Regulatory Audits & Investigations

SEC Charges Malcolm Segal Of Running Ponzi Scheme From His Pennsylvania Office

July 1, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced today that is has formally charged Malcolm Segal with running a Ponzi scheme and stealing investor money from his office in Pennsylvania. According to his BrokerCheck Report, Mr. Segal was formerly a registered stockbroker with Aegis Capital Corp. and Cumberland Advisors. Mr. Segal reportedly was a partner in J&M Financial and the president of National CD Sales.

According to the SEC, Mr. Segal allegedly sold what he called certificates of deposit (CDs) to his brokerage customers under the false pretense that he could get them a higher rate of interest than was then available through banks. Mr. Segal allegedly represented to his victims that his CDs were FDIC insured and risk-free. Mr. Segal reportedly defrauded at least fifty investors out of roughly $15.5 million.

As his scheme was unravelling, Mr. Segal allegedly began to steal from his customers’ brokerage accounts by falsifying fraudulent paperwork such as letters of authorization. This fake paperwork reportedly allowed Mr. Segal to withdraw funds from his customers’ accounts without them knowing. Ultimately, in July 2014, the scheme collapsed completely. Mr. Segal has since been barred from the securities industry by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Broker Dealer Financial Services Corp. Fined By FINRA Over Nontraditional ETF Sales and Improper Supervision

May 21, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Broker Dealer Financial Services Corp. (BDFS) based out of West Des Moines, Iowa just learned the hard way that nontraditional Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are risky, speculative investments and are not appropriate for all investors.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined BDFS $75,000 for 1. failing to properly supervise the sale of leveraged ETFs to its customers, 2. not properly training its sales force about the appropriate use of leveraged ETFs in customer accounts, and 3. not adequately supervising nontraditional ETF activity in customer accounts.

According the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent, from March of 2009 to April of 2012, BDFS “recommended nontraditional ETFs to more than 200 customers” without “a reasonable basis for believing that the nontraditional ETF transactions it recommended were suitable for any investor.” BDFS’s ETF related misconduct was said to have violated NASD Rules 2310 and 3010 along with FINRA Rules 2010 and 2111.

FINRA Bars Former Wells Fargo Broker Nicholas Hansen Harper

May 15, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has permanently barred Nicholas Hansen Harper. Harper worked in Wells Fargo’s Topeka, Kansas branch office from 1997 through 2013 according to his BrokerCheck Report.

Per the Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent filed with FINRA, Harper resigned from Wells Fargo on August 7, 2013, shortly after the firm’s compliance department began to review trading in the accounts of certain of his customers. The timing of Harper’s resignation can only serve to raise suspicions.

Presumably suspicious of Harper, in March of 2015, FINRA requested Harper provide testimony to FINRA investigators pursuant to Rule 8210. More than one month after the request was issues, FINRA staff spoke to Harper’s attorney, who purportedly indicated that Harper would not be appearing before FINRA to provide testimony at any time.

FINRA Looks To Come Down Harder On Brokers And Firms Making Unsuitable Recommendations to Customers

May 13, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

What should happen to a financial advisor (FA) if they provide unsuitable and inappropriate investment advice to their clients?

First, if the unsuitable advice given to a customer caused losses to that customer’s account, the customer has the option to sue the FA in FINRA arbitration. Investors can recover some or all of their losses due to the bad advice – usually against the firm that the FA worked for in a failure to supervise case. Arbitration is common for aggrieved investors, and this law firm has successfully represented numerous investors who have been the victims of unsuitable investment advice from an FA.

But what about punishing the broker, so he or she doesn’t do it again to someone else? Can they go to jail? If not, what does happens?

JP Morgan Investigated By SEC and Other Authorities Over Sale of Proprietary Products

May 8, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Is it okay for a broker-dealer to use bonuses and other incentives to encourage its financial advisors to steer customers into “in house” and proprietary funds that may not be right for them just to generate more fees for the firm? Or does this practice improperly (and illegally) incentivize the financial advisor to betray his customer’s trust for his and his firm’s benefit – thereby compromising the integrity of the relationship?

The SEC is asking just those types of questions about the practices of JP Morgan, according to recent reports. Per InvestmentNews, the SEC and other regulators have subpoenaed and otherwise inquired of JP Morgan about the firm’s sales practices. Specifically, the reports indicate that the focus seems to be on conflicts of interest related to the sales of mutual funds and other proprietary products to customers. The SEC is reportedly looking into whether JP Morgan breached duties to its customers and/or applicable laws by unfairly and/or illegally marketing its in house investment products.

The sale of in-house proprietary products can be a very lucrative business for large “wire houses” as they are known in the industry. Wire houses include such familiar names as JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, etc. By performing all of the structuring, issuing, lending and selling for their proprietary funds internally, a wire house is able to capture all of the associated fees, commissions and charges. Therefore, it is important that regulators review the sales of such in house products, to make sure they are being sold fairly and legally to customers.

LPL Financial Settles Supervisory Failure Charges with FINRA for $11.7 Million

May 6, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

LPL Financial agreed to pay more than $11 million to settle charges in connection with a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) investigation into the firm, as recently reported in the Wall Street Journal. According to the Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent filed with FINRA, LPL Financial was alleged to have supervisory failures, related to non-traditional products such as exchange traded funds (ETFs), variable annuities, and non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs).

LPL allegedly failed to deliver over 14 million trade confirmations in addition to failing to properly monitor and report trades. Of the amount collected, $1.7 million is reportedly restitution for customers, while LPL Financial was fined an additional $10 million.

Vigilant supervision over the sale of non-traditional investments is especially important because public customers are typically unfamiliar with the products being sold to them. In addition, many non-traditional products have higher commissions (meaning a bigger incentive for a broker to sell such products) than their more traditional counterparts.

What is an 8210 Request and What Do I Do If I Get One?

April 29, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Back in February, I wrote a piece on what to do when you get an SEC subpoena. SEC subpoenas are only part of the securities regulatory landscape. While the SEC can and will subpoena anyone – registered or unregistered – who is potentially the target of or may have helpful information related to an SEC investigation, FINRA registered representatives are additionally subject to FINRA inquiries via FINRA Rule 8210.

FINRA Rule 8210 allows FINRA investigators to essentially “subpoena” a person – i.e., require that they testify on the record and/or compel them to produce documents – without actually ever getting a subpoena. Instead, FINRA uses what is commonly (and not surprisingly) referred to as an “8210 Request.”

8210 Requests are similar to SEC subpoenas in their function, but differ slightly in practice. FINRA investigators will regularly tell parties that FINRA is not the government, but merely a private member organization. Why is that significant? Some may say that it’s significant because FINRA cannot actually “require” someone to come testify under a threat of contempt or jailtime; that your response is, in a way, “voluntary.”

MetLife Broker Andre Paul Young Suspended By FINRA

April 16, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

A Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent was recently accepted by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement from Andre Paul Young. Mr. Young was accused of borrowing more than $200,000 from customers in violation of FINRA rules while a registered representative of MetLife Securities, Inc. Specifically, Mr. Young was accused of violating NASD Rule 2370, FINRA Rule 3240 and FINRA Rule 2010.

It was alleged that from June 2010 through June 2012, Mr. Young borrowed roughly $208,000 from two MetLife Securities customers for personal expenses, including those associated with the settlement of certain estate matters. Per the AWC, the customers issued five checks from their MetLife Securities brokerage account payable to a bank account number for an account owned by Mr. Young.

Per FINRA, this conduct was in violation of MetLife Securities policies and FINRA Rules. FINRA Rule 3240 (and formerly NASD Rule 2370) expressly prohibits brokers from borrowing funds from customers. In addition to those violations, Mr. Young allegedly failed to timely and completely respond to requests for documents and information in violation of FINRA Rule 8210.

FINRA Censures And Fines Merrill Lynch For Financial Industry Rule Violations

February 23, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority recently censured Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith and fined the firm $100,000, sanctions to which the firm consented. These sanctions relate to Merrill Lynch’s alleged violation of several industry rules, including FINRA Rules 4370 and 2010. FINRA alleged that Merrill Lynch “failed to send required regulatory disclosures and notices in connection with the opening of approximately 12,989 [f]irm accounts” from early 2010 to early 2011.

This does not appear to be Merrill Lynch’s first such brush with the regulators over related violations. In 2012, Merrill Lynch was fined $2.8 million by FINRA amid allegations the firm overcharged customers more than $32 million due to an inadequate supervisory system in place at the firm. FINRA also specifically alleged that the Merrill Lynch failed to send necessary business continuity plans to more than 16,000 customers and failed to send required margin risk disclosure statements to nearly 7,000 customers over several years.

Margin can be a risky proposition for investors because it involves borrowing money from the firm for the purpose of “leveraging” positions in the account. While margin can boost profits in the portfolio, it can also magnify losses. For this reason, margin is typically unsuitable for most investors, especially those is with limited investment experience and those who cannot afford to incur significant losses.

SEC Requests “Massive” Amount of Documents from Girard Securities Concerning Supervision of Registered Persons at Dispersed Branch Offices

January 29, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

InvestmentNews reported on January 29, 2015 that Girard Securities, Inc. is going to be audited by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and has requested what the Girard Securities Chairman and Chief Executive characterized as a massive request for data. As InvestmentNews reported, the request is not routine, and instead concerns supervision of registered persons who work at Girard Securities’ approximately 136 branch offices. Other firms have apparently received these data requests from the SEC as well.

According to the InvestmentNews article, Girard Securities agreed to be purchased by RCS Capital Corp., then run by Nicholas Schorsch. According to the article, the deal is nearing approval from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In December 2014, Mr. Schorsch resigned as chairman of American Capital Properties, Inc., then resigned as executive chairman of RCS Capital Corp.

Girard Securities recently accepted and consented to findings by FINRA that it did not have sufficient systems and procedures to guard against preventing third party fraudulent wire transfer activity. In the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) No. 2012033033901, it was described that Girard had approximately 360 registered individuals in 136 branch offices. It also states that two clients who had recently gotten divorced had their email hacked.