Industry Topics

Virus Fears Have Thrashed the Markets

March 11, 2020 | Malecki Law Team

Predicated on fear of a global slowdown and the uncertainty around coronavirus, the stock has experienced extreme volatility as it heads into bear territory. While it may be expected for even the bluest of blue-chip stocks to experience volatility, investors should pay particular attention to their entire investment portfolios as it is in violate market climates that broker misconduct may reveal itself, especially as it relates to your investment objectives and suitability.

When the market suddenly drops, investment portfolios will reflect not only the fluctuations, but also the risks inherent inparticular strategies and investments. All securities carry risk, but some investment products have more than others. Risk tolerance refers to the level of uncertainty in investment performance that is acceptable to the investor. An investor’s risk tolerance is reflective of their financial situation, needs, age, objectives, time requirements, and other considerations. Generally, investors can be categorized within varying levels of conservative, moderate, or aggressive. The types of investments in an investor’s portfolio should reflect their risk tolerance. The changes that investors noticed in their portfolio during market shifts could be indicative of where their portfolio falls on this spectrum.

Investors with the lower risk tolerances should have a conservative investment strategy in place that shields their portfolio from significant declines in market downturns. The goal of conservative investors is to prioritize principal protection and liquidity over risky appreciation. A conservative investment portfolio will be mainly comprised of safer, low-risk fixed-income investments, such as bonds and certificates of deposits. While low-risk investments do not generate the highest returns, the chances of losing principal are much lower. Older individuals closer to retirement should have investment profiles that reflect a more conservative investment portfolio. It is a huge red flag for any conservative investors to have noticed a complete decline in their portfolio from the market downturn.

Malecki Law Wins Appeal to Allow an International Investor at a Domestic and Foreign Brokerage Firm to Arbitrate at FINRA

February 18, 2020 | Malecki Law Team

Today, Malecki Law, won a court appeal to allow an international investor to proceed in his securities lawsuit against Lek Securities Corporation and its principals (Samuel Lek and Charles Lek), allowing the case to go forward and be decided by a panel of arbitrators in the dispute resolution forum provided by the Financial Industry Authority (FINRA). Today’s court order, which was issued by New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the July 19, 2019 order of the lower court (Supreme Court, New York County), which improperly granted Lek Securities a permanent stay (i.e., a halt) from arbitrating the dispute in FINRA. The outcome of today’s decision is important because it adds color to the legal definition of who is a “customer” and, thus, who is eligible to bring their claims in FINRA arbitration.

Lek Securities is a U.S. brokerage firm regulated by the enforcement arm of FINRA – the largest independent regulatory body for securities trading and securities firms operating in the United States. Within the fine print of their new account forms, all investors who open retail brokerage accounts with U.S. brokerage firms waive their rights to court and are, instead, required to arbitrate any disputes in FINRA. However, FINRA provides a cost-effective arbitration forum that allows retail customers of brokerage securities firms to recover their lost investments much faster, and for far less money, than they would typically be able to in court. This is due in part to arbitrations generally not being subject to appeal and arbitration having far less onerous discovery requirements, including not allowing depositions, generally speaking. Arbitration in FINRA is also advantageous to investors because firms that lose in arbitration are incentivized to pay awards to customers within 30 days or otherwise have their brokerage licenses revoked. While the firm is still operational, and while this case was waiting for the appeal to be decided, the owner of Lek Securities, Samuel Lek, who is also named in the instant lawsuit, was barred from the securities industry by FINRA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in December of 2019.

In reversing the lower court’s decision, today’s order by the First Department holds that there was a customer relationship established between the investor and Lek Securities under the FINRA rules and in accordance with the law established in Global Mkts. Inc. v. Abbar, 761 F.3d 268 (2d. Cir. 2014) – a seminal case in which Malecki Law’s founder, Jenice Malecki, was instrumental in shaping and arguing before the Second Circuit. The law in Abbar requires that to be a customer (and to therefore be eligible to arbitrate against a firm in FINRA), the investor must have either had an account or purchased a good or service from the firm. In its court papers, Lek Securities claimed that the international investor had an account with the firm’s UK operations (LekUK), which is not subject to regulatory oversight in the United States, and that LekUK, in carrying out brokerage services for the investor, transferred the investor’s assets to the subject U.S. affiliate, and that any payment received by the Lek entity in the United States was incidental, and not received directly from the investor, but paid internally by LekUK.

Why should I give the SEC everything they have requested?

February 10, 2020 | Malecki Law Team

Receiving a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a serious matter as is the associated document production most SEC subpoenas call for. Not only do most all SEC subpoenas require the production of vast amounts of documents, electronic files and data, the manner in which the SEC strictly requires production (see here for SEC data delivery standards) can be confusing for most, especially those not familiar with electronic discovery. Our securities regulatory attorneys frequently assist clients with examining, gathering and producing responsive documents and data for production in a format accepted by the SEC. Our securities regulatory attorneys utilize state of the art electronic discovery software and tools that reduce both the amount of time required of you and the billable hour.

All the documents and electronic data called for by the subpoena may seem overwhelming, however, ensuring that your production is both completely responsive and delivered in compliance with the SEC data delivery standards is one of the only ways in which you will be able to help the investigation proceed quicker to a final resolution. Often an issue for clients is the seemingly broad wording of SEC subpoenas, our securities regulatory attorneys are practiced in helping clients better understand what items are being sought by the SEC. Thus, allowing you to limit your time spent searching for documents and data. A responsive and compliant production also limits the amount times that you and/or your attorney will need to spend in working with the SEC. It is important to turn off any auto-delete functions that you may have in place to preserve your data and documents and DO NOT destroy anything. Not only will the destruction of any documents complicate your matter you may also face an obstruction charge.

It is imperative that you carefully comply in a timely manner with an SEC subpoena. The SEC can enforce a subpoena if you fail to comply with what the subpoena calls for and a failure to comply with court orders could result in contempt charges. Our securities regulatory attorneys are often able to negotiate the scope and timing of productions, including an extension of time for clients document production and testimony (if called for).It is also important that your response to the subpoena includes any legal objections that you may be entitled to. Remember, your response does not end the process. The SEC may consider your Subpoena response for weeks or months before they decide whether further investigation is necessary.

Recovering Customer Financial Losses from UBS’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (“YES”)

August 29, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

The investment and securities fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are currently investigating UBS’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (“YES”) for the purpose of investor recoveries. Our attorneys are interested in hearing from investors and others who have information and/or have experienced losses due to UBS YES or other complex yield enhancing investments regardless of the brokerage firm.

It appears that the YES strategy may have been sold to UBS clients as a conservative and low-risk investment strategy that would provide them with an increased yield (income) in their portfolio. In fact, in our opinion, the strategy was an esoteric leveraged options strategy that utilized an options strategy known as the Iron Condor, which is inherently risky as it relies on consistent stability in the markets.

USB YES employing the esoteric Iron Condor strategy uses a leveraged options strategy in a client’s portfolio. UBS would use the client’s assets as collateral in a margin account then execute four different options trades, simultaneously selling calls and puts in an attempt to generate income and buying calls and puts in an attempt to hedge risk. This resulted in the creation of a price spread. If the price of the index or security the options were a derivative of stayed within the spread it would produce a premium to the investor. However, the excessive volatility experienced by the markets recently and most notably in the fourth quarter of 2018 blew through these spreads resulting in serious losses to investors.

House of Representatives Votes to Block Controversial Regulation Best Interest

June 27, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

The House of Representatives has voted to block funding for the highly contentious four-pronged investment advice reform package deemed “Regulation Best Interest” through an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. Huge fiduciary duty proponent, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California proposed this amendment which prevents the SEC from using any funds under the Act to enforce Regulation Best Interest. The amendment could halt the SEC’s recently approved advice package, which includes Regulation Best Interest, Form CRS Relationship Summary and the agency’s interpretations of two concepts under the Investment Advisors Act. Our investor fraud attorneys echo Maxine Waters sentiments that the final rules fail to include the much-needed fiduciary duty and only facilitates further confusion, which is a far cry from strengthening investor protection.

Regulation Best Interest emerges a year the courts repealed Obama Era’s Department of Labor’s fiduciary standard, which required advisors to put their client interests first. Historically, the regulatory landscape distinguished between financial advisors who were obligated to legitimately act as fiduciaries and brokers not held to as stringent of a standard. Investment advisors are required to show an ongoing duty of loyalty and care, in serving their clients best interests at all times under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. Meanwhile, brokers were only obliged to meet a “suitability standard,” according to FINRA rules, when recommending securities to investors. Under FINRA rule 2111, brokers must have a “reasonable” belief that a potential investment product or strategy is “suitable” for the investor based on the customer’s age, objectives, risk tolerance, and other information.

The most significant rule included in the standards reform package, Regulation Best Interest is intended to strengthen the duty of care owed by brokers above just the suitability standard. The SEC claims that the regulations would disclose conflicts and clarify the duties owed to investors. However, under these rules, broker-dealers are only required to disclose, but not necessarily mitigate any conflicts of interests with investors, unless state law is more strict. With this in mind, brokers are still not required to put their client’s interests entirely before their own genuinely if state law does not provide protection. Essentially, brokers can now advertise themselves as serving their clients’ “best interest” while not putting their clients’ interests first absent state prohibitions. While more disclosures are always beneficial, Regulation Best Interest fails to raise the standard of care enough to help investors not get taken advantage of by unscrupulous financial professionals.

The SEC Collects Only Around Half of Fines

May 24, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

A significant way that the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces federal securities laws is through levying fines on wrongdoers in the financial services industry. Within the past few years, the SEC has issued billions of dollars in civil penalties and disgorgements in civil enforcement proceedings against defendants. The SEC allocates received fines, amongst other things, to compensate victims of securities violations. The unfortunate reality, however, is that the SEC only collects a little over half of the fines imposed through settlements and judgments according to agency statistics reported by Wall Street Journal.

In a five-year fiscal period ending in September 2018, the SEC reportedly collected 55% of the 20 billion dollars in fines imposed upon wrongdoers in the industry. Between 2009 and 2013, the SEC issued $14.6 billion in fines but collected 60% from the defendants. In the fiscal year 2018 alone, the SEC only received about 28% of their 4 billion dollars in fines levied through 821 enforcement actions. Out of the total owed fines, $1.7 billion comes from a settlement with an international oil company, Petrobras and the SEC is permitting this owed money to go to Brazilian authorities instead. Therefore, it is not unlikely that the SEC will never collect this significant fine that could have gone to funds meant for harmed investors.

The SEC has struggled with collecting civil penalties and disgorgement ordered in enforcement proceedings for quite some time. Based on the kinds of people and entities fined, the SEC often holds a low chance of actually getting the money. Fined defendants often do not have the money to pay, on top of dealing with the other consequences of their actions such as serving prison time and owing civil suits. After all, several fraud perpetrators, such as Ponzi Schemers get charged for their actions only after losing money needed to maintain their scheme. Even if the defendants can afford to pay the fine, the SEC does not have the right to force payment by seizing a debtor’s property or assets. Instead, the SEC must go through the long, tedious process of collecting money through liens and other court remedies to collect on the judgments.

The SEC called me, should I talk to them?

May 16, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Getting called by the SEC can be a frightening experience for anyone. Such a call is especially serious for financial professionals including those that trade in stock or work for public companies or companies which had stock that sold in private offerings. The SEC can oblige any American citizen to comply with any demands for information that could assist in their enforcement of federal securities laws. One of the more frequently asked questions that our securities regulatory law team answers in our free consultations is: “Should I respond to the SEC’s phone call?” The answer is yes, but only after retaining an experienced securities regulatory attorney to represent you in the process and be your intermediary. The contacted party should take down the SEC caller’s name and information to call back later.

Our securities regulatory attorneys advise individuals not to respond immediately and without a lawyer to mitigate risks. Through this course of action, contacted parties are more protected from unwarranted charges and other risks that arise when speaking with the SEC unprepared. The SEC may tell you that you are not a target, but they will not make any enforceable promises in that regard. It is up to you to make sure that you do not become a target. Remember, the English language can be tricky, and lawyers’ use of it is different from that of the average layperson. A point to keep in mind is that when the SEC calls, it has an agenda that prioritizes their mission and not your specific interests.

The SEC reaches out to people to gather facts to determine whether any provisions of federal securities laws or rules have been violated. Thus, financial professionals contacted by the SEC are either the target of an investigation or believed to have related knowledge. The SEC may use the information you provide in the testimony to pursue civil charges through administrative or court proceedings. Additionally, the SEC may provide information to other agencies for their own separate federal, state, local or foreign administrative, civil or criminal proceedings. Individuals contacted by the SEC must respond fully, truthfully, and honestly or risk receiving fines and even possibly terms of imprisonment. In certain cases, it may be in your best interest to asset your fifth amendment rights and not testify at all.

Malecki Law Securities Attorneys Lobby for Investor Rights on Capitol Hill

April 12, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

On Friday, Malecki Law securities attorneys Jenice Malecki and Darryl Bouganim traveled to Washington D.C to lobby on behalf of investors as part of PIABA’s annual Hill Day. PIABA is an international bar association for securities attorneys representing investors in disputes within the financial services industry. As part of Hill Day, PIABA attorneys from across the nation met with representatives and their legislative aids on Capitol Hill to lobby for stronger investor protection. Following a day of discussing the issues amongst PIABA members, our attorneys met with officials across party lines including at the offices of Brian Higgins, John Katko, Tom Reed, Danny Davis, John Hawley, Tim Scott, and Patty Murray. Alongside other PIABA members, Malecki Law securities attorneys lobbied for the FAIR Act; legislation to fund outstanding arbitration awards; and modification or clarification of the proposed Regulation Best Interest.

On Capitol Hill, Malecki Law attorneys lobbied for members of the House of Representatives and Senate to co-sponsor the Forced Arbitration and Repeal Act, known as the FAIR Act. U.S Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and U.S Sen. Richard Blumental (D-CT) introduced the FAIR Act to end the use of mandatory arbitration in their effort to restore public accountability. As it stands now, investors must sign contracts with forced arbitration clauses when opening new brokerage accounts. The FAIR Act outlaws forced arbitration, thereby granting investors the freedom to choose venues besides private arbitration to adjudicate their disputes. Investors will still have the option to choose to use arbitration under FINRA rules, just as how it was before the historic Shearson/American Express v. McMahon case.

Mandatory arbitration clauses within investment account contracts undermine investors’ rights for fair process and their right to trial by jury under the 7th amendment. The industry’s self-regulatory agency, FINRA runs arbitrations as off the record legal proceedings. Instead of a judge and jury, one or three arbitrators decide on the verdict of cases. A major problem is that arbitrators are usually industry people who tend to be overwhelmingly older, white and male. Thus, the arbitration pool is not diverse enough for the diverse investors that use it to feel their case is being heard by their peers, which undermines the process. Additionally, arbitrators do not have to apply the law or include any reasoning behind their decisions. When only 40% of their cases win their cases, the process should be more transparent especially with the other forces that could foster bias. Even after winning their case in arbitration, investors sometimes cannot collect their damages from the wrongdoers found liable. This undermines self-regulation.

Two Whistleblowers Win $50 Million Award from SEC for their Smoking Gun Evidence

April 1, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

The Securities and Exchange Commission continues to make it clear that whistleblowers are among their most potent enforcement weapons in their law enforcement arsenal. In a press release on March 26, the SEC awarded a combined $50 million to two whistleblowers who provided info leading to a successful enforcement action against a major financial institution. Jane Norberg from the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower referred to the involved whistleblowers and others who lead the enforcement as the “source of smoking gun evidence and indispensable assistance.” One whistleblower received $13 million, and the other won a $37 million award, which is the SEC’s third-highest whistleblower award as of yet. Our whistleblower attorneys view this particular case as another example of the SEC’s growing willingness to provide large sums of money to qualifying individuals.

The whistleblower is said to have provided information that helped the SEC and CTFC pursue action against JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Chase Bank. While the SEC did not openly name any involved party, the law firm representing the whistleblowers that received the smaller award has come forward with information. The charges involve allegations that from 2008-2013 JP Morgan failed to provide certain disclosures that would have been pertinent to their wealthy investors. Allegedly, JP Morgan steered clients towards its own mutual funds and hedge funds, without providing the proper disclosures. All in all, the whistleblowers’ original information allegedly assisted the SEC and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission with securing a $307 million settlement with JP Morgan.

As this case, as well as others show, whistleblowers have a lot to gain besides just helping restore public order and market integrity. Clients represented by whistleblower attorneys know that being an asset to the SEC can pay off. The SEC’s whistleblower program launched in 2011 to incentivize people to come forward after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As part of the program, whistleblowers with original, timely and credible information are eligible to receive a percentage of recovered funds. Whistleblowers qualify if their tip helps the agency to achieve a successful enforcement action recovering least $1 million. The award, which ranges between 10-30% of recovered funds comes from an investor recovery fund set up by Congress. The investor fund is from sanctions paid from federal securities law violations. The Dodd-Frank Act also grants whistleblowers the right to anonymity and protection from employer retaliation.

FINRA’s 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter

January 31, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Financial professionals handling compliance keep abreast with changes in the regulatory landscape to effectively allocate resources. At the start of each year, regulatory agencies Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission publish their priorities. FINRA’s recently released Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter states emerging issues as well as ongoing concerns for the upcoming year. In an introductory note, Robert Cook explains that this year’s letter more broadly relays FINRA’s priorities for risk monitoring with a more pronounced focus on new issues. Firms can use the information contained within this letter to ensure that their compliance, supervisory and risk management programs reach FINRA’s standards. Distinct from earlier times, the FINRA letter focuses on explaining new issues and risk analysis.

The main new issues on the regulatory agency’s radar are the firm’s involvement with online distribution platforms, fixed income mark-up disclosure, and regulatory technology. Specifically, FINRA is concerned with how firms meet AML requirements, supervise communications with the public and conduct suitability analysis when involved with the distribution of securities on online distribution platforms. FINRA plans to evaluate the risks of excessive or undisclosed compensation arrangements between firms and issuers for offerings exempt from registration under Regulation A. Furthermore, FINRA intends to assess how firms handle risks with sales of offerings under Regulation D to non-accredited investors. FINRA expects firms to follow FINRA rule 2232 and MSRB Rule G-15 to comply with mark-up or mark-down disclosure obligations on fixed income transactions. As more firms use regulatory technology for compliance, FINRA plans to examine the efficiency and risks involved.

While this year’s letter pays more mind to new issues, FINRA briefly restates ongoing problems that have already been named as top priorities. Notably, FINRA mentions suitability determinations, outside businesses activities, and private securities transactions; private placements; data quality and governance; communications with the public; trade and order reporting; anti-money laundering (AML); net capital and consumer protection; best execution; fraud; insider trading and market manipulation; record keeping, risk management and supervision related to these and other areas. As per usual, FINRA will be mindful of how firms supervise and respond to associated persons with flawed disciplinary records. In the rest of the letter, FINRA categorizes the other concerns into sales practice risks, operational risks, market risks, and financial risks.