Securities Fraud Lawyer Blog

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

According to a June 6, 2011 article by James Vicini for Reuters (“Halliburton securities fraud lawsuit reinstated”) the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Halliburton in 2001 by pension and mutual fund investors on behalf of all buyers of Halliburton stock between June 1999 and December 2001.
Claimants in the case charge that Halliburton fraudulently overstated its engineering and construction revenues as well as the positive impact its merger with Dresser Industries would have on the company. At the same time, claimants allege, Halliburton misled investors regarding the company’s liabilities due to asbestos.
Because of these misrepresentations, claimants argue, Halliburton stock was artificially inflated and, when the company revealed the true state of its affairs, its stock fell dramatically, causing financial loss to investors.
The lawsuit had formerly been thrown out of court by a Texas federal judge who ruled that evidence of loss causation, a link between the claimants’ losses and the company’s actions, was insufficient. And an appeals court upheld that decision.
Their rulings created confusion among appeals courts regarding the necessity of claimants to prove loss causation early in the litigation process.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the judge and the appeals court, ruling that stock fraud plaintiffs do not have to prove loss causation simply in order to pursue a class-action lawsuit. That’s good news not only for claimants in the Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton case, but also for injured investors throughout the nation who’ve had their suits quickly dismissed due to insufficient initial proof of loss causation.

There are over 210 possible different credentials available to financial advisors.  Very few of those credentials are regulated and some mean little or nothing.  It is important for every investor to do their homework and really get to know their financial advisor, their credentials, licensing and experience.  Simply because your advisor has many credentials or friends have recommended them is not enough.

While the CFP (Certified Financial Planner) and CFA (Certified Financial Advisor) designations require course work, exams and continuing education many certifications in the financial industry do not.   So what should an investor do in order to select a financial advisor? There are a number of things that can be done.

1. Everyone can go and look up the record of the advisor they are considering using on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s BrokerCheck service.  The BrokerCheck service will give you important information about the advisor you are considering; such as if that advisor has had prior complaints, been sued before, where he or she has worked in the past and for how long,  the reason they left a prior employer, in addition to information about licensing and credentials.
2. Next, look at the information from state securities regulators at the North American Securities Administrators Association.
3. Also, review the National Association of Insurance Commissioners website regarding the advisor you are considering using.

A good question to ask a prospective advisor regarding their credentials is what percentage of people who apply for the credential obtain it?  Also, feel free to ask about the qualifications of the instructors for the credential program touted.  As an investor interviewing a financial advisor, you should be careful if the advisor is put off or unable to answer such simple questions.

If you have already fallen victim to an unqualified investment advisor and suspect an incidence of investment fraud, please call the Carlson Law Firm at (619) 544-9300 or contact a San Diego securities fraud attorney today.