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

A headline of the New York Times’ Sunday Business section published May 19th, Gretchen Morgenson asks “Is Insider Trading Part of the Fabric?“, raising a potentially distressing question for regulators and market analysts alike. Morgenson profiles the woes of one Ted Parmigiani, a Lehman Brothers investment analyst whose career was apparently placed in peril in 2004, when his research was allegedly leaked by a colleague in his research department. Parmigiani was then planning to raise his assessment of computer chip producers Amkor Technology. The leak was apparently discovered by Parmigiani on the planned date of his announcement, when Amkor’s price quickly shot up that morning, an hour before his new assessment was to be broadcast. Such are the dangers those working in investment too often face, and therein lies the potential for such figures to become brave whistleblowers. Visit the Practice Areas section of Malecki Law’s website to learn more about the firm’s work in aiding whistleblowers of fraud and further financial corruption.

Parmigiani responded by spending years providing information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the trading and research climate at Lehman, where suspicious trades were all too common, and sales reps and analysts illegally shared both office space and data. As part of 1.4 billion collective settlement paid by Lehman and nine other firms following an Eliot Spitzer-induced inquiry into insider trading, Lehman agreed to separate analysts from sales teams. Parmigiani says he was asked to ignore this supposed divide, write praise for investment banks whether it was merited or not, and explicitly told not to make negative comments about Lehman-favored companies and executives.

Parmigiani alleged that Lehman traders were often advised of changes to analysts’ company ratings before the revisions were publicly announced, and that traders were tipped off by analysts so that they would make hedge bets with Lehman’s own money. According to reports, announcement of Parmigiani’s recommendations were delayed by sales management for days at a time for no justified reason. In the Times article Parmigiani compares his actions to his time in the U.S. military, where the duty to disobey unlawful orders was instilled. Following his outrage over the Amkor incident, Parmigiani was fired from Lehman and found himself unable to find work at comparable Wall Street firms.

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.

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 is currently investigating whether investors were improperly sold Leveraged and Inverse Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) by any of the following Broker-Dealers: Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC, UBS Financial Services, and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that they had fined the above firms for selling leveraged and inverse ETFs without proper supervision.

Any investors who purchased a leveraged or inverse ETF from any of these firms and believe the products were unsuitable for then should contact an attorney at Malecki Law to explore their legal rights.

Malecki Law is investigating possible unsuitability claims against stock brokers and financial advisors who sold shares of KBS REIT I to investors. REITs are illiquid real estate investments, which may be unsuitable for both unsophisticated and elderly customers.

Just recently, KBS informed investors that it would be dropping its share price a whopping 29% from $7.32 to $5.16. This represents a nearly 50% drop from its original sale price of $10. For investors who bought shares of KBS REIT I as part of their retirement savings, this drop may be too much to handle.

In addition to the drop in share price, KBS has also informed investors that it will cease payment of its dividend. Since, many financial advisors sell REITs like KBS REIT I to retired customers as a way to obtain steady income, this announcement has to potential to be devastating to a retiree depending on that income.

Malecki Law is currently investigating the potential for recovery of losses from VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term ETNb (TVIX), an exchange-traded note issued by Credit Suisse. The product is typically utilized to hedge against market decline, or as a presumptive bet on the decline of stocks. It appear that Credit Suisse ceased creation of new units in February, 2012, until March 22nd, when the company announced a reopened limited issuance of the product. Prior to this reopening, it seems demand for the product greatly outweighed supply. Many market observers predicted that this reopening would cause the value of the notes to plummet, causing TVIX’s premium to fade. It looks as though shares of TVIX had lost as much as 50% of their value in less than two days following Suisse’s announced reopening.

While Credit Suisse cited internal limits to the size of the product as the reason for its initial closure, many have speculated that the action of short sellers also played a role, as well as something that may have changed within the company as to how Suisse markets and packages the product. “Short sellers may be accelerating bets against TVIX today on speculation Credit Suisse will permit issuance of more shares,” said WallachBeth Capital’s Chris Hempstead.

It is the right of any and all investors who believe they may have suffered losses as a result of recommendations of their financial advisor to contact our offices to explore their legal rights and options. If you or a family member invested in TVIX exchange traded notes issued by Credit Suisse, contact the securities fraud lawyers at Malecki Law for a free consultation and case evaluation at (212) 943-1233.

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.

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.

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 a follow up to Malecki Law’s recent announcement of our investigation into reverse convertible securities comes news that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has fined Wells Fargo Investments, LLC $2 million for the selling of unsuitable reverse convertibles securities, as well as failing to grant sales charge discounts to certain customers on Unit Investment Trust (UIT) transactions. A UIT can be defined as ownership of a fixed portfolio of securities within a finite timespan. FINRA’s press release regarding the matter defines reverse convertibles as “interest-bearing notes in which repayment of principal is tied to the performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock or basket of stocks.” Customers of such reverse convertibles risk sustaining losses if the value of the underlying asset falls to a certain level at certain points of maturity during the contracted term.

A separate complaint was filed by FINRA against Alfred Chi Chen, the former Wells Fargo registered representative who approved and sold the reverse convertibles. Chen recommended hundreds of unsuitable investments to twenty-one clients, most of whom were elderly investment novices with low capacities for risk. Fifteen of those twenty-one clients were over the age of eighty. Chen also made unauthorized trades in several accounts, including those of deceased customers.

FINRA specified that Wells Fargo failed between January 2006 and July 2008 to give qualified customers breakpoint and rollover/exchange discounts to which they were entitled upon purchasing UITs. This has been attributed to insufficient internal monitoring of sales and discount eligibility.

Contact Information