Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In recent years, discussions about the gender pay gap have risen to the surface in a litany of industries and in just about every corner of the country. For far too long, women have earned less than their male counterparts, despite having the same, or better, job titles, backgrounds, and experience levels. In his article for Investment News, titled “’Murky disparity’ stalls progress,” Bruce Kelly explored the issue of gender pay disparities specifically as it relates to women working in the financial services industry.

According to the article, women only make up about 20% of financial advisors nationwide, and only about a third of the seats on the boards of S&P 500 companies are held by women. Jenice Malecki, the female founder of the New York-based securities law firm, Malecki Law, was quoted in the article, stating there are still plenty of pay disparities between employees of different genders at various firms. Ms. Malecki explained that she still gets contacted by women regarding their struggle with the glass ceiling they encounter in their employment and pay discrepancies. She added that, while some improvements have been made regarding pay disparities at the largest firms, those issues remain at firms that have smaller offices in various parts of the country. Smaller firms and satellite offices for larger firms generally operate with less oversight and supervision than their larger counterparts, allowing gender pay disparities to persist. If you are a female financial service professional and have suffered from unfair treatment at the hands of your employer, you should consult an experienced securities law attorney, like the ones at Malecki Law.

Another added layer to the pay disparity dilemma is the issue of transparency.  Because of the lack of transparency, employees are unaware whether they are getting compensated equally as their peers. Few employees take the risk of complaining about this issue for various reasons, such as fear of retaliation or the loss of their job, so the lack of transparency remains, leading to the natural result of unequal pay. As Ms. Malecki explained in the article, many employees are not willing to challenge this unequal system, and as a result, numerous concealed disparities persist.

Malecki Law regularly receives calls from people distraught by having funds stolen from their cryptocurrency (“crypto”) accounts. Unfortunately, the scant regulation in the crypto space has yet to be fully tested. In fact, according to Reuters, “[the] illicit use of cryptocurrencies hit a record $20.1 billion last year…” However, if you lost money in your Coinbase account, you may have an avenue to recoup those funds. If funds were stolen from your crypto account, you need to contact a Crypto-Based Theft law firm in New York, like Malecki Law, to review your potential claim.

Interestingly, Coinbase markets itself as safe to customers by representing that it takes “extensive security measures” to ensure investors’ crypto investments are “safe.” Notwithstanding the supposed safety and security measures it has in place, Coinbase is reportedly prone to scams and hacks, which can result in theft from customers’ accounts. Crypto investors who have had funds stolen from their accounts often find themselves left with no way to get their funds returned to them, but there might be recourse. In January 2023, Coinbase settled with New York State’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) for $100 million due to cybersecurity, anti-money laundering (“AML”), and compliance-related issues. Specifically, Coinbase was ordered to pay $50 million in civil monetary penalties, and an additional $50 million “on further improvements and enhancements to its compliance program.” See In the Matter of Coinbase, Inc.

What is the relevant law providing for recourse? The Electronic Funds Transfer Act (“EFTA”) is a possible way to get your funds back.

Introduction

Sports betting is an activity that originated in ancient times. Back then, people wagered currency, food, or even livestock. Today, we usually wager cash or other securities. Federal government entities never regulated sports betting activities. Originally, there were no rules to govern the use of the funds that were generated from sports betting activities and, as a result, a lot of organized crime ensued. Over the last 40 years, the federal government attempted to regulate sports betting to curtail this increase in organized crime. If you think you have been subjected to securities fraud, you need a New York Securities Fraud Law Firm like Malecki Law to review your portfolio, at no cost.

These governmental attempts to regulate sports betting were often met with the question of whether these efforts overstepped the federal government’s constitutional authority. This question was constantly debated until 1992 when Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA). This act prohibited the states from sponsoring, operating, advertising, or promoting sports betting schemes. This act also applied, not only to the state level, but to individuals as well. Although Congress put its “foot down” on the issue of regulating sports betting, many states believed that PAPSA was an unconstitutional overreach of Congress’ authority. From 1992-2018, states continued to sponsor initiatives to regulate sports betting within their own jurisdictions. New Jersey was one of the states that were on the front lines of this fight and eventually, won its battle with the federal government.

The Securities and Exchange Commission governs private placements exemption from registration of securities on an exchange that are still sold to the investing public via Regulation D (Reg D). Reg D offerings are attempted by private companies or entrepreneurs because funding is faster at a lower cost than in a heavily reviewed and documented public offering. The problem many investors face are illiquidity, company failure and the end of promised distribution income.

Studies show that in the past 14 years, there have been $20 trillion in Reg D offerings, $7.7 trillion sold by brokers; $4.8 trillion of that has happened since 2016. Reg D Fraud Lawyers in New York at Malecki Law know the losses these investments can cause investors.

Studies estimate that close to 10% of Reg D offerings fail, meaning likely in excess of $5 trillion sold by brokers in the past 6 years may have failed.  Approximately one-third of Reg D offerings reportedly fail within the first six years and approximately 25% are sold by high-risk brokerage firms.

While the lack of a regulatory framework certainly makes it harder to recover fraudulent cryptocurrency losses than for traditional securities, falling victim to a cryptocurrency scam when investing through a broker or large firm regulated by FINRA or the SEC makes it easier.

This coming January, a federal court in New York’s Southern District is scheduled to sentence former Wells Fargo broker James Seijas up to twenty years in prison for his alleged role in facilitating a $30 million-plus Ponzi scheme.  Meanwhile, Seijas’ former firm, Wells Fargo Advisors, has been named in a Florida civil lawsuit brought by 73 affected investors who allege that the firm failed to supervise Mr. Seijas and failed to investigate his business dealings in Q3I LP, a cryptocurrency hedge fund that Mr. Seijas partly owned.  The fund was falsely marketed to investors with inflated returns from a cryptocurrency in which the investor money solicited was never even invested in.  While approximately $10 million was invested, most of the remainder was allegedly spent elsewhere on lavish cars, yachts, jewelry, and real estate, including a multi-million-dollar Florida home purchased by Mr. Seijas.

As is often the case when Ponzi schemes collapse, the investor money is typically already spent.  Fortunately in Ponzi cases that involve large financial firms like Wells Fargo, investors still have legal recourse to sue the employing firms, which have a duty under the securities laws to supervise the activities of their registered employees not only within the firm, but also to disclose and supervise their business activity conducted outside of and away from the firm.  According to Mr. Seijas’ BrokerCheck Report, Wells Fargo had not even disclosed Seijas’ outside business activity at Q3I to FINRA, which the plaintiffs in the civil action claim would have uncovered the scheme had Wells Fargo investigated or “done any minimal compliance review.”

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.

Retirees and other retail investors who lose money in the stock market often don’t know where to turn to.  In fact, many people are often surprised to learn that they can recover their investment losses, but this realization is often delayed or completely obscured by our understanding of the markets being informed by two competing views.  On the one hand, the daily news feed of a fluctuating market conditions us to believe that putting our hard-earned savings in the stock market has its risks, no different from a casino, so “buyer beware.”  On the other hand, investment banks and brokerage firms pump out a steady diet of ads that lead us to believe that their financial advisers can guide us with our investment choices to help manage the risks, and safely plan for our retirement years.

For the average investor, it is difficult to know whether one is truly receiving sound investment advice.  A booming market can often hide the flaws in a poorly constructed investment portfolio.  Flaws in investment strategy usually don’t reveal themselves until the markets show some extreme volatility.  We are seeing this of late in the wake of the Coronavirus fallout — the market goes down by a thousand points one morning, only to swing up by a thousand points the same afternoon.  This leads many investors to ask a logical question:  If the market went down by a certain amount and then recovered by the same amount or more, how come my portfolio did not rebound in kind?  Diagnosing what went wrong with your portfolio can be a challenge for the average person, and financial advisers and firms will be quick to distance themselves from any responsibility, often blaming the market and then encouraging you to just hold on.

It is our human instinct to trust the financial professionals whom we have built a relationship with over the years.  In a bull market, that relationship and bond of trust likely only grew stronger.  So we are reluctant to burn a bridge and walk away from a bad adviser, who in some cases may have given you tickets for a sporting event or improperly befriended you (it is a business relationship and your broker should not rely on your friendship).

Elite ivy league schools, Princeton and Harvard are the latest to join the growing number of universities offering personal finance training to their students, according to the Wall Street Journal. This past April, Harvard’s economic department led its first workshop covering major personal finance topics such as debt, credit, and retirement. Similarly, Princeton had its first annual Financial Literacy day, which offered information on basic financial terms, money management and planning for the future. The growing interest in including personal finance as part of educational curriculums coincides with America’s rising inequality and massive student debt, with over $1.5 trillion owed. Our investor fraud law team applauds the greater inclusion of personal finance in university education as an excellent starting point for life long self-education. Financial literacy empowers people to make smarter decisions rather than depending on someone who may not have their best interests in mind.

Everyone should have a basic understanding of proper saving, investing, debt management, budgeting and other basic financial concepts to maintain their livelihood. However, an alarmingly high number of Americans do not have a grasp on the financial fundamentals needed to make good decisions when handling their money. In their National Capability Study, FINRA found that around two-thirds of Americans have low levels of financial literacy based on their answers in a quiz. Of the 27,564 Americans participating in the study, most were unable to correctly answer questions pertaining to everyday financial concepts. The quiz questions included calculating interest rates and risk principles meant to provide insight into American financial decision-making. Interestingly, the study found that many respondents overestimated their knowledge.

There are steep consequences to not having adequate knowledge about everyday personal finance concepts. Without financial literacy, individuals will be more likely to make poor decisions with their money and be more susceptible to ill-intentioned securities industry employees. Studies across the board suggest that a significant number of Americans do not have the finances to deal with emergencies and medical expenses. According to the Federal Reserve, 4 in 10 adults would have difficulty covering an unexpected $400 emergency expense. Even more, at least a quarter of survey respondents had to forego a needed medical procedure from not having the sufficient funds to pay the bill.

Formerly registered broker James Bradly Schwartz is facing charges in a FINRA disciplinary proceeding for allegedly churning customers’ accounts while a registered broker employed with Aegis Capital Corp between August 2014 and May 2016. In this quite brief period, Schwartz allegedly executed around 535 trades in these customer accounts, many of which were unauthorized. The FINRA complaint alleges that Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder as well as FINRA rules 2010, 2011 and 2020. His alleged victims include a married couple, engineer, estate executer and a deceased individual. It is alleged that Schwartz even made unauthorized and excessive trades while one of the victims was dying in the hospital. Our securities law team is appalled to hear that possibly two unauthorized transactions were made in this customer’s account less than an hour after he passed away.

Churning is a fraudulent activity in which the broker makes excessive trades in light of the customer’s investment objectives. Common signs of churning in investment accounts are high broker commissions and significant investor losses. While Mr. Schwartz’s customers allegedly lost at least $660,000, Schwartz is reported as having pocketed over $194,000 sales credits and commissions, with annualized turnover rates ranged from 19.9 to 54.7 and annualized cost-to-equity ratios between 87% and 120%.  These percentages are above average for their proclaimed non-speculative investment objectives. In an alleged effort to conceal his purported nefarious activities, Schwartz allegedly traded on a riskless principal basis. Trading on a reckless principal basis does not explicitly report the commission costs on customer’s account statements. Our securities attorneys believe that if such measures to hide his activity is true, Schwartz most likely acted with intent to defraud, which fulfilling the churning legal requirement of “scienter”.

This current FINRA disciplinary proceeding is not the first time that Schwartz has been accused of fraudulent activity. In his 18 years in the securities industry, Schwartz accumulated 12 disclosures on his official CRD records, publicly available on Broker Check. Each of the nine customer disputes mentioned on Schwartz’s BrokerCheck reference at least one allegation pertaining to unsuitability, unauthorized trading, or churning. Our New York securities attorneys encourage investors to think twice before working with brokers that have that many negative disclosures mentioned on their records. Even before Schwartz was a registered representative with Aegis Capital Corp for three years in June 2013, he procured a seemingly shady record that should have raised many flags. It is a matter of grave concern that Schwartz may have continued to gain new employment after so many customers made some of the same allegations.

Three men are facings charges by the SEC and federal prosecutors over allegations of running a $364 million in one of the largest Ponzi Schemes found in the Washington D.C region. A federal grand jury indicted the three alleged perpetrators, Kevin Merrill of Maryland, Jay Ledford of Texas and Cameron Jezierski of Texas in a Maryland court. The charges leading to their arrest include wire fraud, identity theft, money laundering, and conspiracy, according to the U.S attorney’s office. They falsely represented themselves as financial professionals selling credit portfolios to unsuspecting investors. Meanwhile, most of the investor money was pocketed or used to pay existing investors. The alleged victims include individuals, family offices, and investment groups across the nation. Investment fraud attorneys see parallels between this case and the textbook example of a Ponzi Scheme.

Alleged Ponzi Schemers Kevin Merrill, Jay Ledford, and Cameron Jezierski allegedly ran a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud investors using consumer debt portfolios, according to the indictment. Consumer debt portfolios consisted of outstanding debt owed to consumer lenders like banks and student loan lenders. It is alleged that starting in January 2013, the three men collected investor money through offering investments in consumer debt portfolios. The investing victims were allegedly promised profits from successful “flips” or collections from consumer payments.  The indictment further alleges that the men shielded their fraudulent activity from investors through the creation of falsified documents and companies. The investors allegedly received collection reports, consumer debt portfolio overviews and sales agreements, bank wire transfer records and bank statements containing falsified information.

According to the indictment, most of the money was not invested but used to maintain their elaborate Ponzi Scheme, unbeknownst to the victims. A Ponzi Scheme is an investment fraud that solicits people to invest in non-existent investments. New investor money ends up being used to produce “returns” to existing investors to maintain the Ponzi Scheme and fund their lavish lifestyle. The Ponzi Schemer will distribute falsified documents containing inaccurate information about their nonexistent investments. The schemes will spread as investors bring more people on board based on their positive returns in the beginning. As more investors join, Ponzi Schemers, such as the three men receive more money to fund their lavish lifestyle. Notably, according to the indictment in the Baltimore case, $73 million of investor funds went to personal expenses that included high-end cars, expensive homes, and jewelry. Additionally, the accused allegedly spent the money gambling at casinos and other luxuries to sustain their lavish lifestyles.

Contact Information