Securities Fraud Lawyer Blog

Image via Wikipedia

A recent class action suit against Lehman Brothers as well as an enforcement proceeding against UBS Financial Services by New Hampshire has encouraged investors to hire investment recovery litigators and pursue claims against firms selling Lehman Brothers principal protected notes in an attempt to recoup their financial losses. According to New Hampshire’s claim, UBS engaged in broker malpractice by failing to disclose the risky nature of principal protected notes (PPNs). As a result, New Hampshire investors lost 2.5 million.
Principal Protected Notes
Principal protected notes (PPNs) are structured investments that have been around for years. Like all structured investments, PPNs connect CDs and fixed income notes to the performance of currencies, commodities, equities and/or other assets. Structures investment products are legitimate investments, and principal protected notes are a legitimate form of them.
Structured investments may have partial or full principal protection. Some pay a variable sum at their maturity. Others pay by coupons that are connected to a particular index or security. Given their risk and return reports, structured investments in general are appropriate for the portfolios of many investors.
In short, they are unsecured promissory notes connect to referenced securities, and as such they are not without risks. Unfortunately, according to claimants, investment firms committed broker malpractice by marketing these products to customers as safe investment alternatives.
Marketing of PPNs to Retail Investors
Beginning in 2005, PPNs became a particularly popular type of structured investment for retail customers. Noting their increased sales to non-institutional customers, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) expressed concern that brokers were committing a breach of fiduciary duty by marketing principal protected notes to retail customers as “conservative” investments with “predictable current income.” In fact, the agency issued a notice to brokerage firms in September of 2005 that clear guidance regarding the risks involved in these financial products should be given to retail customers.
PPNs, Lehman Brothers & Bankruptcy
When PPNs mature, investors typically receive a return on the principal from the borrower. In this case, the borrower was Lehman Brothers. Unfortunately for investors, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, even the principal on these notes became unprotected. Lehman’s PPN obligations on the notes were unsecured–and behind secured notes in the creditor bankruptcy line up.
The Case Against Lehman Brothers
Unsurprisingly, investors are now seeking to recover their financial losses. Although the specific allegations of claimants vary, all assert that Lehman Brothers, selling brokerages like UBS Financial Services and others, committed broker malpractice by falsely marketing PPNs as conservative investment product alternatives.
Specifically, claimants allege, these PPN products were depicted as 100 percent principal protected if investors held them to maturity.
Brokers also presented the PPNs as principal protected if the indices underlying them held their value. Furthermore, firms and brokers did not warn customers of the risks involved in investing in PPNs, nor did they warn them about what would happen if the underlying backer of the notes, Lehman Brothers, defaulted. Customers were also not made aware of the Lehman Brothers’ decline and that its fall could affect their investment’s value, making it in effect worthless.
It’s also been alleged that firms continued to push PPNs after Bear Stearns collapse, a failure which should have been a clear indicator or “red flag” of the risks involved in investing in banks that hold large numbers of subprime mortgages. It’s also been alleged that firms pushed PPNs on retail customers at a time when they themselves were reducing their PPN holdings. The accuracy or falsity of these claims has yet to be determined. But if firms did indeed recommend PPNs while reducing their own holdings, litigators are likely to claim broker fraud rather than simply failure to disclose.
Did your financial advisor mislead you into investing in PPNs, causing you to suffer financial loss as a result? If so, you need the advice of an investment recovery counsel. Contact Carlson Law in San Diego at 619-544-9300 today for a free consultation.

In April 2011, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. was ordered by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) panel to pay damages of more than $54M for its misconduct in managing and promoting a wide range of investment products, including MAT/ASTA municipal bond hedge funds.

The three claimants will receive 100 percent of the compensatory damages they sought, which total $34,058,948, as well as 8 percent interest and $17,000,000 in punitive damages. Furthermore, Citigroup must pay claimants’ attorney fees, expert witness fees, hearing session fees and the nonrefundable portion of the claimants’ filing fee.

The settlement process focused on the company’s poor handling of MAT/ASTA municipal arbitrage funds, including MAT Two, MAT Three and MAT Five; MAT Finance; ASTA Three and ASTA Five; and ASTA Finance. Without regard to their high-risk nature, the funds were promoted as alternatives to municipal bond portfolios. Furthermore, Citibank falsely characterized them as having strong risk-control features. FINRA found that Citibank not only falsely marketed MAT/ASTA funds, but that it also seriously mismanaged them.

If you believe that Citigroup Global Markets mishandled your investments but have yet to file a claim, don’t delay. Contact an experienced investment recovery lawyer in San Diego at Carlson Law today. It may not be too late to recoup your financial loss and stand up for your rights as an investor.

Related articles

• FINRA Fines Wells Fargo for Slow Delivery of Prospectuses (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Ordinarily, mutual funds are long-term investments. And ordinarily, brokers who switch shares among funds with comparable investment goals have committed a violation if the switch serves little or no legitimate financial purpose other than earning him or her a fee. Such switching not only increases the fees investors pay, but it also puts them at risk of increased tax liability.

Often, investors are unaware that their broker has increased their investment costs and risks by “switching” their mutual funds. Mutual funds are intended to be held for a substantial length of time, not traded like individual stocks. To do so results in considerable charges that don’t apply to common stocks. Furthermore, the majority of mutual funds, by their very nature, may already be diversified and do not need to be traded unless there’s been a major change in the allocation of their assets or the fund manager’s market focus is narrow to the extent that it increases investor risk.

Mutual fund switch transactions are a violation of FINRA acceptable sales practices. If you believe you may have experienced financial loss due broker switching, contact an investment recovery lawyer at Carlson Law. Your broker’s misconduct may constitute a viable claim on your part for damages.

How do you buy mutual funds?
To purchases shares (portions) in a mutual fund, investors may go through stockbrokers, banks, insurance agents and other investment professionals. They can even buy portions from the fund directly.
When you buy shares, you pay the current net asset value (NAV) for each share. You also pay any sales charge (sales load).

Are mutual funds easy to sell?
Yes, any mutual fund will buy back your shares during regular business hours. Within seven days, you’ll receive the NAV for each share sold minus any sales load.

Are mutual funds a risk-free investment?
No. Just as individual stocks fluctuate in value, so does the portion price of mutual funds. Therefore, the value of your investment will sometimes be more, sometimes less than its original price.

How do you choose the mutual fund that’s right for you?
To determine if you should invest in a mutual fund, acquaint yourself with the major types that are available.

Mutual funds may be categorized by their asset types. Most are either bond funds, stock (equity) funds or money market funds. However, numerous variations exist within these three categories. In fact, some mutual funds combine several types of investments. An asset allocation fund, for instance, is a type of mutual fund that combines all three asset classes—funds, stocks and money markets. Some mutual funds, funds of funds, invest in other mutual funds rather than in individual securities.

Mutual funds may also be categorized according to the investment strategy that they follow. Funds that attempt to reduce tax liability, for example, are called tax-efficient funds. Some mutual funds are managed actively while others try to imitate an index.

Every mutual fund has its own rewards and risks. In general, the greater the potential return, the greater the risk of loss.

When you’re looking for a mutual fund, be sure to shop around, comparing mutual funds of the same type with each other. If you find a mutual fund that interests you, carefully examine its prospectus. Think about the goals, risks, and expenses involved in investing. Is the mutual fund’s aim in keeping with your own? Are the risks acceptable to you?

If you feel overwhelmed by your investment options, do what many other investors do: consult a financial expert. If you were advised to invest in funds that were higher risk than was explained to you by your financial advisor, you may have a claim to recover your losses. Contact Carlson Law for a free consultation.

Mutual Funds 101
Mutual funds are sold by companies that pool money (capital) from many investors. This capital is then invested in bonds, stocks and/or other securities. Investors in the fund all have shares, and these shares represent a part of the fund’s holdings.

If you’re interested in making an investment, a mutual fund may or may not be the right choice for you. Like all investments, they come with many different levels of risk. They aren’t insured or guaranteed by financial institutions or government agencies, even those sold by banks. However, because mutual funds are often a mix of various bonds and/or stocks, the risk is some mutual funds is “spread out” or diversified. That said, some mutual funds are not diversified, and it is important to understand that a mutual fund investment can be very high risk, or very low risk, depending upon the holdings and the goals of the fund. Each fund must be looked at individually to determine if it is appropriate for the investor, in the same manner as any individual stock or other investment.

Mutual funds are managed by professional fund managers. These managers invest the money investors contribute into individual stocks, bonds and other securities. And because mutual funds buy and sell securities in large amounts at one time, they usually incur fewer fees, thus operating in a cost-efficient manner. However, it is very important to carefully examine prior to purchase all of the fees and costs associated with the fund you are purchasing as they can vary greatly and take a significant bite out of your return.

If you feel your financial advisor placed you in inappropriate mutual fund investments and/or failed to disclose the fees and costs associated with investment or that the underlying holdings of the fund were beyond your tolerance for risk, you may have a case. Call Carlson Law at 858-544-9300 for a free consultation.

Making financial investments with money from a loan on your home is generally a poor, high risk activity. And it’s a particularly poor idea when the investment is a private placement that’s speculative and unable to be liquidated easily or traded publically. Brokerage houses that encourage clients to take out extra mortgages or home equity loans in order to buy risky investments in limited partnership and private placements are often held liable for their customers’ financial loss.

In 2009, the Ameritas Investment Corporation was fined $100,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for not supervising one of its brokers whose deceptive financial recommendations to customers included home refinancing to purchase securities. The broker was fined $60,000 by FINRA, and her license was suspended for five years.

If your broker encouraged you to take out real estate loans in order to invest in any private securities, limited partnerships or other investments, you should seek the advice of a securities attorney. Contact Carlson Law for a free consultation.

Related articles

• Medical Capital Investor Awarded $400,000 by Finra Arbitrator (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)
• Citigroup Must Pay Claimants $54M in Damages in MAT/ASTA Investment Fund FINRA Arbitration (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)
• Regulator Sanctions Brokers Over Private Investments (dealbook.nytimes.com)

There is a continuing problem for investors relating to the improper sale or switching by investment advisors of variable annuities that can be annuity fraud and result is annuity losses. Many older investors have been counseled by their brokers to replace their old variable annuity contracts with new ones. In many cases it may be unsuitable and result in the creation of fees and commissions for the advisor, surrender charges for the investor and new long term non-liquid investment. Furthermore, adding insult to injury, in some cases advisors have neglected to exercise due diligence by assuring that the exchange of those annuities was tax free under Internal Revenue Code (Section 1035).

If done properly, exchanging variable annuities should be tax free.
In a tax-free 1035 exchange, the owner of a variable annuity replaces the current contract with a new contract. No tax is paid on the investment gains or income from the old variable annuity. If, however, an investor gives up his or her old annuity for cash and then uses that money to buy a new annuity, he or she will have to pay taxes on the old annuity.

Variable annuities can be fraught with hidden costs.
An additional problem with variable annuities is that exchanging and replacing them often results in surrender charges. Customers must pay these charges when annuities are surrendered before the end of their given surrender period. Usually, that’s six to eight years from the purchase date. Because surrender charges reduce the amount of money available for reinvestment in a new annuity, they also lower an investor’s potential return. And if that weren’t bad enough, the new replacement annuity has a new surrender period, so funds are ordinarily locked into place for another six to eight years.

In general, seniors shouldn’t invest in them.
Because of the risks, high fees and surrender charges associated with variable annuities, they’re poor financial choices for most investors over 65. In fact, California law requires that selling agents prove that an annuity replacement is of “substantial benefit” to their senior clients.

FINRA oversight of variable annuities is increasing.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has recently implemented new rules regarding broker recommendations to purchase and exchange variable annuities, making variable annuities one of the few securities products with its own suitability requirements. These new rules require that brokerage firms put supervisory procedures into practice for the detection and prevention of “inappropriate exchanges.”

Should you contact a securities attorney?
If you’re an older investor whose financial advisor has advised to exchange or replace variable annuities, resulting in a loss in your annuity either fraom annuity fraud or simple negligence, call Carlson Law for a free consultation at 619-544-9300. Furthermore, if your broker failed to facilitate a tax-free 1035 exchange of variable annuities, contact our firm. Your broker may be liable for any or all fees, taxes and financial loss you incurred as a result.

Related articles

• AG Edwards & Sons Pays $775,000 to Settle Improper Conduct Charges (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)

Image via Wikipedia

In early May 2011 Robin Carnahan, Missouri’s Secretary of State, announced that A.G. Edwards & Sons LLC will pay $755,000 in order to settle charges that they improperly handled annuity sales. The investment firm, now a part of Wells Fargo Advisors, purportedly sold variable annuities to elderly customers sans proper documentation.

The State of Missouri Investigates AG Edwards
An investigation by the Securities Division of the State of Missouri into the conduct of AG Edwards began after a client reported “irregularities” following the liquidation of his variable annuity.

Upon investigation, it was discovered that the firm sold variable annuities to elderly investors without maintaining proper records of the transactions. Because proper documentation was lacking, the annuity sales were not in compliance with the company’s own policies and Missouri state law.

Investors Are Compensated
Approximately 31 investors were impacted by this lack of due diligence on the part of the brokerage firm. In compensation, AG Edwards will pay them $381,993. They will also pay for the costs of the investigation and contribute $375,000 to the Missouri State Investor Education and Protection Fund.

In an April 2011 press release, Carnahan said she appreciated AG Edwards’ willingness to cooperate with state officials. Moreover, she urged those who fear for the safety of their investments to seek help.

California Law Protects Elderly Investors
Did you know that California law requires brokers to provide compelling reasons for the exchange or sale of variable annuities belonging to clients 65 or over? If you feel that your variable annuities have been mishandled by a broker, contact Carlson Law.

Related articles

• AG Edwards & Sons Pays $775,000 to Settle Improper Conduct Charges (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)
• Variable Annuity Exchanges & Replacements: Did You Get Shafted by Your Broker? (securities-fraud-lawyer-blog.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Desert Capital REIT, a non-traded realty investment trust founded in 2004, was created to fund short-term, high-interest rate mortgage loans. During the real estate boom, brokerage houses sometimes committed broker fraud by marketing these “hard money” loans as safe investments. Because they could earn as much as 13.4 percent interest, the REIT appealed to investors. But safe? In fact, these types of investments are illiquid and can be among the riskiest real estate investments you can make.

When the real estate market plummeted, investors were stunned by the annihilation of the REIT’s market value. Losses were hefty. In 2007, Desert Capital lost $21M. In 2009, it lost $11M. And it the third quarter of 2010, it lost a staggering $26M. By the time that the company announced the likelihood of its imminent liquidation, investors were left with virtually worthless non-dividend-paying, illiquid investments they couldn’t trade on any exchange.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Desert Capital and its relationship with CM Capital and CM Securities, brokerage firms that not only shared Desert Capital CEO Todd Parriott, but also marketed the REIT.

Do you hold investments in Desert Capital?  Did you purcuase on the advice of CM Capital or CM Securities? If so, contact Carlson Law at 619-544-9300 for a free consultation. We may be able to help you recover your investment loss.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

House Republicans have begun legislation that would rollback pieces of the financial reform law known as Dodd-Frank. According to an Investment News article by Mark Schoeff (“Sen. Durbin Says Dodd-Frank Rollback Would Kneecap Regulators”), Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin intends to defeat or delay the legislation.

Hobbling Dodd-Frank means less investor protection against investment loss and securities fraud. Durbin, who chairs a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, says it would also leave the U.S. vulnerable to another financial crisis.

In order to pay for implementation of Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a funding increase of $74 million through September 2011—hardly enough to cover the costs. To compound the SEC’s funding predicament, the Republican House majority recently endorsed a $212 cut in the SEC’s budget for 2012.

Mary Schapiro, SEC Chairman, warned senators that such cuts would cripple the agency’s efforts to regulate financial organizations that pay more for their business’s technology operations than the SEC spends on its entire budget.

For Wall Street lobbyists and the firms that employ them, Republican efforts to derail Dodd-Frank and ax the SEC budget are good news. For American investors, it could mean another wave of investment loss.