Articles Tagged with Miami Florida Stockbroker Misconduct Attorney

Charles McInnis of Miami, Florida submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) to the Department of Enforcement of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in connection with a contingent private placement offering of senior secured notes issued by a Columbian energy company. FINRA found Mr. McInnis did not understand the specific requirements of two exemptions from registration applicable for the private placement offering and failed to ensure that his customer’s purchases of the notes complied with the requirements of either of the exemptions.

From July 2009 through his resignation in August 2013, Mr. McInnis acted as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Compliance Officer for CP Capital Securities, Inc. (CP Capital). During this time period, Mr. McInnis was delegated responsibility to supervise CP Capital and its associated persons’ participation in a minimum contingency private placement offering. A private placement is generally an offering between only a select few investors in order to raise capital without registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Private placement offerings must satisfy certain conditions (safe harbors) to avoid registration with the SEC. For this offering, the Notes were unregistered securities exempt from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act pursuant to the Rule144A safe harbor and the Regulation S exemption.

Continue Reading

Louis Anthony Tinoco Jr., a former Registered Representative with Miami, Florida-based Barclay’s Capital Inc. (Barclay’s), submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he consented to, but did not admit to or deny, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) sanctions and findings that he provided a false account summary to his customer in order to conceal the losses incurred due to his trading activity.

According to FINRA, Louis Tinoco provided his customer with a chart that supposedly reflected the monthly value of the customer’s Barclay’s account. The chart, prepared by Mr. Tinoco, overstated the actual value of the customer’s account by more than $200,000. Additionally, Mr. Tinoco failed to respond to FINRA’s request to appear and provide testimony in connection with their investigation, which is a violation of FINRA Rule 8210. Louis Tinoco, of Miami Beach, Florida, was permanently barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Continue Reading

Miami, Florida resident Patrick McGrath III submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) to the Department of Enforcement of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) with the purpose of settling the alleged violations that he borrowed funds from his member firm’s client and made false statements while under investigation.

McGrath entered the securities industry in 1984 and has been associated with several FINRA-regulated broker dealers throughout his career. In April 2009, McGrath became associated with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer) as a registered representative. However, in January 2014, Oppenheimer filed a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) reporting that McGrath failed “to timely finalize arrangements to repay loans he received” from a Oppenheimer customer. Continue Reading

Jose Lozano, a broker formerly employed with Miami, Florida-based ITAU International Securities, Inc. (ITAU International), submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he consented to, but did not admit to or deny, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) findings that he affixed customer signatures to wire transfer instructions to facilitate the transfer of funds for the purchase of property.

According to FINRA, Jose Lozano, of Miami, Florida, had two of the three customers who jointly held ITAU International accounts sign a Letter of Authorization (LOA) that included wire instructions which authorized the transfer of $150,000 from a third-party broker-dealer to the seller of the property. The third-party broker-dealer declined the transfer, however, due to the transfer being sent to a third-party recipient. Continue Reading