it is your right to consult with an attorney to explore your rights. Contact the securities lawyers at Malecki Law for a free consultation.

Securities attorney Jenice Malecki spoke recently with Wealth Management at wsj.com‘s Caitlin Nish about what makes a strong investor claim against a broker and the steps that lead up to brokers having to defend themselves in arbitration.

To watch the video click here.

Investors who have lost money because of bad advice, unsuitable investment recommendations and misconduct by their financial advisor may seek to recover their losses through arbitration.

The Wall Street Journal reported on March 18, 2013 that U.S. Regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) are reviewing trading of high-frequency firms to determine if they are engaging in prohibited transactions, such as “wash” trades. The Article stated that the Regulators are reviewing records of primarily two exchanges, the CME Group, where the majority of wash trades have occurred, and the InterncontinentalExchange, Inc.

The Article identified that regulators are concerned that the exchanges do not have appropriate systems in place to identify or stop wash trades, especially in light of recent technical glitches leading to pronounced losses, including the Knight Capital Group and Facebook debacles in 2012.

Wash trades are when the same party places bids and asks for the same security, which causes there to appear increased activity in the security, which may affect its value, causing gains or losses to other investors who may be legitimately interested. In this way, a market participant manipulates the price of the security, prompting other participants to enter the market.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, (FINRA) issued a news release on March 4, 2013 announcing that it had fined Ameriprise Financing Services, Inc. and its affiliated clearing form American Enterprise Investment Services, Inc. $750,000 for failing to have reasonable supervisory systems in place to monitor wire transfer requests. In the News Release, FINRA disclosed that its investigation was related to Ameriprise’s former registered representative Jennifer Guelinas, who apparently converted approximately $790,000 over four years from two of her clients by forging wire requests that paid in to accounts she controlled.

According to the News Release, Ameriprise failed to detect several “red flags,” including that Ms. Guelinas submitted forged wire requests from a customer’s account to an account that appeared to be under her control. FINRA further disclosed that on at least three occasions where Ameriprise initially rejected wire requests, they were then accepted on either the same day or another day after simply being resubmitted by Ms. Guelinas. The News Release stated that Ameriprise also accepted one request after it had begun to investigate Ms. Guelinas, and accepted another wire transfer request that was submitted by Guelinas after she was terminated, though the firm recognized its mistake in time before the money was accessed.

FINRA Rules require that securities firms have and enforce reasonable supervisory procedures in place to monitor each registered representative’s conduct to ensure that they are acting in compliance with securities laws. According to the News Release, Ameriprise did not have adequate reasonable supervisory procedures in place. The FINRA News Release stated that Ameriprise had already paid full restitution to the two customers for losses in their accounts.

It has been reported that New York based Citigroup has agreed to pay $730 million to settle claims that it misled investors with respect to nearly 50 bond and preferred stock offerings over a period of more than 24 months between 2006 and 2008. The investors’ claims were said to be based on misleading statements from the bank over Citigroup’s exposure to mortgage backed securities, its loss reserves, and the credit quality of some of its held assets.

Before the settlement can be finalized, it must be approved by the US District Court in Manhattan. If approved, it would be the second largest financial crisis related settlement to date – trailing only Bank of America’s $2.43 billion settlement related to its purchase of Merrill Lynch. According to the Wall Street Journal, Citigroup claimed to have done nothing wrong and stated that it settled to avoid the trouble and costs of extended litigation.

This is just one more of many such settlements that have resulted from the financial crisis, totaling billions of dollars that have been returned to investors. Just last year, it was reported that Citigroup paid $590 million to settle allegations by investors that it misled shareholders about other problems in 2007 and 2008. Wachovia and Bank of America, among others, have also been reported to have recently reached settlements in excess of $500 million with investors.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a news release on March 7, 2013 announcing that it had permanently barred Mr. Jeffrey Brett Rubin from the securities industry as a result of his unsuitable investment recommendations and unapproved securities transactions to 31 NFL Players. In FINRA’s news release and in the underlying Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC), FINRA detailed that Mr. Rubin was recommended that one of his clients, an NFL player, invest $3.5 million, a majority of his liquid net worth, in to high-risk securities, including a large $2 million investment in an Alabama casino, resulting in losses of approximately $3 million.

Moreover, Mr. Rubin is alleged to have sold this investment away from his firms Lincoln Financial Advisors Corporation and Alterna Capital Corporation, where he was successively licensed as a broker between March 2006 and June 2008. Alterna Capital Corporation terminated or withdrew its FINRA registration on September 24, 2009, according to its FINRA CRD report.

According to reports, Mr. Rubin apparently continued to refer additional NFL players while registered as a broker with Alterna and International Assets Advisory, LLC. In total, FINRA found that over about a three year period, Mr. Rubin referred approximately 30 players, who invested approximately $40 million in the same Alabama casino project. For his referrals, Mr. Rubin was given a 4% ownership stake in the casino project, as well as $500,000 from the project promoter, seemingly placing his interests ahead of his clients.

Jenice Malecki appeared on NBC’s Today Show tomorrow morning, March 14, 2013, to discuss the injunctive action filed by Spanx against Yummie Tummie. The video of Ms. Malecki is can be found here.

Yummie Tummie holds three design patents for its camisole products and at the end of 2012 informed Spanx that it was infringing upon those patent. Correspondence and negotiations ensued, resulting in Spanx filing an injunctive action in its home court in Georgia to preemptively stop Yummie Tummie from enforcing its patents. Yummie Tummie brought a prior infringement action against Maidenform in the United Stated Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, which case has been settled.

The issue will likely surround whether the patents are valid or invalid and whether the camisole passes the obviousness test. There are two fundamental tests: (1) the invention must be novel, not just a variation, and (2) it must be unobvious, something that someone with ordinary skills, would not have imagined. This will surely be a very fact intensive battle and this preemptive strike by Spanx is an aggressive move by a larger player exerting their financial muscles in order to attempt to control the course of the litigation against Yummie Tummie.

The Wall Street Journal reported on March 4, 2013 that Sallie Mae sold $1.1 billion of securities backed by private student loans, noting that demand for the offering was fifteen times that. Related to this offering, the Wall Street Journal noted that a new platform was being rolled out by SecondMarket Holdings Inc. that would enable lenders to directly issue student-loan securities to investors.

The potential problem with the securitization of student loans is the increase in default by borrowers on the underlying student loans. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has stated that 31% of people paying back student loans were late on their payments by 90 days or more, an increase from 24% in 2008, as reported by the Wall Street Journal article.

Investors who are offered or are considering investing in student loan backed securities should keep in mind the spike in pre-recession investing in mortgage-backed securities that was then followed by massive defaults on payments of those underlying mortgages, which in some ways deepened the scale and effect of the 2008 recession. While student loan backed securities may lead to greater yields, these investments would most likely also include increased risk of loss. Investors should remain wary of including this investment in their portfolio, especially given the tough employment market and increase in late payments.

Contact Information