This week, Malecki Law filed its second FINRA arbitration lawsuit against Henley & Company, LLC on behalf of a group of retirees who lost their money in an apparent Ponzi Scheme. Their arbitration alleges that they were victimized by the brokerage firm’s inadequate supervision over its registered representative, Philip Incorvia, by allowing him to run his alleged Ponzi scheme unchecked out of a Henley branch office.
It is alleged that for nearly fifteen years, Henley failed to supervise Mr. Incorvia as he sold fictitious investments in Jefferson Resources and Vanderbilt Realty out of Henley’s Shoreham, New York office. The scheme was uncovered when he died in August of 2021. Investors not only trusted Mr. Incorvia, but their trust was bolstered because Henley’s documents prominently featured a reassuring connection to Jefferson Resources, lending it a sign of legitimacy. For example, Henley featured Jefferson on much of its correspondence sent to customers, including monthly statements, tax documents, and general letterhead. Malecki Law filed its first lawsuit on behalf of a retiree in October of 2021, claiming losses of $2.5 million. Since then, more Henley customers have come forward after demanding answers and failing to receive financial restitution from Henley.
The five investors who are part of the second group lawsuit, filed this week, are claiming losses in excess of $900,000, and are all elderly retirees from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Florida. FINRA has already granted the group expedited status to the proceedings due to their senior age, which should help fast track a recovery. Some of the investors in the group were already delayed in learning about the scheme because it appears Henley failed to notify them of the fraud, which several of its corporate officers named in the lawsuit were believed to have known about for several weeks or months following Mr. Incorvia’s death. In November 2021, it is alleged that Henley further sent out a misleading letter to its customers, suggesting that they could recover their lost investment funds through an insurance policy benefitting Mr. Incorvia’s personal estate. Henley’s letter failed to mention that the investors seeking a recovery against the estate would likely not have legal standing to bring a claim, since the alleged investments were in the names of a companies, not Mr. Incorvia personally. The letter also omitted that Henley had apparently already sought to claim the proceeds of the policy for itself under contractual indemnification and contribution clauses within Henley’s own employment agreements with Mr. Incorvia.