Investment (Photo credit: LendingMemo)
How does an investor limit the risk of possible investment losses in unregistered securities? The Securities Act of 1933 requires that securities offered or sold to the public in the US must be registered by filing a registration statement with the SEC. The Securities Act was created to protect investors from the fraudulent buying and selling of securities, manipulation and misrepresentation. There are, however, numerous exemptions to the rule requiring registration of securities with the SEC prior to being offered for sale. Three such exemptions to SEC registration are contained in Regulation D. The exemptions are somewhat complex, but qualifying as an “accredited investor” is important to all three. Generally, to qualify as an accredited investor you must be “a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person.” Such investors are generally considered under the exemptions to have the ability and insight to determine the risk involved, evaluate the consequences and be able to endure greater financial risk than the average investor.
Private placements are one investment opportunity often sold to accredited investors. A private placement is a private non-public offering of a company’s securities. These placements are usually illiquid as they are not publicly traded, and can therefore be difficult to sell if necessary. To sell securities as a private placement there must be a formal document (private placement memorandum) that explains the investment opportunity and the risks of possible investment loss along with limited information concerning the issuer and management. It may be difficult to predict how the private placement will fare over time because many of these private placement securities are issued by companies that are not obligated to file financial reports.
Limited partnerships are another investment product often sold to accredited investors under Regulation D exemptions to SEC registration. In a limited partnership there are both general and limited partners. Limited partners are generally involved only as investors. Limited partners share in both the profits and losses; however they do not participate in the daily running of the business. The liability for the partnership’s debt is contingent on the amount of capital or property contributed to the partnership. If the company is sued or files bankruptcy, limited partners are not responsible for the debts or liabilities.
When considering investing as an accredited investor in a limited partnership or private placement you must take into consideration that your money may be tied up for a long period of time and that fraud and sales abuses involving inaccurate statements are not uncommon. Also you should discuss with your financial advisor, and confirm in writing, the exit options from these types of investments, the level of risk involved, exactly how they operate under the agreements, as they can differ greatly, and if the investment risk is suitable for you considering your total investments. Your financial advisor should be knowledgeable and have read the issued information on the investment. However, you must still consider that investing in unregistered securities is risky and you could lose some or even all of your money.
If you feel you’ve been a victim investment fraud or negligence, contact Carlson Law Firm at 619-544-9300 or find us on the web at www.securities-fraud-attorney-san-diego.com
Tags: accredited investor, financial loss, Investment Fraud, investment loss, investment recovery lawyer, Limited partnership, Private placement, Regulation D, Securities Act of 1933
Posted in Investment losses | Comments (0)
On Thursday, November 1st, 2012, FINRA Dispute Resolution issued guidance to attorneys who represent investors and those who represent non-FINRA investment advisers as to the availability of the arbitration and mediation services of the FINRA forum to resolve their disputes.
FINRA, The Wall Street funded watchdog, has long acted as the arbitration system in which investors and securities brokerages could, and were often forced by contract, to settle their legal disputes. However, until now, whether that system was open to registered investment advisers and individual investors was dubious and unclear.
Despite the fact that using FINRA arbitration might be more cost effective than going to court, most investment advisers are opposed to the changes. David Tittsworth, executive director of the Investment Adviser Association questioned the ruling, noting that there are few registered investment adviser account agreements requiring clients to forgo court and instead arbitrate any disputes.
Those favoring the changes say that using FINRA will be more cost effective than going through the expensive process of court and that for those investment adviser contracts which currently require arbitration, FINRA offers a much better financial deal than other arbitration services.
While the guidance provides some clarity as to how lawyers and investors can proceed, one thing to note is that FINRA does not regulate investment advisers. Therefore, FINRA can only do so much. Even with a ruling that goes against an investment adviser, unlike rulings against brokers, FINRA lacks the authority to suspend the adviser for failure to pay.
Carlson Law Firm is reviewing potential claims against investment advisers. To speak with an attorney regarding your, please call Carlson Law Firm 619-544-9300 for a free consultation.
Tags: Arbitration, Dispute resolution, Financial adviser, FINRA, Investment, investment recovery lawyer, Investor, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, Wall Street
Posted in Securities Arbitration | Comments (0)
Once again, it is record setting time at the SEC. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Wednesday, November 14, 2012, that they have set yet another record in 2012 in their enforcement actions against broker-dealers, investment advisers, and senior executives involved in fraud.
Touting examples of their ramped up efforts, the SEC highlighted two cases – one against Oppenheimer Funds, which to have misled the investing public in funds that suffered dramatically during the financial crisis, and another against UBS Financial Services of Puerto Rico and several of its executives for disclosure violations in regards to the sales of mutual funds.
Despite the news of record setting enforcement activity, it is rare for damaged investors to ever be made whole as the result of an SEC enforcement action. While the SEC may impose fines and penalties against the brokers and companies, individual investors are left with no other avenue but to pursue their grievances in private litigation either in court or binding arbitration.
At Carlson Law Firm, we are experts in protecting investors’ rights. We offer a free evaluation of your case and based on that review, a variety of fee agreements. We can help you recover what the SEC cannot, with the goal of making you whole again.
Tags: investment recovery lawyer, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Posted in Securities Litigation | Comments (0)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today accused local San Diego radio talk show host and bestselling author Ray Lucia of misleading potential investors in regards to his investment strategy called “Buckets of Money.”
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The SEC alleges that Lucia misled potential investors when he told them that his method had been “back-checked” using historical data from past bear markets and that the investors money would be safe and grow. According to the SEC, the investment program failed to account for fees and included artificially lowered inflation rates. When historically accurate rates of inflation were used, a 1973 investor would have run out of money by 1989, the SEC said, a far cry from the return claimed by Lucia.
The SEC said Lucia and his company “have admitted during the SEC’s investigation that the only testing that actually performed were some calculations that Lucia made in the 1990’s – copies of which no longer exist – and two two-page spreadsheets.” Lucia was aware that using the undervalued inflation rate would “make the results look more favorable for the Buckets of Money Strategy,” according to the SEC.
In addition to barring Lucia from making misleading claims, the SEC’s Order instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings seeks financial penalties and “other remedial actions.”
Lucia quickly posted a passionate defense to the SEC allegations on his website on Wednesday afternoon, stressing that the investigation was a civil matter and not a criminal case and that it involved something he had not used in over two years. “I want to assure you that I intend to vigorously defend this absolutely meritless lawsuit and will seek an early trial,” said Lucia.
Despite the allegations, Lucia’s website is promoting a seminar to be held at The Hilton San Diego Resort & Spa on September 22nd, which will be co-hosted by actor and financial columnist Ben Stein, and former San Diego Mayor and current talk show host Roger Hedgecock.
Carlson Law Firm is reviewing potential claims against Ray Lucia and his affiliates. To speak with an attorney regarding your, please call Carlson Law Firm 619-544-9300 for a free consultation.
Tags: Ben Stein, financial advisor, financial advisor malpractice, financial advisors, Fraud Attorney, Investment Fraud, investment loss, investment recovery lawyer, Lucia, Ray Lucia, San Diego, SEC, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, stockbroker malpractice, Talk radio, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Posted in Investment Fraud | Comments (0)
Image via Wikipedia
In its roles as conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) filed securities lawsuits against 17
financial entities in federal court as well as in the state courts of
Connecticut and New York in early September 2011. In the lawsuits the FHFA
alleges that the financial institutions, which range from Bank of America and
Citigroup to Deutsche Bank and Credit
Suisse, violated numerous federal securities and common laws in their sales of
mortgage-backed securities. Citing the Securities Act of 1933, the FHFA seeks
both civil penalties and damages.
According to an FHFA press release, Bank of America and its
fellow financial institutions committed a breach of fiduciary duty when they provided
Fanny May and Freddie Mac with misleading loan descriptions. These
descriptions, which were part of sales and marketing materials, failed to
reveal the true character of the loans, particularly their risk factors. In
other words, they constituted banking fraud.
The current FHFA lawsuit is part of a continuing effort on
the part of Congress and regulators to deal with institutions that engaged in
practices that precipitated the financial crisis of 2008, a crisis in which
risky mortgage-backed securities played an important role. The Washington Post estimates that almost
$200 billion in risky securities were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Regardless of possible negative effects on the financial
sector and on the recovery process of the housing market, the government appears
to be stepping up its efforts to recover the financial losses investors
incurred during the 2008 crisis. These recent FHFA lawsuits are comparable to
an earlier lawsuit in 2011 which the FHFA filed against UBS Americas, Inc.
If you believe that you have
experienced investment loss due to the misleading marketing practices of a
banking institution, contact an investment recovery lawyer in San Diego today
at Carlson Law.
Tags: Bank of America, banking fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, Fannie Mae, Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, Freddie Mac, investment loss, investment recovery lawyer, Securities Act of 1933, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, securities lawsuits, UBS, Washington Post
Posted in Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation | Comments (0)
Ambac Financial Group Inc., as well as several of its banking underwriters and insurers, has agreed to pay a total of $33M in order to settle claims of investment fraud. According to investors who experienced significant financial loss, the parties involved hid risks from investors about the mortgage debt it guaranteed.
The primary claimants in the case are the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago. These claimants allege securities fraud in regard to Ambac bonds and stocks purchased from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008.
According to the suit, Ambac gave out misleading information regarding the safety of the bonds it insured in order to inflate the value of the securities. Claimants further allege that Ambac, which insured instruments related to high-risk mortgages, hid its involvement in the subprime loan disaster, an involvement that became clear when the housing market collapsed in 2008. According to the suit, Ambac falsely claimed that it insured the “safest” transactions, when in reality it guaranteed billions of high-risk residential mortgage debt and collateralized debt obligations that were high risk in pursuit of big profit.
Once a federal court has approved the settlement proposal, Ambac will pay claimants 2.5M. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, HSBC Holding and Wachovia (now a part of Wells Fargo) will pay a combined total of $5.9 million. The four insurance companies involved will pay a total of $24.5M.
If you believe that you’ve been a victim of securities fraud, contact an investment recovery lawyer. Like the claimants in the Ambac case, you could recoup some or all of your financial loss through securities arbitration or litigation. Contact Carlson Law today at 619-544-9300 for a free consultation.
Tags: Ambac Financial Group, Citigroup, financial loss, free consultation, Goldman Sachs, Insurance, Investment Fraud, investment recovery lawyer, Merrill Lynch, Plaintiff, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, Wells Fargo
Posted in Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation | Comments (1)
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: 1940 Investment Advisers Act, accredited investor, Broker, broker fees, Dodd-Frank, Fee, financial loss, high-risk investment, Investing, Investment, investment recovery lawyer, Investor, Securities Fraud Attorney San Diego, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Posted in Fiduciary Duty Breach, Securities Law, Uncategorized | Comments (1)
Image via Wikipedia
Although it’s been three years since financial misconduct on Wall Street rocked the nation, investors still have opportunity to recoup some or all of their financial loss.
If you suffered financial loss during the recent crisis, your broker, brokerage or financial advisor may be legally responsible for that loss. A variety of legal actions can be brought against financial professioals for malpractice, such as negligent investment misrepresentation for making inappropriate investment product recommendations, intentinal securities fraud and inapropriate account turnover/excessive trading or “churning” to name only a few examples.
“Each state has different statutes of limitations for different kinds of claims,” explains Daniel Carlson of Carlson Law, a securities litigation firm in San Diego. “Your ability to file for damages depends on where you live and the kind of claims you have. While one state may have a three-year statute of limitations for all claims, others may have deadlines as long as 10 years for claims like breach of fiduciary duty. And in some states, the ‘discovery rule’ applies to fraud. That means the statute of limitations’ clock doesn’t start ticking until an investor ‘discovers’ he or she has been defrauded.”
Defrauded investors may also be able to file claims in more than one state. “It depends upon where you live, where you transacted business with your broker and whether the account agreement has a ‘choice of law’ provision indicating the state law that applies in the event of any claims,” Carlson says.
“And of course there’s more than one way to file a claim,” he adds. “If there are several options available, a good litigator will choose the state and the claims that give their clients the best chance of success.”
Did you experience financial loss due to your financial advisor’s misconduct? Did your broker lie to you about an investment? Did he or she give you advice inappropriate to your financial goals? Don’t wait any longer to fight for the compensation you deserve. Remember, legal deadlines do exist, and your time could be running out.
To discuss your options, contact Carlson Law at 619-544-9300 for a free consultation with an experienced investment recovery lawyer.
“Even if claims seem to have exceeded the applicable statute of limitations, defrauded investors should still contact an attorney,” Carlson advises. “By using all the legal means at their disposal, securities fraud attorneys can sometimes still recover client losses through arbitration even after a statute of limitations has expired.”
Tags: breach of fiduciary duty, broker malpractice, churning, claims, damages, Dan Carlson, financial advisors, financial loss, fraud, investment recovery lawyer, Investor, Law, San Diego, securities fraud attorney, securities litigation firm, statutes of limitations, Wall Street
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)