This arbitration arises out of a Santander stockbroker’s unsuitable investment decision with regard to the Claimants’ Santander investment account which was reinvested and overconcentrated in Puerto Rico, resulting in the Claimants suffering substantial monetary losses.
Continue ReadingDid David Miller Cause You Investment Losses? David Miller of Columbus, Ohio was named in a FINRA complaint that alleged he made negligent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with customers’ purchases of UITs. FINRA alleged that Mr. Miller recommended 140 UIT purchases totaling over $5.3 million in 129 customer accounts without having a reasonable basis to make the recommendations, in violation of FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010. During the relevant time period, Mr. Miller was registered as a General Securities Representative (GSR) with The Huntington Investment Company (Huntington). The FINRA complaint originated after Huntington filed a Form U5 disclosing that Mr. Miller had “violated industry standards of conduct.” Upon investigation, FINRA found that Mr. Miller engaged in a pattern of recommending unsuitable UITs without having a reasonable basis for the recommendations, causing his customers to lose a total of $1,019,656.83. According to FINRA, Mr. Miller did not “undertake reasonable diligence to ensure he adequately understood the features and risks of the UITs before recommending them.” Mr. Miller allegedly recommended UITs with portfolios consisting of the common stock of closed-end investment companies (known as “closed-end funds” or “CEFs”). UIT prospectuses disclosed that some CEFs invested in below investment-grade securities and speculative junk bonds which subjected them to greater risks. Additionally, FINRA found that Mr. Miller failed to disclose material facts to eight customers in connection with separate UIT purchases resulting in losses totaling $171,464. For violating FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010, Mr. Miller was barred from association with any FINRA member, ordered to pay $799,161.07 in restitution and pay a fine of $15,161.54. Do You Need An Attorney Who Sues Stockbrokers Who Made Unsuitable Investment Recommendations? Ohio has thousands of stock brokerage firms and investment advisory offices. With so many stock brokerage firms and investment advisory offices, comes the potential for their stockbrokers, financial advisors, and other representatives to recommend unsuitable securities investments in light of the customers stated investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial condition, time horizon and other important factors and to engage in many other kinds of stockbroker fraud and stockbroker misconduct which violates Federal and Ohio securities laws and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules and stock brokerage firms policies and procedures. Experienced Unsuitable Investment Lawyers Who Handle FINRA Arbitrations Throughout Ohio and Nationwide. Are you an Ohio investor who has suffered significant losses in your stock brokerage and investment accounts? Did they recommend unsuitable securities transactions or strategies? Broker-Dealer attorneys always argue to the arbitration panel the securities transactions (buy, sell or hold) and/or strategies to engage in short selling, trade on margin, use securities based lending and complex option or futures trading strategies were suitable for the customer. They routinely misrepresent the customers’ investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition on account documents. Suitability claims can be based upon the stockbroker or investment advisor’s fiduciary duty, duty to use reasonable care, or FINRA Rule 2111. If you believe that your stockbroker or investment advisor made unsuitable recommendations, you need a skilled securities arbitration attorney who knows all the investments, investment strategies and stockbroker tricks of the trade. More importantly, you will need the representation of an experienced, top rated and nationally recognized FINRA arbitration attorney — a lawyer who knows FINRA rules and procedures and how to handle these FINRA arbitration cases and other complex legal issues. By hiring a top rated securities attorney like Robert Wayne Pearce with over 40 years of experience on both sides of the table in FINRA arbitration proceedings, you will clearly see that Attorney Pearce doesn’t just handle cases—he aggressively represents investors and is one of the best securities attorneys to recover your investment losses for unsuitable recommendations and all types of stockbroker fraud and stockbroker misconduct in FINRA arbitration proceedings! At The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., we represent investors with securities breach of fiduciary duty claims and many other kinds of securities law and investment disputes in FINRA arbitration and mediation proceedings. We handle a wide range of practice areas besides breach of fiduciary duty, such as claims involving securities misrepresentation and stockbroker fraud, negligence, failure to supervise, and unsuitable recommendations by stockbrokers and investment advisors. Attorney Pearce and his staff represent investors throughout Ohio, and across the United States on a CONTINGENCY FEE basis, which means you pay nothing – NO FEES-NO COSTS – unless we put money in your pocket after receiving a settlement or FINRA arbitration award. Se habla español Free Initial Consultation With An Experienced Attorney Serving Ohio Residents in FINRA Arbitrations Involving Unsuitable Investment Claims The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. are highly experienced lawyers who successfully handle unsuitable investment claims and other investment disputes in FINRA arbitration proceedings, and who work tirelessly to secure the best possible result for you and your case. For dedicated representation by an attorney with over 40 years of experience and success in all kinds of securities law and investment disputes in FINRA arbitrations serving Ohio citizens, contact the firm by phone at 561-338-0037, toll free at 800-732-2889 or via e-mail.
Continue ReadingAustin Wayne Morton, a previously registered broker with Edward D. Jones & Co. L.P. (Edward Jones), was named a Respondent in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) complaint alleging that he converted $36,000 from his former customer, an elderly man suffering from dementia. According to the FINRA complaint, Austin Wayne Morton, of Spiro, Oklahoma, allegedly kept $22,000 in cash that his elderly customer, whom Mr. Morton apparently knew since childhood, had withdrawn from his closed IRA account. Mr. Morton is alleged by FINRA to have used those funds for his own benefit.
Continue ReadingDavid Lockey, a stockbroker formerly employed with SWS Financial Services, Inc. n/k/a Hilltop Securities Independent Network, Inc., submitted an Offer of Settlement to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in which he was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000, suspended for six months, and ordered to pay disgorgement of portion of his commissions of $46,447.38 and restitution to customers. Without admitting or denying FINRA’s allegations, David Randall Lockey, of Carrollton Texas, consented to the entry of findings that he recommended and engaged in a pattern of unsuitable trading of open-end mutual funds (OMFs), unit investment trusts (UITs), and/or closed-end funds (CEFs) in the accounts of four customers. According to FINRA, David Lockey engaged in unsuitable short-term trading and switching in OMFs and/or UITs in the accounts of four customers. In two of those four customers’ accounts, Mr. Lockey is alleged to have made unsuitable trades and switches in CEFs. FINRA stated that David Lockey executed 37 trades in OMFs and/or UITs in the customers’ accounts in which they were held for less than one year. Those products are generally intended to be held long-term in order to off-set their fees. He also allegedly executed 23 unsuitable transactions in CEFs in two of the four customers’ accounts.
Continue ReadingDavid Michael Miller, a former registered representative with Huntington Investment Company (Huntington) was named a respondent in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) complaint alleging unsuitable Unit Investment Trust (UIT) recommendations. The complaint alleges that Mr. Miller, of Columbus, Ohio, had no reasonable basis to recommend UIT purchases which totaled approximately $5.4 million in 129 customer accounts. Further, the complaint alleges that Mr. Miller failed to exercise the necessary due diligence with respect to the UIT recommendations. Specifically, the complaint states that Mr. Miller allegedly did not read the prospectuses, did not know that the underlying closed-end funds were leveraged, and did not know that certain of the closed-end funds invested in junk bonds and that the UIT prospectuses advised that investing in such bonds should be viewed as speculative and subject to numerous risks, including higher interest rates, economic recession, possible downgrades, and defaults of interest and/or principal. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Miller negligently misrepresented and omitted material facts to customers in connection with their UIT purchases totaling $964,000. Also, Mr. Miller allegedly misrepresented to this particular customer that the UIT investment was “safe,” and that if the customer hold the investment until termination of the trust, he would receive his entire principal investment plus the 5% interest payment received during the term of the trust.
Continue ReadingUBS Wealth Management and UBS Puerto Rico have been ordered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to pay $1 million in damages to a 66 year old investor. According to the arbitration panel, UBS brokers encouraged the investor to keep and hold 100% of his investment portfolio in risky Puerto Rico closed end bond funds despite the fact that the investment was extremely over-concentrated and completely unsuitable for him. According to the arbitration award, this conservative, frugal investor lost $737,000 of his nearly $1 million portfolio. When the investor approached UBS with his concerns about the decline in the value of his investment portfolio the UBS branch manager allegedly stated that “even a skinny cow could give milk.” The FINRA arbitration award went on to note that UBS provided the investor with brochures and monthly statements in English, despite the fact that he spoke very little English and had requested the documents be sent in Spanish. Unfortunately, this investor did not know that UBS brokers were allegedly under pressure to sell these risky closed-end bond funds and to encourage investors to hold the bonds even when their value collapsed in the fall of 2013.
Continue ReadingIn 2002 and 2003, the client inherited what she understood to be bonds and mutual funds from her parents’ UBS PaineWebber accounts when they passed away. The client did not know the true nature or risk of the investments that she had inherited and held in her account. She thought she actually owned bonds that would always pay interest until they matured. Neither UBS Puerto Rico nor her UBS Puerto Rico Stockbrokers ever gave her a full explanation of what type of investments she really owned, which were closed-end funds and that what she actually owned was shares of the closed-end funds (like common stock shares) that only paid dividends at the manager’s discretion. She also didn’t know that these were leveraged, illiquid investments which were very risky.
Continue ReadingNASD Rule 2310 known as the “Suitability Rule” provides that a stockbroker who recommends the purchase or sale of a security to have “reasonable grounds” for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the customer based on the facts disclosed by the customer relating to his investment objectives and financial situation and needs. Apparently, Mr. Bruno recommended an unsuitable closed-end bond fund for a customer who listed his investment objective as “preservation of capital” and his risk tolerance as “conservative.” The customer was retired and needed the monies deposited into his account within the next year and a half. By recommending the investment in a closed-end bond fund which was subject to volatility based on interest rates, the customer was exposed to unnecessary losses if he needed to liquidate the funds at a time when they had declined in value. This recommendation was inconsistent with the customer’s conservative risk tolerance and objective to preserve capital that he needed the next year.
Continue ReadingDid Securities America, Inc. Cause You Investment Losses? Securities America, Inc. submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in which they were censured, fined $100,000, ordered to pay $235,979.77 plus interest in restitution to customers and required to establish and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls. The sanctions were based on findings that Securities America allegedly failed to reasonably supervise representatives’ recommendations and lacked a reasonable supervisory system in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. Securities America, which became a FINRA member firm in 1981, is headquartered in La Vista, Nebraska and has approximately 4,200 registered representatives and 2,400 branch offices throughout the United States. According to FINRA findings, Securities America allegedly failed to reasonably supervise its registered representatives recommendations of a mutual fund, LJM Preservation & Growth Fund (LJM) and permitted the sale of the funds. The findings state that the firms representatives sold more than $616,000 in the mutual fund to customers without conducting reasonable due diligence and without a sufficient understanding of its risks and features, including that the fund pursued a risky strategy. The FINRA findings further state that the fund eventually liquidated and closed after an extreme volatility event which caused the value to drop 80 percent, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses for the customers. NASD Rule 3010 and its successor, FINRA Rule 3110, set forth FINRA members’ supervisory obligations. Subsection (a) requires that each member shall establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable NASD and FINRA Rules. Subsection (b) requires that each member shall establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and the activities of its associated persons that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with the applicable NASD and FINRA Rules. Violations of FINRA Rule 3110 and NASD Rule 3010 also constitute violations of FINRA Rule 2010. Do You Need a Nebraska Mutual Fund Investment Dispute Attorney? Are you a La Vista, Nebraska investor who has suffered significant losses in your stock brokerage and investment accounts? Did your Nebraska stockbroker or investment advisor misrepresent or mislead you about a Mutual Fund investment or make an unsuitable recommendation that you invest in a Mutual Fund or otherwise mismanage your investment account? If so, you will need to have representation from an experienced, highly rated, and nationally recognized FINRA securities arbitration law attorney—an attorney who understands Mutual Fund investments and stockbroker abuses such as when they are making unsuitable investments in Class A, B, or C shares of other classes of mutual funds to increase their commissions, missing breakpoints to generate higher commissions, switching of mutual funds that are intended long term investments outside of a mutual fund family to generate more commissions for them. Free Initial Consultation With Experienced Mutual Fund Investment Attorneys Serving La Vista, Nebraska Residents In FINRA Arbitration Proceedings At The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. we represent investors in all kinds of securities, commodities, and investment law disputes in FINRA, AAA and JAMS arbitration and mediation proceedings. Attorney Pearce and his staff represent investors throughout Nebraska, and across the United States on a CONTINGENCY FEE basis which means you pay nothing – NO FEES-NO COSTS – unless we put money in your pocket after receiving a settlement or FINRA arbitration award. Se habla español For dedicated representation by Attorney Pearce with over 40 years of experience and success in all kinds of securities, commodities, and investment law disputes serving Nebraska citizens, contact the firm by phone at 561-338-0037, toll free at 800-732-2889 or via e-mail.
Continue ReadingDid Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. Cause You Investment Losses? Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in which they were censured, fined $400,000, ordered to pay $3,134,354.82 in restitution to customers and required to establish and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls. The sanctions were based on findings that Cambridge allegedly failed to reasonably supervise representatives’ recommendations and lacked a reasonable supervisory system in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. Cambridge, which became a FINRA member firm in 1995, is headquartered in Fairfield, Iowa and has approximately 4,400 registered representatives and 2,500 branch offices throughout the United States. According to FINRA findings, Cambridge allegedly failed to reasonably supervise its registered representatives recommendations of a mutual fund, LJM Preservation & Growth Fund (LJM) and permitted the sale of the funds. The findings state that Cambridge representatives sold more than $18 million in the mutual fund to customers without conducting reasonable due diligence and without a sufficient understanding of its risks and features, including that the fund pursued a risky strategy. The FINRA findings further state that the fund eventually liquidated and closed after an extreme volatility event which caused the value to drop 80 percent, resulting in millions of dollars in losses for the customers. NASD Rule 3010 and its successor, FINRA Rule 3110, set forth FINRA members’ supervisory obligations. Subsection (a) requires that each member shall establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable NASD and FINRA Rules. Subsection (b) requires that each member shall establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and the activities of its associated persons that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with the applicable NASD and FINRA Rules. Violations of FINRA Rule 3110 and NASD Rule 3010 also constitute violations of FINRA Rule 2010. Do You Need an Iowa Attorney for a Mutual Fund Investment Dispute? Are you a Fairfield, Iowa investor who has suffered significant losses in your stock brokerage and investment accounts? Did your Iowa stockbroker or investment advisor misrepresent or mislead you about a Mutual Fund investment or make an unsuitable recommendation that you invest in a Mutual Fund or otherwise mismanage your investment account? If so, you will need to have representation from an experienced, highly rated, and nationally recognized FINRA securities arbitration law attorney—an attorney who understands Mutual Fund investments and stockbroker abuses such as when they are making unsuitable investments in Class A, B, or C shares of other classes of mutual funds to increase their commissions, missing breakpoints to generate higher commissions, switching of mutual funds that are intended long term investments outside of a mutual fund family to generate more commissions for them. Free Initial Consultation With Experienced Mutual Fund Investment Attorneys Serving Fairfield, Iowa Residents In FINRA Arbitration Proceedings At The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. we represent investors in all kinds of securities, commodities, and investment law disputes in FINRA, AAA and JAMS arbitration and mediation proceedings. Attorney Pearce and his staff represent investors throughout Iowa, and across the United States on a CONTINGENCY FEE basis which means you pay nothing – NO FEES-NO COSTS – unless we put money in your pocket after receiving a settlement or FINRA arbitration award. Se habla español For dedicated representation by Attorney Pearce with over 40 years of experience and success in all kinds of securities, commodities, and investment law disputes serving Iowa citizens, contact the firm by phone at 561-338-0037, toll free at 800-732-2889 or via e-mail.
Continue Reading