Problems at Broker Dealers

Potential Claims for Investors in Merrill Lynch Structured Notes

August 30, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

The investment and securities fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors who have purchased structured notes or other complex products from Merrill Lynch or its parent company, Bank of America.

According to a recent SEC press release, “Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay a $10 million penalty to settle charges that it was responsible for misleading statements in offering materials provided to retail investors for structured notes linked to a proprietary volatility index.” The issues surrounding the notes stemmed, at least in part, from disclosure of the fees paid by investors and the fee structure related to the “volatility index” to which the notes were linked, per the SEC.

For example, the notes reportedly were subject to a 2% sales commission and 0.75% annual fee. According to the SEC, for investors to earn back their original investment on the maturity date, the index would need to increase by at least 5.93%. The SEC also alleged that the offering materials failed to “adequately disclose” the 1.5% execution factor, which was an additional cost.

FINRA Fines UBS Financial Services, Inc. $250,000 For Mutual Fund Supervisory Failures

August 18, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

Generally speaking, it’s usually not a good thing when when a company is fined for similar conduct multiple times.

Just this month, UBS Financial Services, Inc. submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 2013038351701 (AWC) that detailed a $250,000 fine for failures in supervision regarding sales of mutual fund shares to investors. According to the AWC, for a four year period, from approximately 2009 to 2013, UBS failed to provide sales charge waivers to customers entitled to waivers through rights of reimbursement. The AWC detailed that this conduct created a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade).

Mutual fund class A shares generally require the investor to pay an upfront sales charge, except where the mutual fund waives the charge, such as when the mutual fund is purchased with a right of reimbursement. The AWC detailed that investors sometimes purchase class A shares with right of reimbursement when they reinvest proceeds from earlier redemptions of Class A shares in the same fund or fund family within a specific time period.

Product Spotlight: AR GLOBAL REITs

July 13, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

Malecki Law’s team of investment attorneys are interested in speaking with those who invested in AR Global REITs. Industry analysts and consultants believe that investors in a number of AR Global-sponsored real estate investment trusts (REITs) are in danger of having their distributions cut, per InvestmentNews.

Specifically, investors in American Realty Capital Global Trust II, American Realty Capital New York City REIT, American Finance Trust, American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust, American Realty Capital Retail Centers of America, Healthcare Trust, and Realty Finance Trust may be at risk, according to the report.

The problem is said to stem from the MFFO (modified funds from operations a/k/a cash flow) at seven of AR Global’s REITs. The MFFO of these seven funds reportedly failed to match or exceed their distributions. In simple terms, this would mean that the funds failed to take in as much as they were distributing. Such a situation has the potential to mean big trouble for investors including distribution cuts and rapid decline in asset value – i.e., less income and large losses to the principal.

BROKER REPORT: Financial Advisor Geri Delfino

July 12, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

The securities fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors who have complaints against stockbroker Geri Delfino. Ms. Delfino had been employed and registered with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a broker-dealer, from October 2009 to November 2015, according to her publicly available BrokerCheck, as maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Per her BrokerCheck report, Ms. Delfino was previously employed by Ameriprise Advisor Services, Inc. from 2006 to 2009, Advest, Inc. from 2000 to 2006, and A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. from 1991 to 2000.

Ms. Delfino was fined and suspended for 20 days from association with any FINRA member broker-dealer by FINRA according to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 2015047790401 (AWC). According to the AWC, Ms. Delfino violated NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b) (Discretionary Accounts) and FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) for:

BROKER REPORT: Clark Gardner Barred by the SEC and FINRA

June 27, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

The securities fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding former stockbroker Clark Gardner. According to his BrokerCheck report maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), Mr. Gardner is no longer FINRA licensed to sell investments. He has also reportedly been the subject of no less than six reportable events, including customer complaints and regulatory investigations.

Per FINRA, Mr. Gardner was permanently barred by both FINRA and the SEC from the financial services industry. The FINRA investigation of Mr. Gardner reportedly surrounded the conversion of $243,000 of customer funds. Per his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Gardner also served as an agent for a real estate investment company without required approval of his firm.

Mr. Gardner has been the subject of customer complaints as well. Customers have alleged that Mr. Gardner breached fiduciary duties and recommended unsuitable investments. According to FINRA records, one customer dispute is presently pending, while another was settled for $263,000.

FINRA’s 2016 Priorities: FINRA is Searching for Sales Practice Issues

February 11, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

Brokers beware; FINRA is watching your firm, and you. Becoming embroiled in a regulatory inquiry or investigation can become a major and costly headache and impediment to registered representatives’ business.

In January 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released its annual list of priorities, showing what sorts of sweeps they may perform, and investigations they may bring, in the coming year. brokers working in the securities industry should be aware of the priorities that are relevant to them, including those having to do with sales practice.

FINRA’s 2016 Priorities make clear that they intend a top-down review of the following areas, which may lead to firm-wide or broker specific investigations, including:

Investor Recovery Options As Tortoise Capital Advisor Funds Suffer Losses

January 29, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

The securities and investment fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors in Tortoise Capital Advisors and explore their potential options for recovering their losses.

The Kansas-based Tortoise Capital Advisors is a “privately owned investment manager . . . that primarily provides its services to high net worth individuals . . . and caters to corporations, pooled investment vehicles, investment companies, and pension and profit sharing plans . . . typically invest[ing] in [the] energy and infrastructure sector,” per Bloomberg Business.

Among Tortoise’s portfolio of funds, a number of them declined between 17% and 36% in 2015 alone, per Morningstar.

BROKER REPORT: M&T Securities Financial Advisor Christopher T. Fenton

January 26, 2016 | Malecki Law Team

The securities fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors who have complaints against stockbroker Christopher T. Fenton. Mr. Fenton is currently employed and registered with M&T Securities, Inc., a broker-dealer, working out of the Buffalo, New York office, according to his publicly available BrokerCheck, as maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. He was also previously registered with Pruco Securities Corporation.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Fenton has been the subject of three customer complaints while employed by M&T Securities, Inc. The latest customer complaint led to a FINRA arbitration proceeding, according to BrokerCheck records. The BrokerCheck records reveal that the customer alleged that misrepresentations, breach of fiduciary duty and recommendation of unsuitable investments were made. The dispute resulted in an award to the customer, according to the BrokerCheck report.

A review of the award, publicly available from FINRA’s website, discloses that the claimant also alleged that the causes of action related to an M&T Portfolio Architect Account and Rochester Fund Municipals. The award also disclosed that Mr. Fenton and his firm were found to be jointly and severally liable to the claimant for the award, as well as a portion of fees the claimant incurred in bringing the claim.

LPL Financial Settles Disputes at Tune of $3.2 Million, More Fines May Be Coming

September 24, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

LPL Financial LLC has agreed to pay two more settlements, and these are big ones. On September 23, 2015, it was announced that LPL Financial entered into two settlements for disputes arising from the firm’s supervisory system over recommendations of alternative products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). This time, LPL has agreed to pay $1.425 million to 48 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to a news release put out by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). Separately, it was reported that LPL agreed to pay Massachusetts and Delaware Attorneys General $1.8 million for placing 200 clients into leveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs). To top it off, it appears New Hampshire regulators continue to seek approximately $3.6 million from LPL arising from the sale of non-traded REITs, according to the Think Advisor article.

LPL Financial is no stranger to substantial fines for supervisory failures tied to alternative products. In May 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined LPL Financial $11.7 million over failing to properly supervise complicated products such as nontraditional ETFs. Malecki Law also noted in March 2014 that LPL was fined $950,000 by the over its supervisory failures stemming from recommendations of non-traded REITs and other illiquid investments. At that time, we posited the question whether the fines being assessed are large enough to deter future bad conduct? Time will tell. Malecki Law continues to represent and recover money for investors that suffered losses as a result of unscrupulous recommendations in non-traded REITs and other alternative products such as leveraged ETFs.

Non-traded REITs are particularly problematic and unsuitable products for many investors. Brokers like to recommend them because the products typically pay a high commission, but non-traded REITs are illiquid and may cause a substantial loss to the investor’s principal payment when buyers on secondary markets will only accept the products at a drastic discount to the actual price initially paid.

BROKER REPORT: Cambria’s Robert H. Potter, Discharged and Barred

September 24, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The investment fraud attorneys at Malecki Law are interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding former stockbroker Robert H. Potter. According to his BrokerCheck report maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), Mr. Potter has been permanently barred by FINRA. He has also reportedly been the subject of no less than three customer complaints.

Mr. Potter has reportedly been barred by FINRA for his failure to cooperate with an investigation into allegations that Mr. Potter comingled customer funds with his own personal funds. Per FINRA, Mr. Potter was discharged from Cambria Capital in August 2015, after the firm questioned the validity of certain transactions involving Mr. Potter and his customers.

In 1997, Mr. Potter was the subject of a customer complaint alleging unauthorized, excessive trading, per FINRA. FINRA records indicate that the customer recovered more than $66,000 as a result of their complaint.