Posts Tagged ‘Investing’

LPL Ordered to Pay $2.5 Million for Non-Traded REIT Sales

February 28th, 2013

Daniel Carlson is a securities litigation attorney in San Diego who specializes in recovering investment losses for his clients.

English: Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

English: Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In late December of last year, securities regulators for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an administrative lawsuit accusing LPL Financial, LLC of violating securities laws in regards to their sale of non-traded REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts). After an investigation of 587 transactions valued at $28 million dollars, agents found that LPL violated prospectus requirements in 569 of those transactions. The lawsuit demanded that LPL make full restitution to all Massachusetts investors who invested in the non-traded REITs.
On February 6th, 2013, the lawsuit settled when Massachusetts’ regulators ordered LPL Financial to pay up to $2 million dollars to investors and another $500,000 in fines. Massachusetts residents will be allowed to surrender their non-traded REIT’s back to LPL at the investors’ original purchase price, which was around $10 dollars a share.
REITs investments vary, many invest in commercial real estate such as strip malls and hotels. They are often promoted to investors with the sales pitch that the properties will increase in value. Of course, this may or may not happen. Many REITs are publicly traded, meaning that an investor can easily sell the interest if the investor needs to for any reason. A large problem for many investors with non-traded REIT’s, which do not trade on securities exchanges, is that they can be very difficult to sell and get out of. In addition, investors can continue being forced to contribute to the non-traded REIT for things like maintenance and repairs, depending on the language of the individual investment agreement. There are many non-traded REITs who stopped distributions long ago and left investors holding an interest that has little value as malls and hotels closed.
Not surprisingly, non-traded REIT’s generate higher fees and commissions for brokers. This can act as an incentive to unscrupulous agents to sell them to unsuspecting investors, especially seniors.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
While the above action only applies to residents of Massachusetts, LPL sold the non-traded REITs nationwide. Residents of other states, including California, would be well advised to seek legal consultation on their non-traded REITs sold by LPL and other advisors. Since many of the LPL REITs were sold beginning in 2006, it is important to pursue your claim as soon as possible. .
If you think that you have been the victim of investment fraud in regards to non-traded REITs sold by LPL or other companies, contact Daniel Carlson at the Carlson Law Firm today for a free consultation at 619-544-9300.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Investment Fraud | Comments (0)

Principal Protected Notes, Lehman Brothers and UBS Financial Services Arbitrations

June 14th, 2011
Head office of Lehman Brothers in Frankfurt, G...

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud, Stock Loss | Comments (2)

Performance Fee Thresholds for Investors to be Raised by the SEC

June 9th, 2011
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commi...

Image via Wikipedia

High net-worth investors will enjoy lower fees—that is, if the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) proposed changes to performance based fees proceed as planned.

The SEC intends to increase the dollar thresholds investors must meet before financial professional can charge them performance based fees. Currently, the thresholds are determined under two provisos of Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act: (1) brokers must have a reasonable belief that the client has a net worth of more than $1.5M, or (2) they must manage a minimum of $750,000 worth of investments for the client.

According to investment recovery lawyer Daniel Carlson of Carlson Law Firm, APC the current Act contains inherent risks for the average investor because it could encourage brokers to take big risks in order to make bigger fees: “If a high-risk investment fails, brokers don’t experience the financial consequences personally, but investors, particularly retirees, can end up losing everything.”

The SEC says it will issue an order revising the test for allowing performance fees to (1) a reasonable belief that the investor has $2 million in net worth or (2) $1 million of assets under management. In addition, the SEC order will exclude an investors primary residence from consideration in the 2 million dollars net worth evaluation, add a method for factoring inflation into the dollar amount tests.

If you are a high net-worth investor and have been exposed to unsuitable risk, you may have a claim for recovery of your losses.  Contact Carlson Law at 619-544-9300 for a free consultation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Fiduciary Duty Breach, Securities Law, Uncategorized | Comments (1)