Badge - AV Preeminent 2020
Badge - Expertise, Best arbitrators & mediators in New York, 2016
Badge - Best Attorneys of America
Super Lawyers
Badge - Badge - Avvo Rating 10.0 Top Attorney
Badge - Super Lawyers Jenice L. Malecki

Malecki Law is currently representing clients and investigating allegations against the brokerage and investment advisory firm Henley & Company, LLC and its recently deceased financial adviser, Philip Incorvia.  Public records show Mr. Incorvia openly and notoriously operated Jefferson Resources Inc. since 1992 (nearly 30 years, while being registered as a FINRA Series 7 licensed broker with Henley & Company – using Henley & Company as the website address for the company).  Mr. Incorvia was employed approximately 15 years with Henley and Company, operating both out of its offices in Shoreham and Uniondale, New York.  Malecki Law is looking for whistleblowers, witnesses, and other victims.

Malecki Law’s investigation relates to a possible Ponzi scheme and/or misappropriation of funds involving many investors and potentially many millions of dollars in losses.  The losses occurred across a number of purported “investments,” including but not limited to Jefferson Resources Inc., Vanderbilt Realty, and JRI Hedge Fund. The investments were purporting to be mutual funds, hedge funds, and index funds, but it is believed that they were fictitious.  Some were “income producing” while others rolled over.

A Ponzi scheme is a fictitious investment or scam, in which the Ponzi operator typically uses investor money for personal use and non-investment related purposes.  Earlier investors are typically given “returns” which consist of principal coming from newer investors.  Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when there are no more new investors to tap into, which often happens during adverse market conditions.  In this case, it is believed that there was no one left to continue the Ponzi scheme when Mr. Incorvia passed away in August 2012, so it collapsed.

Jenice L. Malecki, Esq., founder of Malecki Law in 1999, was appointed today as co-chair of the New York State Bar Association Commercial & Federal Litigation Section’s Securities Arbitration Committee.  Ms. Malecki has over 30 years of experience in securities arbitration and regulation, as well as whistleblowing claims and commercial arbitration and litigation. Having also been appointed to the FINRA board advisory group called the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee, as well as having been on the board of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association board, Ms. Malecki is uniquely qualified to lead this committee.  Ms. Malecki has represented clients around the country and the world, including clients from Europe, Asia, Israel, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Mexico and South America.  This broad representation has given Ms. Malecki in-depth expertise in arbitrations, mediations, settlements, and hearings – both live and over Zoom – as directed in court, at FINRA and before regulatory bodies.  Ms. Malecki has also worked on high profile class action cases and appeared on various media shows including but not limited to Wall Street Journal Live, ABC’s Eyewitness News and NBC’s Today Show.  All of this demonstrates Ms. Malecki’s knowledge and passion for securities work.

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) was founded in 1876 in an effort to cultivate and develop the law. Educating the public, as well as evolving with the changes of the legal profession, are part of the mission. The NYSBA promotes and champions equal justice through state and federal legislation. With over 70,000 members, the NYSBA attempts to nurture the science of jurisprudence while also encouraging changes in the law to effectively arbitrate justice.

Within the NYSBA, a committee was created in 1988 to continue to develop effective representation as well as encourage improvements to the law in areas of commercial and federal litigation. The committee works to foster healthy relationships between various administrative bodies, litigators, and judges to stimulate and encourage research, and collaborative thought on issues that affect commercial and federal litigation. Regulating and promoting legislation that would affect commercial and federal litigation. The extensive network will assist in providing resources for legal educational programs as well as other resources that inform on topics relevant to commercial and federal litigation.

Investors are still watching which way the market is ready to turn after yesterday’s 600-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average, the biggest one-day drop in over two months. While world markets appeared to be reacting to the prospect of loan defaults by the Evergrande Group – China’s second largest real estate company and the world’s largest property developer –retail investors, and retirees in particular, should keep in mind that this might be the beginning of something bigger. Given that U.S. equities remain at historic highs, portfolios still have a long way to fall.  It is still unclear what ripple effect Evergrande will have even within China, as the Chinese government has yet to formally decide on whether it will bail out Evergrande or let it fail.  But both scenarios are fueling fears of contagion within the U.S. and world markets. Some are calling this China’s “Lehman’s moment,” despite Evergrande’s debt only being about roughly half of the $600 billion in liabilities that Lehman had when it defaulted.  There are rumblings, however, that Evergrande is the canary in the coal mine for China’s numerous other property companies, representing an outsized portion in driving China’s economy and GDP.  The net effect on retail investors in the U.S., thus, depends to some degree on the level of Chinese investment and debt holdings by U.S. companies and financial institutions.

HSBC, BlackRock, and J.P. Morgan have been said to have significant exposure to the Chinese market generally, as do many individual U.S. companies, ranging from Wynn Resorts to Apple.  As always, retail investors who are overconcentrated in any single company or market sector face the biggest risk.  While the stock of many of these companies might seem relatively “safe” over the long term, not every investor can wait for the stock market to rebound.  Seniors and retirees are a prime example, as this is a group regularly identified by U.S. regulators (e.g., FINRA and the SEC) as being vulnerable because they are typically saddled with higher expenses (e.g., medical and age-related expenses) at a time when they need liquidity and are no longer working or earning an income. For this reason, stockbrokers and financial advisors have a legal duty to retirees to recommend investments and an investment strategy that is suitable for this stage of life and the possibility that the stock market will not just continue to rise in perpetuity.

For retirees, overconcentration of an investment portfolio is often the culprit of an investment strategy or recommendation gone wrong.  As we have written in this space before, brokers and financial advisors have long been required to have a reasonable basis for recommending an investment or strategy.  And as of June 30, 2020, brokerage firms have had to comply with a new SEC rule, Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), which further requires every recommendation to be in a customer’s best interests.  Overconcentrating a retiree’s investment portfolio in largely equities (or worse, a single equity) is typically not in a retiree’s best interests and is what makes a portfolio most vulnerable to significant market events like Evergrande. Even though regulators do their best to raise the public’s awareness of this fact, retail enthusiasm during a bull market often drowns out the well-worn refrain to not put all your eggs in one basket.  FINRA’s “Concentrate on Concentration Risk” publication is just one such warning.

A Cum Laude graduate alumni of New York Law School, Jenice L. Malecki, Esq.,  has taken on a mentor and adjunct professorial role as a professor in the Securities Arbitration Seminar and Field Placement. While at New York Law School, Professor Malecki was a member of the International Law Journal and a teaching assistant.  She was part of a novel program at the time, when at Manhattanville College in Westchester, she was part of a BA/JD program, earning law school credits in undergraduate school.  Now coming full circle and giving back, Professor Malecki has expended her previous role as a frequent guest lecturer and moot court judge for the Securities Arbitration Clinic at New York Law School, as well as other law schools including Fordham, Brooklyn Law School, Pace Law School, Yale Law School and Columbia Law School. Since founding New York Law School in 1999, Professor Malecki has regularly hired students from New York Law School as summer and school-year interns.  Now, student receive an opportunity to work and receive academic credit while being mentored, supervised, and encouraged to develop a deep understanding of securities litigation and arbitration strategy.

The Securities and Arbitration Field Seminar teaches students how to interact with prospective clients, conduct client interviews, tackle legal analysis, draft pleadings as well as represent clients in arbitration proceedings before FINRA. The course involves both seminars and fieldwork experience. They engage in vigorous research, investigation and fact finding, as well as sit in on strategy discussions, write memoranda, briefs and pleadings, as well as assist in the review of discovery and case organization.  Practical experience is invaluable to students, who can “hit the ground running” when they graduate with experience.

New York Law School was founded in 1891, and has a long history of educating young lawyers that work in the heart of New York City’s legal, government, and financial networks. An independent law school in Tribeca, New York City, New York Law School embraces the motto “We are New York’s Law School” through providing various methods for achieving a vibrant legal education. New York Law School was one of the first schools to offer a Juris Doctorate  evening program, as well as built a 235,000 square foot campus in the heart of lower Manhattan near the state and Federal courts to offer opportunities to students in all walks and stages of life. Students are able to interact and work with mentor attorneys, securities arbitration attorneys experienced in the field. Experiential learning is a critical aspect of New York Law School and its teaching method, encouraging students to foster and perfect their legal analysis and skills early on.

Being a financial professional – i.e., a registered representative (RR) – regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is not easy.  When misconduct is alleged against the RR in a complaint to FINRA, whether brought by a customer or the employing brokerage firm, the system that is set up to resolve such allegations and disputes generally treats the RR, at least initially, as “guilty until proven innocent.”  Good luck finding a “neutral” fact-finder willing to listen; instead, you will often find an ambitious FINRA staffer, looking for another notch in his or her belt to help their stats and upward mobility.  If and when FINRA decides to bring charges against the RR, it helps to have an attorney who can negotiate a reduced punishment against the RR.

To protect investors and market participants, RRs must abide by the securities laws and FINRA’s rules of conduct.  But even when a financial professional follows those rules, every RR knows that they remain at the mercy of both customers and their firms, who, with little effort, whether fairly or unfairly, can very easily file a public complaint to put other customers or firms on notice about the RR.

If a customer files a complaint or arbitration against the RR, the complaint is reported to and logged on the RR’s public record of disclosure within the Central Registration Depository (CRD).  Any person with Internet access can then view the pending allegations against the RR by visiting BrokerCheck.FINRA.org, where those allegations can additionally surface with a Google search.

While the stock market and S&P 500 continue to hit all time highs, many investors still have the 2008 market collapse fresh in their memories and know that this historic bull run could, and likely will, come to an end.  There are many signs that the market is overheated, leading some to have speculated that a correction is inevitable, if not imminent.  One of many lessons from prior market collapses is that the investment portfolios most at risk are those which are not properly diversified and may be overly concentrated in either one security or one particular sector of the market.  For retirees, in particular, it is possible to sue and recover such investment losses when following the advice of a licensed financial advisor.

The cratering of an investment portfolio can come as a shock to most investors, particularly retirees who have increased medical and age-related expenses, and are thus unable to afford a long wait until the market bounces back.  In some instances, legal action may be necessary to recover the lost funds. While there is less legal recourse for investors who choose their own investments through a self-directed brokerage platform, the opposite is true for investors who still rely on licensed stockbrokers for financial advice.  Both financial advisors and their brokerage firms can be held liable for recommending investment decisions that are poorly suited to the investor’s needs.

The brokerage industry is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which, until recently, has long imposed FINRA Rule 2111, known as the “Suitability Rule” on all licensed stockbrokers and the brokerage firms that employ them.  Under Rule 2111, brokers were required to have a reasonable basis for recommending a transaction that reasonably considers a broad range of factors, which “includes, but is not limited to, 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 the customer may disclose to the member or associated person in connection with such recommendation.”

In August 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments to expand the definition of an “accredited investor.”  Adding these new expansive conditions as to who may qualify as an accredited investor will allow more investors to participate in private investment offerings, creating both more opportunity and more risk.  The goal of the SEC with this expansion was to both simplify and amplify investor opportunities, investor protections, and capital formation.

Traditionally, an accredited investor can be a business or individual that is qualified to trade unregistered, privately traded securities (i.e., not traded on a public stock exchange) by fulfilling specified minimum requirements such as net worth, income, assets, and trading experience or authority. Typically, issuers of unregistered securities are limited to sell only to accredited investors because they are considered more able to handle the associated risks.  While every investment has risk, non-public investments carry additional risk of having low liquidity, meaning it can be incredibly difficult to find a buyer if the investment goes south.

Accredited investors are important players in the securities industry because they provide liquidity and funds to new and unregistered investments in need of capital.  Historically, an accredited investor can be a bank, a private business, an organization, a director, or any individual who  typically has a separate or combined net worth of $1 million dollars.

Malecki Law is currently investigating allegations regarding a Ponzi scheme targeted by several regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which filed a civil enforcement action against Avinash Singh and nine others, including Daniel Cologero and Randy Rosseau, who reside in Florida, and Hemraj Singh, from New Jersey, concerning allegations of an almost $5 million-dollar multi-level Ponzi scheme.  We are specifically interested in speaking to any affected investors in Highrise Advantage, LLC or other related investments discussed below. Upon information and belief, Mr. Singh may have been working closely with Equity Trust Company and one or more of its representatives, including Anthony (“Tony”) Sopko, who may have been helping to bring new investors into the scheme.

Mr. Singh is accused of misappropriating funds fraudulently solicited by him and his co-defendants.  They allegedly used their network of contacts to prey on those within their communities.  One individual charged, Surujpaul Sahdeo, was a priest who may have used his company, SR&B Enterprises, to prey on the Guyanese community and community church-goers, allegedly using their donations to fund the Ponzi scheme through Mr. Singh, who is alleged to have been a main point of contact for recruiting many investors. It is alleged that all of the funds were funneled through commodity pools set up to funnel the fraudulently solicited funds– Highrise Advantage, LLC., Green Knight Investments, LLC, Bull Run Advantage, LLC, and King Royalty, LLC.

Firms like Equity Trust Company have supervisory duties that require them to monitor both the internal and external business activities of their employees like Mr. Sopko.   This is significant because Ponzi victims often do not know who to turn to, as Ponzi funds are often spent and heavily depleted by the time a Ponzi scheme falls apart and is discovered.  Nevertheless, Malecki Law has decades of experience in successfully recovering millions of dollars from financial firms, such as those Malecki Law sued and successfully recovered from in Ponzi schemes perpetrated by Hector May and Robert Van Zandt.

On July 20, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought investment advisor and former registered representative Michael “Barry” Carter up on multiple federal charges relating to the alleged misappropriation of over $6 million in funds.  Mr. Carter allegedly stole this money from his brokerage customers, including nearly $1 million from one elderly client, defrauding them in the process in an effort to remain undetected.  His alleged fraudulent acts occurred between the fall of 2007 and spring of 2019 while working at Morgan Stanley, with over 40% of the misappropriation occurring in the last five years, all to sustain his extravagant lifestyle.

Mr. Carter was reportedly fired from Morgan Stanley in the summer of 2019 for misappropriation of funds.  Later that fall, FINRA launched an investigation into his alleged crimes and he was then barred by FINRA for refusing to turn over documents relating to the alleged misappropriations.

Additionally, the state of Maryland reportedly brought criminal charges against Mr. Carter, to which he has already pled guilty to the investment advisory fraud charges and wire fraud; as part of his plea agreement he will, according to prosecutors, be required to pay back about $4.3 million, the total net proceeds of his illegal activities.

Filing a claim for most investors is a walk over a new bridge and involves doing something they have never done before: filing a “lawsuit.” Most people never wanted to have anything to do with the law, but if you lost your life savings, you really do not have much of a choice but to fight to get it back.    The stress you may feel engaging in this process can be mitigated by understanding what lies ahead to prepare yourself mentally, emotionally and physically – by getting your evidence lined up.   Outlined below is the process of filing a claim in arbitration through the final days of trial, which will hopefully bring ease to questions you may have regarding investor arbitrations.

In today’s world, many people invest their money as a way to increase their income.  Some choose to invest on their own, while others use brokers and investment advisors.  As with any job, unfortunately in these professions, bad apples do exist.  Where wrongdoers exist, they cause harm to their clients and to their clients’ investment accounts.  If this happens, clients can sue their broker by filing an arbitration claim within the dispute resolution forum of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) – the only forum for retail investors to sue brokers and brokerage firms.  The initial claim papers filed details the party or parties that have wronged you, specifies the relevant facts of the events leading up to and causing the harm in your investment account(s), and lists the remedies requested.  When deciding on whether to file an arbitration claim with FINRA, Malecki Law’s FINRA arbitration attorneys can help discuss the merits of your claims and frame them in what is known as a “Statement of Claim,” like a complaint pleading in court.

Once a Statement of Claim arbitration has been filed with FINRA, the party or parties you are suing, also known as the “respondent(s),” have 45 days to file a response, which is called the “Statement of Answer.”  The Answer will typically include relevant facts, supporting documents, and defenses from the perspective of the broker or firm you are suing.  One can anticipate that in the Answer the respondent(s) will try to discredit your claims.  Malecki Law is skilled and very familiar with debunking these typical defenses, as well responding to any creative new tricks.  After reading the Answer, you have the opportunity to amend your Statement of Claim if you feel something should be changed from your originally filed claim.

Contact Information