New York Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

Banner picture of a key atop a balance sheet

EMPLOYEE RECOVERY $2M FOR A WHISTLEBLOWING TRADER

INVESTOR RECOVERY $7.2+M FOR PONZI SCHEME VICTIMS

INVESTOR RECOVERY $3.9M FOR TAX SHELTER FRAUD VICTIMS

BROKER PONZI SCHEME $7.4 MILLION

FAILURE TO SUPERVISE $4+ MILLION

BROKERAGE THEFT $3.8 MILLION

PONZI AT MAJOR FIRM $4+ MILLION

FAILED PRODUCT 28 EXPUNGEMENTS

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD MAX 30% BOUNTY

NO ACTION INSIDER TRADING CASE

NO ACTION EMBEZZLEMENT CASE

NO ACTION MARKET MANIPULATION

Successful, Strategic & Straight-Talking SECURITIES LAWYERS

START WITH A FREE CONSULTATIONReferrals Welcome

Representing investors, financial professionals, whistleblowers, witnesses
and commercial clients around THE US and the world since 1999

New York Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

Broker-Dealers May Be Held Liable, If Found To Have Misled Brokers About a Product

January 26, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Broker-dealers may be held liable to brokers who they threatened, misled, and/or lied to about the features and relative safety of an investment sold to their customers.

The stockbroker and broker-dealer relationship can be characterized as one of agent-principal, respectively. While many understand that an agent has a duty to his or her principal, frequently overlooked in this capacity is the duty of the principal to the agent.

In the securities world, it is known that a broker has certain and specific obligations to his firm both contractually and as agent. Yet many industry participants are unaware of the duties the firm can be said to have to its brokers beyond those bargained for in their employment contracts.

Brokers in Product Cases Can Be Victims Too

January 23, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

It is no secret on Wall Street today of what is happening in Puerto Rico in connection with the devastation of the UBS Puerto Rican Closed End Bond Funds. For many on the island and others in the 50 states, it is a whopper of a problem.

Any time there is a complete catastrophe with a product, such as there is in Puerto Rico, two sets of victims emerge.

The first is the investors who were likely misled and as a result have lost significant portions of their life savings.

NY Hedge Fund a Total Loss – Manager is “Truly Sorry”

January 23, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Various news sources, including the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNBC reported on January 22, 2015 that Owen Li, the manager of Canarsie Capital, published a letter to investors apologizing for the almost complete loss of money, stating he was “truly sorry.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, Canarsie, which was started at the beginning of 2013 and named for the Brooklyn neighborhood where Mr. Li grew up, had approximately $60 million at the beginning of this year, not including leverage. With borrowed money, the fund had approximately $98 million at the beginning of 2014, according to the Wall Street Journal.

According to the CNBC article, Mr. Li previously worked as a trader for Galleon Group, which collapsed amid allegations of insider trading, and the 2011 conviction and imprisonment of Raj Rajaratnam, Galleon’s founder.

White House Takes a Closer Look at Brokers Who Manage Retirement Accounts

January 23, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

A memo drafted by Jason Furman, one of President Obama’s top economic advisors, entitled “Draft Conflict of Interest Rule for Retirement Savings” was reportedly obtained by Bloomberg News.

The memo cites research that says investors may lose between $8 billion and $17 billion per year as a result of stockbroker/financial advisor practices, such as excessive trading commissions. That number, while astonishing, may even be an underestimate according to some people.

As a result, some on Capitol Hill are calling for stricter rules on Wall Street.

Investors in Diversified Lending Group May Be Able to Pursue FINRA Arbitration to Recover Losses After Class Certification Bid Was Rejected

January 20, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

Investors in Diversified Lending Group Inc., allegedly solicited by Tony Russon and other agents who worked under him at Russon Financial Services, may be able to sue Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in FINRA Arbitration after their California class action failed to obtain certification. In Los Angeles this past week, a California Superior Court judge in Cantor et al. v. MetLife Inc. et al. rejected the class certification bid from 212 investors whose claims were based on being the victims of an alleged Ponzi scheme said to involve fraudulent investments sold by agents of MetLife and subsidiary New England Life Insurance Co.

It has been alleged that MetLife and New England Life failed to properly supervise Mr. Russon and others while they were unlawfully convincing investors to place large sums of money with Diversified Lending Group Inc. According to reports, DLG was run by alleged Ponzi schemer, Bruce Friedman. Investors reportedly lost millions to the scheme, devastating themselves and their families.

However, all may not be lost for investors after the class failed certification. Investors may be able to pursue their claims in FINRA arbitration. Arbitration works similarly to court proceedings in many ways, and it is a forum in which victimized investors regularly recover losses resulting from Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent investments.

My Company Just Stiffed Me Out of My Bonus: Can I Sue?

January 12, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The financial industry is one built on commissions on the sales side and bonuses in the back office. While sales staff can often readily determine where they fall on the commission scale to determine their net payout, non-sales personnel do not typically have that luxury. Non-sales employees such as product engineers, traders and the like frequently receive performance bonuses that are not tied to any predetermined scale or schedule. Just this past week Citigroup and Bank of America reportedly shrunk their bonus pool for certain investment banking, trading and other securities related employees.

Such performance bonuses are usually understood that they are not above and beyond, but rather a necessary part of the employee’s annual compensation. Given that many bonuses may be multiples of an employee’s relatively small annual salary, not receiving a year-end bonus can be devastating for someone who was counting on it. Those who get “stiffed” out of their bonus may find themselves facing the year ahead with uncertainty. Worries like “How am I going to pay my mortgage? Or my child’s tuition?” can quickly become an unfortunate reality.

The first step someone in this position usually takes is speaking with their supervisor or a representative in their company’s HR department. If you have already done this, you were likely told that your bonus was “discretionary” and the firm did not owe you a penny.

Risks of Self-Directed IRAs and Third-Party Custodians Underlined

January 8, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), an organization comprised of State securities regulators, recently issued an Investor Alert regarding self-directed IRAs and the third-party custodians who service those accounts. In fact, the term “custodian” may be a misnomer, because generally the third-party custodian does not custody any property, and only reports information to the IRS, or from an issuer to an investor.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Self-Directed IRAs Investor Alert, close to $100 billion was held in self-directed IRAs, making them possible targets for fraud. According to the SEC, self-directed IRAs are tax-deferred Individual Retirement Accounts that carry a financial penalty for premature withdrawals before the requisite age.

Investors certainly need to be wary of self-directed IRAs holding investments recommended by their financial advisor or registered representative. Increasingly, the attorneys at Malecki Law are seeing self-directed IRAs used as a means to fraudulently take money from investors. While they can be used for legitimate purposes, Malecki Law has seen self-directed IRAs used to funnel money out of legitimate investments into other investments that may be fraudulent.

As Oil Prices Drop, Investors Lose Millions

January 6, 2015 | Malecki Law Team

As oil prices have continued to plummet and commuters across the country have regaled the resulting savings at the pump, investors in oil and gas related stocks, ETFs and master limited partnerships have been shocked by the crushing losses on their brokerage account statements.

With interest rates near all-time lows, some financial advisors with clients seeking income have strayed from the usual safe, reliable treasury bills, high-grade municipal bonds, and the like, instead recommending riskier investments in search of higher yield and more income. If such investment advisors recommended securities tied to the oil and gas sector, the last few months may have proven disastrous for their clients.

For example, financial advisors have been known to recommend “Master Limited Partnerships” (MLPs), which offer an investor the opportunity by into an oil/natural gas discovery, production and distribution enterprise. While MLPs offer typically higher rates of income than more traditional investments, investors are frequently not advised by their financial advisor of the significantly higher risks. Unfortunately, investors who were sold MLPs as safe, income producing investments, may only be learning of these previously hidden risks now that their investment has dropped significantly in value.

Merrill Lynch Fined For Fair Pricing and Supervisory Violations

December 16, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has announced that Merrill Lynch has been fined $1.9 million and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $540,000 for fair pricing violations as well as supervisory violations related to the purchase of certain distressed securities.

According to FINRA, more than 700 transactions in Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) Senior Notes with retail customers were affected over a two year period. FINRA found that “Merrill Lynch purchased MLC Notes at prices that were not fair to its retail customers.” Specifically, Merrill Lynch was found to have purchased the notes from retail customers for anywhere between 5.3% and 61.5% below market price, leaving customers significantly disadvantaged. Merrill Lynch would later selling those shared purchased from retail customers to other broker-dealers at the prevailing market price.

Another problem FINRA found was that Merrill Lynch failed to have an adequate supervisory system in place to detect whether the prices paid to retail customers on the MLC Notes were fair and consistent with prevailing market prices.

Citigroup Fined for ETF Prospectus Failures

December 15, 2014 | Malecki Law Team

Citigroup, Inc. has reportedly agreed to pay a $3 million fine for failing to properly deliver prospectuses to some customers. Specifically, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Citigroup failed to deliver prospectuses to customers who bought shares in one or more of 160 exchange traded funds (ETFs) in late 2010. It has also been said that Citi may have not delivered prospectuses related to more than 1.5 million ETF purchases between 2009 and early 2011. Citigroup was also fined by the New York Stock Exchange in 2007 for similar issues. FINRA, according to reports, said Citigroup failed to have proper procedures in place to supervise the process.

This is the second such snafu by a major American bank resulting in a fine this year. Just this past September, Morgan Stanley said that it would pay for the losses incurred by customers who purchased certain mutual funds, after the bank admitted that it failed to make prospectuses for those funds available on its website. In total, this is believed to have cost Morgan Stanley roughly $50 million.

Financial firms have significant duties to their customers – risk disclosure being one of the most important. Transparency, including risk disclosure, is critical to the efficient functioning of the markets. So, when major financial firms fail to fulfill their duties, meaningful fines should be imposed. Whether or not the fines in these instances are meaningful remains up for debate.