Industry Topics

What is the Difference Between a SEC Subpoena and a FINRA 8210 Request?

December 12, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

At some point in their careers, many financial professionals will find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena from Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or a Financial Industry National Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) 8210 Request. The receipt of such documents signifies the regulatory or self-regulatory agencies’ request for information and/or documents in relation to an investigation of a potential securities laws violation. While the Securities and Exchange Commission will formally issue a subpoena, FINRA sends parties the equivalent inquiry letter, often referred to as an “8210 Request.” Both entities can request the receipt of a wide range of information and a high number of documents within a short amount of time. Furthermore, recipients who do choose not to respond to these critical requests honestly could ruin their careers and lives. While the SEC subpoena and FINRA 8210 request may share some similarities, and as we have explained in this space before, there are many differences based on the powers allotted to the respective regulatory agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is a federal government regulatory agency entrusted to develop national regulations and enforce federal laws. Upon reasonable suspicion of securities laws violations, the SEC can issue a subpoena to anyone. Meanwhile, FINRA is not an official government entity, but rather the security industry’s self-regulated membership organization. FINRA has the authority to request documents, information, and testimony from those under its’ jurisdiction in a FINRA 8210 letter. Both the SEC and FINRA run a similar on-the-record “OTR” interview, with the option of an attorney present in the event of a testimony request. However, the SEC offers more response flexibility, protections under the Fifth Amendment and investigation information access in comparison with FINRA.

In the face of a potential securities law violation, the SEC will often send subpoenas to the targets as well as any potential witnesses with information. A SEC subpoena can demand documents (duces tecum) or oral testimony (ad testifcandum) without including context. The SEC can start an investigation by presenting their suspicions in a formal order of investigation. Chiefly, a former SEC Enforcement attorney, John Reed Stalk alleges that there is a “low standard” of cause needed for approved subpoena issuance. The formal order of investigation mainly contains information regarding the scope and possible subjects of the investigation. Subpoenaed parties and their attorneys can request the order.

Brokerage Firms May File Inaccurate U5s to Ruin Former Securities Employee Records, According to Bloomberg Article

October 31, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Brokerage firms may sometimes use reporting inaccurate negative information on a departing securities employees’ U-5 records as their “weapon” to keep their customers, according to a Bloomberg article. FINRA records and broker experiences show that brokerage firms occasionally include inaccurate information when filing a Form U-5. While financial advisors and brokers can file an arbitration to have employers remove the erroneous information from their record, many take no action. Securities employment attorneys are unsurprised given that broker and financial advisor cases against the employer, tend to favor big brokerage firms heavily. Financial professionals fear the high cost, time loss, and difficulty getting expungement in a FINRA arbitration.

Brokerage firms provide information regarding an existing employee’s termination in a document entitled, Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration Notice – Form U-5. Within 30 days of the broker’s termination, the brokerage dealer must file a Form U-5 with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the FINRA by-laws. A Form U-5 seeks information pertaining to the circumstances around a respective broker’s termination from the firm. Brokerage firms are obligated to provide accurate, and timely information as well as file any changes on the U5, according to FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 10-39.

It is important to contact a FINRA securities attorney when you first realize that you may be terminated or when you are terminated, to act fast. While a Form U-5 is not “negotiable,” a broker can provide information to the firm to change the firm’s mind on the facts, as well as tell them facts that they may not know. It is worthwhile to try doing so before the filing, as after the filing firms are hesitant to change a U-5 as regulatory agencies could start asking questions regarding the reasoning. No firm wants FINRA regulatory to come knocking on their door.

Malecki Law Wins Award and Expungement for Brokerage Industry Professional, Resolving FINRA’s Oldest and Longest Active Arbitration Case in History

October 10, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Yesterday, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel in New Jersey, FINRA Case No. 03-08177, handed down a decisive award in favor of a trader, who was also a Series 7 registered broker. The trader was sued by a retail investor relating to his recommendation of a municipal bond nearly fifteen years ago. The arbitration was first filed with the National Association of Securities Dealers in November of 2003, which predates the entity’s merger with the enforcement and arbitration arm of the New York Stock Exchange to form FINRA. The matter, which started in arbitration, winding its way in and out of the New Jersey courts, was the oldest and longest running case in FINRA’s history. As argued before the arbitration panel by the broker’s attorney, Jenice L. Malecki, “this case was nearly old enough to drive and only three years away from being allowed to vote.”

In addition to dismissing the investors’ claims in their entirety, the arbitration panel made the rare, and ultimately just, decision to award the trader $47,831.01 in attorneys’ fees based on the panel’s finding of “malicious prosecution” by the claimant investors. The panel further recommended expungement of the complaint from the broker’s registration records, as maintained by the Central Registration Depository (CRD), finding the investors’ allegations to be without merit and false. The case was in and out of arbitration and court numerous times over the years, contributing to its length.

According to the award, the Claimants in this case, in connection with their single purchase of municipal bonds, had alleged damages against the Respondent trader “in excess of $500,000.00 but not less than $1,000,000.000, the exact amount to be proven at the hearing.” However, as the panel determined, the investors had suffered no losses at all but in fact, received interest and turned a profit:

What Are ETFs, Exchange-Traded Funds, and How Do They Work? Are ETFs Safe or Risky? Not All ETFs Are Created Equal

September 24, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

In recent years, exchange-traded products, “ETFs,” have become increasingly more popular on Wall Street and in the investor community. Institutional investors and retail investors alike have invested in exchange-traded products. Astoundingly, exchange-traded funds are a trillion-dollar market that continues to grow in value with passing time. While some ETFs are like mutual funds, others are a speculative gamble. There are many ETFs that investors should be wary of before deciding to invest. Not all ETFs are created equal.

What are Exchange-Traded Funds and How Do They Work?

Exchange-traded funds are securities that track an index, basket of stocks, bonds or a commodity. For an investor to own an ETF is the equivalent of indirectly holding a share of the total basket of underlying assets. In return, the investor receives a proportional amount of the fund’s profits and residuals. Investors can also use exchange-traded funds as a tracking mechanism for exposure to a specific index or collection of securities.

CNBC’s show American Greed Features Jenice Malecki’s Commentary on Religious-Based Financial Fraud

September 10, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Investors are encouraged to watch out for “false prophets” that commit affinity fraud by targeting members of religious communities. CNBC posted an article about rampant religious-based fraud with securities attorney Jenice Malecki’s commentary for tonight’s new episode of true crime series American Greed. The episode, entitled “An Ungodly Scammer” will feature the story of convicted multimillion-dollar Ponzi Scheme fraudster Ephren Taylor, who targeted churchgoers. Ephren Taylor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sentenced to 235 months. In an interview for tonight’s premiering American Greed episode, Jenice Malecki comments on Ephren Taylor’s religious fraud with a warning for investors to be on the lookout for affinity fraud.

Ephren Taylor collected millions of dollars by traveling to megachurches in 43 states to solicit investors in his low-risk investments as part of his “Building Wealth” tour. In his visits, Ephren Taylor spoke of his status as a self-made multimillionaire from a young age to represent his credibility. Investors listened and believed as Ephren Taylor used religion to garner their funds through his “prosperity gospel” sales pitches. Ephren Taylor claimed to sell investors high yield promissory notes that would finance socially responsible ventures that included low-income housing projects. Instead, provided funds were being allocated to Ephren Taylor’s personal expenditures and occasional false “returns” to existing investors, as part of a Ponzi Scheme.

Now, victims of Ephren Taylors’ Ponzi Scheme are left distraught and defrauded out of millions of dollars in life savings after falling prey to his affinity fraud. Affinity fraud refers to an investment scam that targets members of identifiable groups based on shared commonalities. The affinity fraud perpetrator will leverage represented membership within the group to exploit trust and sell a fraudulent investment. Jenice Malecki told CNBC that in affinity situations, people would tend to be comfortable enough to blindly trust those that share membership within their church or ethnic communities. A famous example of this is Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme which raised billions through targeting Jewish communities.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Awards Malecki Law Broker Clients 28 Customer Complaint Expungements

August 21, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law is pleased to announce that a FINRA arbitration panel granted 28 expungements for three broker clients with customer complaints from their sale of Puerto Rican closed-end funds. The 28 expungements were granted as part of a FINRA arbitration award, the claim filed on behalf of nine Puerto Rico brokers against UBS; only three sought expungements. This winning result for our UBS Puerto Rico broker expungement case was detailed in an unusually long 40-page Award posted to the FINRA Dispute Resolution Portal yesterday.

Malecki Law filed this case in July 2015 and worked through the completion of discovery with a local PR lawyer, Benjamin Quinones Lebron Esq. before also teaming up with Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP to try the numerous witness case in Puerto Rico. The FINRA arbitration claim filed on behalf of nine brokers, sought $30 million plus fees in addition to expungement. The monetary portion of the arbitration claim was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Only three of the nine brokers chose to move forward with expungement claims after the monetary portion was resolved.

The majority-public panel issued the award after considerable deliberation regarding the merits of the brokers’ request. In fact, the FINRA arbitration panel had a week of hearings, a time frame longer than usual. FINRA considers expungement to be an “extraordinary remedy” that should only be recommended in certain situations that do not compromise investor protection.

How Much Time Does It Take for SEC Whistleblowers to Receive an Award? Too Long

August 16, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s program to reward whistleblowers for coming forward has undoubtedly been an asset in recovering fraud for the regulatory agency. Useful tips from whistleblowers have helped the Securities and Exchange Commission recover over $1 billion in enforcement actions. The SEC whistleblower program offers financial incentives and anti-retaliatory protection for individuals who report qualifying information relating to federal securities law violations. Irrespective of the potential monetary awards, courageous whistleblowers often put a lot in jeopardy when choosing to come forward. Yet, the process for SEC whistleblowers to be rewarded with payouts is slow, according to a Wall Street Journal article.

The WSJ article notes that the time in which whistleblowers receive a response regarding a reward increased from a year in 2012 to over two years presently. Whistleblower attorneys informed the Wall Street Journal that occasionally clients wait years to receive an award even after being deemed eligible by the SEC. The Wall Street Journal attributes the SEC’s slower process to an oversaturation of reward seekers. The Securities and Exchange Commission receives an influx of tips, with many not being useful, according to the WSJ article. Officials reportedly referred to the process for vetting and allocating whistleblower rewards as “demanding”.

Our whistleblower attorneys believe that a quick and efficient claims review process should be a priority given associated risks for the whistleblowers. Additionally, the value whistleblowers have in fostering a less corrupt society are unquestionable. Whistleblowers are immensely beneficial for minimizing fraudulent activity and protecting investors in the securities industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission has even deemed the whistleblower rewards program as their “most powerful weapon” in enforcement. Informative whistleblower tips have helped the SEC with detecting as well as prosecuting securities law violations and enforcement action.

Jenice Malecki to Make Second Appearance on CNBC’s American Greed

August 10, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law attorney Jenice Malecki was on the set of business news network CNBC’s documentary true crime series American Greed yesterday to speak about affinity fraud for an upcoming episode. American Greed provides in depth-reporting exposing Ponzi Schemes, mortgage fraud, art heists, identity theft, and other shocking things people have done for money. For twelve seasons, American Greed has examined the most extensive corporate and white-collar crimes in American history. The documentary series currently airs new episodes on the CNBC network on Monday nights at 10 PM EST.

In the interview, Jenice Malecki leveraged her knowledge as an experienced securities attorney to answer questions about affinity fraud. Affinity fraud is a type of investment scam that targets members of the same identifiable groups based on religion, ethnicity, age and other commonalities. Typically, an affinity fraud perpetrator will be or at least pose as a member of the group to exploit trust and relationships. Otherwise, the fraudster might elicit the help of a group member to orchestrate the scam, which is frequently a Ponzi or pyramid scheme.

In this segment, Jenice Malecki describes affinity fraud along with the telltale signs that should induce concern. Notably, Jenice Malecki emphasizes the importance for investors to do their due diligence in gathering information before investing. With this in mind, the seller should be able to provide information regarding the investment’s purpose, objective data, and history. Furthermore, Jenice Malecki offers helpful tips for anyone suspecting affinity fraud to respond appropriately to the situation.

Pension Plan Recipients Added to Victims of Alleged Hector May Ponzi Scheme in Malecki Law’s Recently Filed Amended FINRA Arbitration Complaint Against Securities America, Inc

August 6, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Last week, Malecki Law filed an amended FINRA arbitration complaint against Securities America on behalf of victims claiming that the broker-dealer’s inadequate supervision over its registered representative, Hector May, permitted his alleged Ponzi Scheme to happen. Securities America failed to act as Hector May sold fictitious “tax-free” corporate bonds from his New City Securities America office with his Securities America approved Registered Investment Advisory business, Executive Compensation Planners. The amended complaint adds two pension plans as additional plaintiffs joining the original nine victims specified in the June 18^th filing. Our announcement of the filing to the press piqued the interest of the media including a reporter who interviewed attorney Jenice Malecki for an article in Lohud, as well as an article in Financial Planning magazine.

Hector May was formerly a Securities America registered representative, who reportedly managed more than $18 million in assets according to his Form ADV. Before the alleged Ponzi scheme surfaced, Hector May was an influential community member who donated to charities and political candidates. Claimants alleged that Hector May simply used his community status to issue, solicit and sell these non-existent securities products. Now, Hector May is being investigated by multiple government agencies for alleged fraud resulting in millions of dollars bilked from unsuspecting investors. Of course, Hector May refuses to provide answers regarding the whereabouts of the invested funds or any further details about the transaction activities in dispute.

The amended complaint now alleges that Hector May also stole money from two New York company’s pension plans while running his Securities America branch office. The newly added pension plans’ beneficiaries were allegedly sold fictitious “tax-free” corporate bonds. Hector May allegedly told company beneficiaries not to worry since their invested money would be in “safe places” under his RIA with Securities America. Hector May’s reassuring comment could not be further from the truth, hidden by his falsely produced employee benefit plan and annual reports. Consequently, company employees have been defrauded out of millions of dollars that had been intended to be their income upon retirement.

Malecki Law Featured in Financial Planning Article for Insights on Alleged Hector May Ponzi Scheme, Eye Towards Educating Victims

June 29, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law was featured in the news for filing a FINRA arbitration claim on behalf of investors alleging that Securities America failed to perform proper supervisory duties as their formerly registered broker, Hector May allegedly operated a Ponzi Scheme. In the Financial Planning article, investor fraud attorney Jenice Malecki provides additional information and commentary on her representation of nine clients against Securities America. Financial Planning provides breaking and daily news coverage as well as analysis to help independent financial advisors better their business, practice and client services. Readership often includes independent broker-dealers, financial planners and other industry professionals seeking insights into the highly regulated securities industry. Malecki Law spoke with Financial Planning to spread the message so that other innocent victims who lost their hard-earned savings may seek justice.

Investor fraud attorney, Jenice Malecki released more details regarding the specific allegations relating to Hector May’s allegedly fraudulent practices against investing clients to Financial Planning in hopes of raising awareness. Allegedly, victims of the New City broker’s Ponzi scheme were under the impression that Hector May invested their money into “tax-free” bond products from firms like General Electric. The clients later learned alleged Ponzi Schemer’s “tax-free” bond products were non-existent and apparently just words on false account statements. When asked for a comment, Hector May’s attorney declined to provide a comment regarding a case started by a law firm placing ads in the newspaper for clients.

The clients are filing the claim only against Securities America since Hector May already had assets frozen and could not pay the award, Jenice Malecki commented. FINRA rules place broker-dealers at fault for investment losses resulting from their failure to properly supervise and detect a Ponzi Scheme committed by their registered representative. Securities America had an obligation to monitor Hector May’s activities, including the fraud that transpired. Clients are claiming that Securities America missed many “red flags” that would have clued off a Ponzi Scheme.