Articles Posted in Investors Topics

|

Many clients are asking whether FINRA arbitration claims can be brought against a bank and/or its employees for losses sustained in their investment accounts.  The answer is yes.  There are more than 5,000 commercial banks in the United States.  Along with traditional banking services, many of these banks also provide in house “financial advisors.”  In order to charge their customers more, these bank branch financial advisors encourage bank customers to invest their savings with them.  Now more than ever, bank customers are being pressured into using these services, and their life savings are being invested rather than saved.  This can lead to losses in customer accounts, where customers would have been better off keeping their funds in a savings account.  Malecki Law’s FINRA arbitration attorneys have handled many cases involving claims where customers lost money investing with a commercial bank financial advisor.

Up until Congress repealed the Glass Steagall act in 1999, commercial banks, banks that take in cash deposits and make loans, could not offer investment services.  The Glass Steagall Act separated commercial banks and investments banks and prohibited commercial banks from providing any investment service to its customers.  Once the act was repealed, in order to make greater profit, banks took advantage and began offering these services.  Although banks often incentivize their customers to use these services, such as offering lower fees or free checking, the bank’s investment services, however, are not free.

Investing funds with a bank is no safer than investing funds through an online or traditional brokerage firm.  Customers ordinarily use banks for savings, checking, CDs, and, sometimes, securing a mortgage or other type of loan.  These types of accounts are a bank’s specialty and are FDIC insured, meaning that these are vehicles designed to prevent the loss of money in customer accounts.  Contrarily, investments are not a bank’s specialty and investing with a bank’s financial advisor, similar to making an investment in an online or traditional brokerage account, comes with risk, often incurring higher fees than an online or traditional brokerage account.  Moreover, not only do the investment products offered at banks charge higher fees, but the quality and diversity of investment products is limited, which increases risk to the customer’s investments.

Continue reading ›

|

Can a Broker-Dealer Firm be Sued for Failure to Supervise a Broker?

Broker-dealers, also known as brokerage firms, are routinely sued for “failure to supervise” claims.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the organization which regulates broker-dealers and their employees, has a series of rules requiring broker-dealers to establish and maintain a supervisory system to supervise its brokers and other employees, as well as to monitor all trading activity to ensure compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations.  In many of our clients’ cases, the brokerage firm’s lack of supervision and failure to properly supervise a broker’s misconduct has directly and indirectly impacted our clients’ accounts, causing losses.  Malecki Law’s FINRA arbitration attorneys have handled many cases against brokerage firms in New York (and across the country) for failure to supervise and have received favorable monetary awards and settlements for our clients.

A supervisory system that cannot reasonably surveil and detect trades that violate securities laws and deceptive trade practices does not meet FINRA’s minimum requirement of proper supervision.  Moreover, proper supervision also requires a firm supervisor to approve a broker’s daily trades, as well as to systematically review clients’ accounts for wrongful trading activity such as recommending unsuitable investments, trading without proper authority from the customer, or charging high commissions that make it virtually impossible for the customer to make any sort of profit.

Continue reading ›

|

Investors often ask whether a clearing firm can be liable for losses sustained in their accounts.  The answer is “yes.”  Traditionally, clearing firms, also known as clearing houses, are financial institutions established to handle the confirmation, settlement, and delivery of transactions.  To ensure its clients’ transactions are made in a prompt and efficient manner, the clearing firm acts as a middle-man and is essentially the buyer and seller in the transactions.  To attract business and compete with other clearing firms, clearing firms offer an ever-expanding suite of services that go beyond mere routine clearing functions, which often brings them to be actively and directly involved in the actions of brokerage firms and their brokers.  Courts have held that clearing firms that extend services beyond “mere ministerial or routine functions” can be liable to an investor for a broker-dealer or broker’s misdeeds.

On behalf of several investor clients, Malecki Law’s FINRA arbitration attorneys are currently investigating cases involving claims against Pershing, LLC, a clearing house, and its introducing brokerage firm client, Insight Securities, Inc.  The claims involve an SEC-censured entity, Biscayne Capital.  Our clients sustained losses in their accounts due, in part, to Pershing’s alleged negligent supervision of transactions through its shared platform with Insight.

In relationships like this, the introducing firm and clearing firm have a clearing agreement, usually giving the clearing firm discretion to terminate any account, the responsibility to notify the introducing broker of suspicious activity, and to provide training or trained employees to look out for misconduct.  Usually the clearing firm has the responsibility to conduct regulatory monitoring of SEC Financial Responsibility Rules and to be directly involved in Anti-Money Laundering oversight.  Thus, with these heightened responsibilities, a clearing firm can move beyond its ministerial and routine clearing functions.

Continue reading ›

|

Many clients are asking, “can my arbitration hearing be done online by video?” The answer is yes.  FINRA allows for remote hearing services, via Zoom and teleconference, to parties in all cases.  In arbitration, all parties can agree as to almost anything and FINRA will allow it – such as who the arbitrators are, methods of picking arbitrators and/or how the hearing will happen.  The trick is to get your adversary to agree to alternative hearing methods or to get a sitting arbitration panel to order (force) your adversary to do it. A hearing can happen a number of ways with FINRA’s blessing, so long as it can be recorded.  Next week, we expect that FINRA will set out more formal guidelines and we will update this blog in a new post.

Zoom is a user-friendly video platform that provides high-quality and secure options for conducting remote hearings.  The platform allows parties, arbitrators, counsel, and witnesses to share documents and their screens with other participants.  Zoom is a viable option for parties unable to attend an in-person hearing. Malecki Law’s FINRA arbitration attorneys have experience and systems in place, ready to use this method for hearings in investor arbitrations, as well as industry employment and regulatory matters.  For many years, remote witnesses have participated and testified via video and telephonic methods.  It is really not a completely new concept.

Whether the hearing is remote or in-person, the prehearing process will not be hindered.  In customer dispute cases, where customers bring claims against their broker and/or broker-dealer, all aspects, except for an in-person hearing, are done remotely (such as filing the claims, resolving discovery disputes, and interviewing witnesses).  As a matter of fact, most claims against a broker and/or broker-dealer will settle before the hearing is scheduled to begin.

Continue reading ›

|

U.S. oil prices have been on a roller coaster ride over the last few weeks, at one point dropping below $0 for the first time in history to -$37.63 a barrel.  Oil has since rebounded from its subzero levels, but it remains questionable as to whether it can stay there.  It begs the question, what does this mean for investors and the U.S. oil market generally?

When prices cratered below zero, there were those that weighed in that it was nothing to worry about.  After all, the subzero price drop really had more to do with the expiration of contracts for oil futures.  It was explained that the current demand for oil is so low that producers would rather put their oil in storage and then sell it at some point in the future.  Placing additional strain on the market, the U.S. is running out of places to store it, with backlogs of oil tankers from Saudi Arabia out at sea and being turned away from U.S. shipping ports.

The U.S. has traditionally been a net importer of oil, but with the emergence of oil fracking, the U.S. at one point in 2019 surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil exporter.  This trend towards parity gave many observers of the U.S. oil market a feeling of confidence that the U.S. was a rising oil power, with President Trump going so far as describing the U.S. level of participation as “energy dominance.”  But as pointed out by professionals, increased participation in the market has little to do with control over the market.  For instance, the price of U.S. oil recently began to spiral down when Russia and Saudi Arabia started to increase their production levels.  U.S. oil prices teetered even further, and then below zero, when the global and U.S. economic response to the spread of Covid-19 began to take shape – every state being under some level of a stay-at-home order, with fewer cars on the road, fewer people travelling by air, and U.S. oil workers in Texas and elsewhere being laid off in the tens of thousands.  The pumps have stopped and oil companies are already declaring bankruptcy, with likely more to follow.

Continue reading ›

|

In March 2020 Oil prices had their worst day since 1991, plunging to multi-year lows. Tensions between Russia and Saudi Arabia and OPEC’s failure to strike a deal were escalated by the global economic slowdown spurred by COVID-19 resulting in oil’s worst day since 1991. With oil’s and the energy markets substantial price plunge the investment fraud attorneys at Malecki Law announce the firm’s investigation into potential securities law claims against broker-dealers relating to the improper concentration or oil and gas in portfolios, as well as the sale of energy related structured notes, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), and Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs).  Malecki Law has successfully prosecuted a number of these cases, including obtaining awards of attorneys’ fees and costs for investors.

Malecki Law is interested in hearing from investors who were recommended concentrated positions in oil and gas, as well as those recommended futures in Oil and Gas, MLPs or energy sector ETFs. Investors have lost millions in these products as the energy markets dropped.  As prices have continued to slide, losses have compounded. The energy market plunge is terrible for those whose financial advisors recommended that investors stay in and “ride it out.”

Unfortunately, many energy sector investments are risky investments that can be inappropriate for typical “mom and pop” investors, as well as those heading to or in retirement.  Unfortunately, there are some financial advisors and brokers that sell them to their clients anyway, without fully disclosing the potentially devastating risks.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

Last week, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) censured and assessed a fine of $50,000 against a national investment firm, Paulson Investment Company LLC, in connection with its sale and solicitation of private placement offerings to investors, in violation of Rule 506 of Regulation D and Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Among other things, Regulation D (more commonly known as Reg D) provides a legal “safe harbor” for investment firms to sell and market private placements, which are restricted securities (i.e., not traded on a public market and therefore carry more risk), to no more than 35 non-accredited investors, provided the firm has a pre-existing relationship with that investor.  The law is intended to prevent advertising and marketing to non-accredited investors – a legal term for those who do not have the requisite financial means to bear risk or who are unsophisticated and cannot appreciate the risks of purchasing an investment that is typically illiquid and cannot readily be traded on a national exchange.  In violation of Reg D, as well as FINRA Rule 2010 (requiring all member firms to conduct their business with high standards of commercial honor), FINRA found that Paulson solicited 11 individuals and sold six separate private placement offerings, totaling approximately $4.5 million, prior to having a pre-existing and substantive relationship with these investors.

Perhaps this barely registers as a newsworthy event; brokerage firms are censured and fined all the time by regulators, and for much more than $50,000.  Paulson is considered a small to medium-sized firm and it is registered in 53 states and territories.  The firm has been licensed as a member brokerage firm with FINRA since 1971 and has carried its registration as an investment advisory firm with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since 1983.  However, there are other recent developments at Paulson, particularly at its 40 Wall Street office in New York City, which should give pause to any investor or prospective retiree.

While Paulson derives more than 50% of its revenue from underwriting activities, it also engages in general brokerage activities by buying and selling investments for retail investors.  Among the brokers or registered employees at its Wall Street address, there are currently seven individuals with at least 3 or more public disclosures in the Central Registration Depository (CRD) known as BrokerCheck, a national database that tracks the background and disciplinary history of stockbrokers and other financial professional concerning customer complaints, regulatory or criminal events, and other financial disclosures (such as personal bankruptcy or tax liens).  This is significant, because, according to FINRA, most brokers have a clean history, with approximately 4% having been subject to at least one customer complaint, but only less than 0.41% with 3 or more BrokerCheck complaints.   Paulson’s Wall Street office alone employs seven such individuals with 3 or more disclosures.  But this is only scratching the surface.

Continue reading ›

|

Last week, a New York City panel of arbitrators with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) unanimously awarded an investor represented by Malecki Law over $200,000 in damages, plus attorneys’ fees of $67,000 and 5% interest dating back to May 2018.  The panel’s award found the New Jersey-based brokerage firm Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. to be liable in connection with the investor’s allegations of unsuitable investment recommendations, misrepresentations (NY General Business Law § 349), and failure to supervise its broker/financial adviser, Robert Ciaccio, who now has 7 disclosures on his public FINRA BrokerCheck disciplinary record (5 customer complaints and 2 regulatory censures).  The investment at issue was Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil 2X (otherwise known by its stock symbol UCO), which Mr. Ciaccio recommended to the investor but failed to disclose the numerous risks associated with this product, which belongs to a group of products known as Non-Traditional Exchange Traded Funds (or Non-Traditional ETFs).

FINRA, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other regulators have repeatedly warned firms against selling Non-Traditional ETFs because they are difficult to understand and carry risks that are not easily understood by the typical investor.  Unlike a simple investment like a stock or bond, Non-Traditional ETFs are fee-laden, structured products, built with derivatives and complex mathematical formulas, which, in “simplest” terms, offer leverage and are designed to perform inversely to an outside benchmark index (e.g., the S&P 500, VIX, etc.).  Noting the popularity of these high-risk, high-cost products, FINRA has issued numerous investor alerts and warnings to member brokerage firms about Non-Traditional ETFs, stating:

“While such products may be useful in some sophisticated trading strategies, they are highly complex financial instruments that are typically designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. Due to the effects of compounding, their performance over longer periods of time can differ significantly from their stated daily objective. Therefore, inverse and leveraged ETFs that are reset daily typically are unsuitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for longer than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets….  In particular, recommendations to customers must be suitable and based on a full understanding of the terms and features of the product recommended; sales materials related to leveraged and inverse ETFs must be fair and accurate; and firms must have adequate supervisory procedures in place to ensure that these obligations are met.”

Continue reading ›
Contact Information
11 Broadway #715
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 943-1233Fax: (212) 943-1238Email: jenice@MaleckiLaw.com
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Malecki Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design