Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Russell L. Forkey

Investment Advisor – Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:23:17 GMT

True investment advisers have fiduciary obligations that they owe to their clients. As such, they have an obligation to make full and fair disclosure to clients and prospective clients concerning their material conflicts of interest, including conflicts arising from financial incentives, and to act consistently with those disclosures. This principle is reflected in Form ADV, which reminds advisers of their general obligation to fully disclose material facts relating to their advisory business and specifically requires disclosure concerning the compensation and fees that advisers and their supervised persons receive, including from asset-based charges and service fees.

The chance of a conflict of interest arising increases based upon the number of rolls that a professional assumes in dealing with a client. This is especially true for attorneys. Some attorneys attempt to provide estate and tax planning advice to clients and then offer investments to those clients through broker/dealer or investment advisory firms with which they are associated. When does the attorney’s legal advice end and his investment activities commence? This is a question that is difficult to answer. Every factual situation will be different. If you have any questions concerning an investment that you have made based upon the recommendation of your attorney/advisor, please feel free to contact us.

Contact Us:
With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of elder abuse, exploitation and securities law, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

At the Boca Raton Law Office of Russell L. Forkey, we represent clients throughout South and Central Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Sunrise, Plantation, Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Delray, Boynton Beach, Hollywood, Lake Worth, Royal Palm Beach, Manalapan, Jupiter, Gulf Stream, Wellington, Fort Pierce, Stuart, Palm City, Jupiter, Miami, Orlando, Maitland, Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Lake Mary, Heathrow, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Cocoa Beach, Vero Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, New Smyrna Beach, Ormand Beach, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Dade County, Orange County, Seminole County, Martin County, Brevard County, Indian River County, Volusia County and Monroe County, Florida. The law office of Russell L. Forkey also represents South American, Canadian and other foreign residents that do business with U.S. financial institutions, investment advisors, brokerage and precious metal firms.

Jose G. Ramirez Jr. – Boca Raton, Florida Closed-End Mutual Fund Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unsuitability FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:16:58 GMT

Jose G. Ramirez Jr. – Boca Raton, Florida Closed-End Mutual Fund Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unsuitability FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jose G. Ramirez Jr., Civil Action No. 15-cv-02365 (USDC District of Puerto Rico, filed September 29, 2015)

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged Jose G. Ramirez, Jr., a former top broker at UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (“UBSPR”), who made material misrepresentations and omissions and orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving the use of credit line proceeds from a UBSPR-affiliated bank to purchase shares in UBSPR affiliated closed-end mutual funds.

The complaint filed in federal court in Puerto Rico against Jose Ramirez, Jr., a former registered representative in UBSPR’s Guaynabo branch office alleges that Ramirez increased his compensation by at least $2.8 million by having certain customers use proceeds from lines of credit with UBS Bank USA to purchase additional shares in UBSPR closed-end mutual funds. To evade detection, Ramirez allegedly instructed the customers to transfer money from their line of credit to an outside bank account before depositing the funds into their UBSPR brokerage account and purchasing the closed-end funds. The funds invested heavily in Puerto Rico municipal bonds and lost value as the Puerto Rico bond market declined, requiring the customers to pay down a portion of the loans or risk having their investments liquidated.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Ramirez misled customers about the safety of the closed-end funds and the risks of investing in them with borrowed money. He also is alleged to have lied to his branch manager when questioned about suspicious transactions in the closed-end mutual funds. Ramirez was terminated by UBSPR in January 2014. As a result of this conduct, the SEC’s complaint alleges Ramirez violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of elder abuse, exploitation and securities law, our firm provides all of our clients with the personal service they deserve. Handling cases worth $25,000 or more, we represent clients throughout Florida and across the United States, as well as for foreign individuals that invested in U.S. banks or brokerage firms. Contact us to arrange your free initial consultation.

Oriental Financial Services Corp. – South Florida Unsuitable Puerto Rico Bond Investment FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 01:20:44 GMT

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) is a self-regulatory authority assigned the responsibility, by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to license, regulate and discipline securities broker/dealers and their employees, including account executives. In the event that FINRA elects to institute an enforcement action, firms and licensed individuals have the responsibility to reflect such action on their U-4 and/or U-5 filings, which can be viewed on the FINRA website under the broker-check section of the site or by viewing the monthly disciplinary information also provided on the FINRA site.

The monthly disciplinary information is referenced on the FINRA site generally in alphabetical order. This post relates to the following company or individuals. If the reader would like to review the entire FINRA release or the broker-check information concerning this matter, you can follow these highlighted links:

February 2015 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

Oriental Financial Services Corp. (CRD #29753, San Juan, Puerto Rico)submitted an AWC in which the firm was censured, fined $245,000 and undertakes to submit to FINRA a proposed methodology of how it will identify, review and remediate unsuitably concentrated Puerto Rico (PR) securities purchases. At a minimum, the methodology must include the firm’s review of customers’ concentrated PR securities purchases effected between December 14, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and a provision explaining how restitution, if any, will be calculated. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm reported to FINRA on Form 4530 that it had not disclosed on customer confirmations the markups and markdowns for riskless principal transactions in PR closed-end funds (PR CEFs).

The findings stated that between 2000 and August 5, 2013, the firm effected approximately 2,800 riskless principal transactions involving PR closed-end funds (CEFs) in approximately 1,000 accounts and failed to disclose approximately $2.9 million in markups and markdowns on customer trade confirmations. The findings also stated that the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b-10. The firm’s staff did not appropriately classify PR CEFs as equity securities and its supervisory staff were therefore unaware that the disclosure requirement for riskless principal transactions in equity securities applied to PR CEFs throughout the 13-year time period. The firm failed to have a system in place to ensure that it disclosed markups and markdowns on riskless principal transactions in PR CEFs because it failed to appropriately classify those products as equities that required disclosures. The findings also included that the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system and procedures reasonably designed to identify and review concentrated securities purchases, including PR municipal bonds and PR CEFs. The firm’s registered representatives continued soliciting concentrated purchases of PR securities even after a municipal bond rating downgrade of the general obligation rating of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. While the firm’s WSPs required that its registered representatives have reasonable grounds to believe that any purchase or sale recommendation was suitable for a particular customer, the WSPs did not outline the steps that the firm should have taken to review the transactions for concentration. Despite having implemented guidelines, the firm did not require that supervisors review for concentrated purchases (i.e., concentration in a single security, substantially similar securities, or securities of a single geographic region), including PR securities, or document their reviews. The firm engaged a consultant to perform a self-review through which it identified six potentially unsuitable purchases of PR securities. (FINRA Case#2013035308801).

Contact Us:

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. – South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:34:29 GMT

February 2015 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CRD #7059, New York, New York) submitted an AWC in which the firm was censured and fined $3,000,000, to be paid jointly to FINRA and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it failed to deliver prospectuses in connection with sales of certain ETFs to customers. The findings stated that the firm failed to deliver prospectuses for approximately 255,000 customer purchases of approximately 160 ETFs during a three-month period for which the firm self-reported the ETF prospectus delivery failure. Consequently, from 2009 through April 2011, it is estimated that the firm may have failed to deliver prospectuses for over 1.5 million purchases of ETFs by its customers. The findings also stated that the firm failed to design and implement an adequate supervisory system to achieve compliance with the securities laws and regulations governing ETF prospectus delivery. The firm’s decentralized supervisory system was not reasonably designed to ensure compliance with its prospectus-delivery requirements, which contributed to the firm’s failure to identify deficiencies in its process, to timely identify the scope of the problem after the firm detected certain failures in 2009, and to timely remedy the inadequacies in its manual process. The firm did not appropriately respond to “red flags” indicating that it had experienced failures to deliver. Although the firm notes isolated ETF prospectus delivery failures in 2009, it did not determine the extent of the issue or fully recognize deficiencies in its supervision in these areas until 2010. (FINRA Case #2011026502901).

Contact Us:

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and David Bradley Tysk – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Investment Suitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 00:21:03 GMT

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and David Bradley Tysk – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Investment Suitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (CRD® #6363, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and David Bradley Tysk (CRD #1782289, Eden Prairie, Minnesota). The firm was censured and fined $100,000. Tysk was fined $50,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA® member in any capacity for three months. The sanctions were based on findings that Tysk altered computer notes of customer contacts after the customer complained about the suitability of a recommendation. The findings stated that Tysk knew or should have known the importance of customer-related notes in the event of complaints. Tysk’s concealed alterations of his notes did not comply with the clear import of the document-retention policies in the firm›s code of conduct. Tysk failed to inform the firm of the alterations when he provided a copy of the notes to be produced in discovery during an arbitration proceeding. The customer became suspicious of the notes and requested further discovery to determine whether the notes had been altered after he lodged his complaint with the firm. The firm and Tysk opposed the requests. In a meeting to prepare for the arbitration hearing, Tysk finally disclosed to the firm that he had altered the notes. Despite knowing that Tysk had altered the notes, the firm failed to inform the customer that a copy of computer notes of customer contacts produced during discovery had been altered. The firm asked Tysk to search his computer for evidence of the edits, but did not take any additional steps to locate previous versions of the notes. The firm also failed to produce an exception report during discovery as required. Just before the hearing, the firm found an exception report relevant to the customer’s claim, which it should have provided months earlier. As soon as it could, the firm turned it over to the customer. At the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, the firm and Tysk were sanctioned for violating arbitration discovery rules. Tysk has appealed this matter to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) and the sanctions imposed against him are not in effect pending review. The decision, as it relates to Ameriprise Financial Services, is final. (FINRA Case #2010022977801).

Contact Us:

Boca Raton, Florida Misappropriation and Theft Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:00:09 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Misappropriation and Theft Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dennis F. Wright, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01896-SHR (M.D. Pa)

Final Judgment and Administrative Order Entered Against Pennsylvania-Based Registered Representative Who Stole Funds from Customers

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) recently announced that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a final judgment by consent in a previously filed enforcement action against defendant Dennis F. Wright, a former registered representative based in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. The final judgment permanently enjoins Wright from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Wright is also ordered to disgorge his ill-gotten gains of $1,533,416.33 and prejudgment interest thereon of $490,618.77, which will be deemed satisfied by the entry of an order of restitution in a parallel criminal case.

According to the Commission’s complaint filed on September 30, 2014, Wright misappropriated more than $1.5 million from at least 28 customers. Wright fraudulently induced his customers to redeem securities held in their securities accounts, including variable annuities and mutual funds, by falsely representing that he would invest the proceeds from the redemptions in a managed account that held other securities that yielded higher returns than their existing securities accounts. Instead, Wright deposited his customers’ funds in a bank account he controlled and from which he misappropriated the funds in order to pay his personal expenses as well as to fund customer withdrawals. Wright concealed his fraud by providing his customers with falsified account statements purportedly showing that they had purchased and owned interests in the non-existent managed accounts with appreciating balances.

On October 16, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“”Order”) against Wright. The Order permanently bars Wright from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and also bars him from participating in any offering of a penny stock. Wright consented to the issuance of the Order.

Contact Us:

Bradley Thomas Badger – Boca Raton, Florida Account Executive Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 14:45:49 GMT

Bradley Thomas Badger – Boca Raton, Florida Account Executive Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

September 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

Bradley Thomas Badger (CRD #5665584, Pleasanton, California) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 30 business days. Without admitting or denying the findings, Badger consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he failed to provide prior written notice of his involvement in an outside business activity to his member firm. (FINRA Case #2012034456903).

Mutual Fund – Boca Raton, Florida Mutual Fund Unsuitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:36:12 GMT

Mutual Fund Unsuitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney.

A mutual fund is a fund operated by an investment company that raises money from shareholders and invests in bonds, options, currencies, money market securities, futures, or stocks. Mutual funds are offered by prospectus. The prospectus describes, among other things, the investment objectives of the mutual fund, the types of investments within the fund, the investment strategies utilized by the fund managers and the risks associated therewith.

Mutual funds offer investors the advantages of diversification and professional management. A management fee is charged for these services, typically between 0.5% and 2% of assets per year. Funds also levy other fees such as a 12B-1, exchange fees and other administrative charges. Funds that are sold through brokers are called load funds and those sold to investors directly from the fund companies are called no-load funds. Mutual fund shares are redeemable on demand at net asset value by shareholders.

Please keep in mind that the above information is being provided for informational purposes only. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal or investment advice. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this post, please contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

South Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse and Exploitation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:54:01 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lantana, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach, Florida Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Virginia-Based Broker With Stealing Funds From Elderly Customers

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a broker based in Roanoke, Va., with defrauding elderly customers, including some who are legally blind, by stealing their funds for her personal use and falsifying their account statements to cover up her fraud.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Donna Jessee Tucker siphoned $730,289 from elderly customers and used the money to pay for such personal expenses as vacations, vehicles, clothes, and a country club membership. Tucker ensured that the customers received their monthly account statements electronically, knowing that they were unable or unwilling to access their statements in that format. The SEC further alleges that Tucker engaged in unauthorized trading and other financial transactions while making misrepresentations to customers about their investment accounts and forging brokerage, banking, and other documents.

The SEC’s investigation resulted from a broker-dealer examination of the firm where Tucker worked that was conducted by the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia announced criminal charges against Tucker.

Tucker has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and disgorge the $730,289 in ill-gotten gains either in the criminal case or the civil case. She consented to the entry of an order permanently enjoining her from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Contact Us:

At the Fort Lauderdale Law Office of Russell L. Forkey, we represent clients throughout South and Central Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Sunrise, Plantation, Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Pompano Beach, Delray, Boynton Beach, Hollywood, Lake Worth, Royal Palm Beach, Manalapan, Jupiter, Gulf Stream, Wellington, Fort Pierce, Stuart, Palm City, Jupiter, Miami, Orlando, Maitland, Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Lake Mary, Heathrow, Melbourne, Palm Bay, Cocoa Beach, Vero Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, New Smyrna Beach, Ormand Beach, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Dade County, Orange County, Seminole County, Martin County, Brevard County, Indian River County, Volusia County and Monroe County, Florida. The law office of Russell L. Forkey also represents South American, Canadian and other foreign residents that do business with U.S. financial institutions, investment advisors, brokerage and precious metal firms.

Investment Advisory Conflict of Interest – West Palm Beach, Florida Investment Advisor Conflict of Interest Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:04:09 GMT

South Florida, including West Palm Beach and Boca Raton Investment Advisor Conflict of Interest FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Houston-Based Investment Advisory Firm and Co-Owners Charged With Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest to Clients

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against a Houston-based investment advisory firm accused of recommending that clients invest in particular mutual funds without disclosing a key conflict of interest: the firm was in turn receiving compensation from the broker offering the funds.

An SEC Enforcement Division investigation found that Robare Group Ltd. received a percentage of every dollar that its clients invested in certain mutual funds through an undisclosed compensation agreement with the brokerage firm. Therefore, unbeknownst to investors, Robare Group and its co-owners Mark L. Robare and Jack L. Jones Jr. had an incentive to recommend these funds to clients over other investment opportunities and generate additional revenue for the firm. Robare Group ultimately received approximately $440,000 in such payments from the brokerage firm during an eight-year period.

“Payments to investment advisers for recommending certain types of investments may taint their ability to provide impartial advice to their clients,” said Marshall S. Sprung, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “By failing to fully disclose its agreements with the brokerage firm, Robare Group deprived its clients of important information they were entitled to receive.”

The Asset Management Unit has undertaken an enforcement initiative to shed more light on undisclosed compensation arrangements between investment advisers and brokers. For example, the SEC previously charged an Oregon-based investment adviser for failing to disclose revenue sharing payments and other conflicts of interest to clients.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Robare Group and its co-owners, the firm revised its Form ADV in December 2011 to disclose the compensation agreement, but this and later disclosures falsely stated that the firm did not receive any economic benefit from a non-client for providing investment advice. The disclosures also were inadequate because they stated that Robare Group may receive compensation from the broker when in fact the firm was definitively receiving payments.

The SEC Enforcement Division further alleges that Robare Group and the broker entered into a new agreement in late 2012 that provided similar payments. But it wasn’t until June 2013 that the firm disclosed the conflict of interest associated with its arrangement with the broker, and even then it failed to disclose the incentive to recommend buying and holding certain mutual funds through the broker’s platform or the magnitude of the conflict. Robare reviewed and approved the Forms ADV, and Jones reviewed and signed all but one of the filings.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Robare Group and Robare willfully violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Jones aided and abetted these violations. The Enforcement Division further alleges that Robare Group, Robare, and Jones each willfully violated Section 207 of the Advisers Act.

Contact Us:

Securities, Including Stocks and Bonds Custodian Fraud, Mismanagement and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:24:06 GMT

Securities, Including Stocks and Bonds Custodian Fraud, Mismanagement and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Julian R. Brown and Alliance Investment Management Limited, Civil Action No. 14-CV-6130 (N.D. Ill., filed August 8, 2014)

SEC Charges Bahamas-Based Brokerage Firm and President with Facilitating Fraudulent Scheme by Hedge Fund Manager

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a Bahamas-based brokerage firm and its president for enabling a fraud that was halted when the SEC charged the hedge fund manager at the center of the scheme.

The SEC alleges that Julian R. Brown and his firm Alliance Investment Management Limited (AIM) purported to be the “custodian” for assets under the management of Nikolai Battoo. The SEC obtained a court-ordered freeze over Battoo’s assets after charging him in 2012 with defrauding investors around the world by hiding major losses while falsely boasting that their investments were performing remarkably during the financial crisis.

According to the SEC’s complaint against Brown and AIM in federal court in Chicago, they misrepresented themselves to investors as Battoo’s custodian when, since at least 2009, their firm did not have custody of most of the assets listed on investor account statements. Brown and AIM allowed Battoo to create false account statements on AIM letterhead that vastly overstated the value of investors’ assets by more than $150 million. Brown and AIM then routinely provided the false account statements to auditors and others acting on behalf of Battoo’s investors.

The SEC further alleges that Brown and AIM permitted Battoo to misappropriate at least $45 million of investor funds by transferring money at Battoo’s behest from investor accounts to Battoo’s direct control. Battoo used investor funds to pay AIM and Brown more than $5 million in return for their critical assistance.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Brown and AIM violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and aided and abetted Battoo’s violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

Contact Us:

John Thornes – South Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse, Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:07:39 GMT

Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Lake Worth, Delray Beach and Deerfield Beach, Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse, Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Thornes, Defendant, and Christopher Burnell, Kyle Larick, and Doreen Thornes, Relief Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-06088 (C.D. Cal.)

SEC Charges California-Based Broker with Stealing Money from Accounts

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a California-based broker with stealing $4.4 million from two trust brokerage accounts at his firm and diverting it to a pair of friends for uses ranging from gambling to chartering a private jet.

The SEC alleges that John T. Thornes of Redlands, Calif., formerly the sole owner of Thornes & Associates, Inc., diverted funds out of a brokerage account for a trust established for the health and welfare of an 80-year-old dementia patient who has been living at home for several years with 24-hour nurse care. Thornes also siphoned money out of a brokerage account for a trust set up to fund college scholarships for local high school graduates.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Thornes stole money from the two accounts from November 2010 to April 2013 primarily to benefit two of his friends, Christopher Burnell of Highland, Calif., and Kyle Larick of Redlands, Calif. Thornes has tried to pass off the payouts as loans, however there were no loan documents, no stated interest, and no collateral for the funds given. None of the money was ever repaid.

The SEC alleges that Thornes deceived his own mother with respect to the educational trust. She served as trustee, and he periodically asked her to sign blank checks that he then used in his misappropriation scheme. Thornes never informed his mother about trades he made, and he converted the brokerage account to a margin account even though it was designated as a low or minimal-risk tolerance account. He used the margin debt in his scheme and later sold securities from those accounts to avoid the margin calls. Thornes did the same thing with the brokerage account for the elderly dementia patient.

According to the SEC’s complaint, after Thornes liberally transferred money from the brokerage accounts to his friends, they used it to charter a private jet, buy a luxury car, and purchase a vacation home. Burnell also used the funds to gamble at a nearby casino or pay gambling debts. Thornes paid his mother about $84,000 in excess trustee fees.

Thornes has agreed to settle the charges and consented to the entry of a final judgment ordering him to pay disgorgement of $4,366,790, prejudgment interest of $278,540, and a penalty of $4,366,790. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, he agreed to be permanently enjoined from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Thornes also has agreed to consent to a collateral industry bar and a penny stock bar.

The SEC’s complaint also names Thornes’ friends Burnell and Larick as well as his mother Doreen Thornes as relief defendants for the purposes of recovering any illicit funds in their possession.

Contact Us:

Gilford Securities Incorporated – South Florida False or Negligently Prepared Research Reports FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:16:06 GMT

Miami, Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Florida False and Misleading Research Report FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

June 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

Gilford Securities Incorporated (New York, New York) submitted a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm was censured and fined $125,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it published research reports that failed to disclose that that research analyst received compensation consisting of commissions on transactions by the analyst’s customers in the securities the securities the analyst covered. The findings stated that the front page of the firm’s research reports purported to refer to the page of the report on which the disclosures were found. However, the front page references to disclosures were deficient. The firm authorized a research analyst to post research related information and recommendations from firm research reports on his blog without including either disclosures required by NASD Rule 2711(h) or links to the research reports containing the disclosures. (Case # 2012030416501). To review a copy of the full release, please follow the above highlighted link.

Contact Us:

HLM Securities and Terrance Hennessy – Boca Raton, Florida Unapproved Outside Business Activity and Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:52:54 GMT

June 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

Broker Check: http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/

HLM Securities, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois) and Terrance Richard Hennessy (Valparaiso, Indiana) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm was fined $100,000 of which $10,000 is joint and several with Hennessy. Hennessy was assessed a deferred fine of $50,000, which includes the $10,000 joint and several fine, and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 18 months. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Hennessy consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that although the firm was aware, Hennessy failed to provide written notice to the firm prior to or even subsequent to, his participation in the purchase of membership interests in limited-liability companies, as required by the firm’s written supervisory procedures. The findings stated that Hennessy’s failure to provide written notice of his participation in the private securities transactions, as well as the firm’s failure to include those transactions in its books and records, deprived FINRA of its ability to oversee Hennessy’s and the firm’s securities activities, since the firm did not have any record of those activities. (Case #2012034822601). To review the full release, please follow the above highlighted link.

Contact Us:

Deferred Annuity FAQ’s For The Agent Or Company – Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Annuity Fraud and Abuse FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 12:09:58 GMT

FAQ’s that should be asked to your insurance agent, account executive or company prior to considering the purchase, exchange or sale of a deferred annuity.

There are a series of basic questions that you should ask your agent or company when considering deferred annuities. This list is not designed to be complete in all material respects. It is being provided as a general guide. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal or investment advice.

Is this a single premium or multiple premium contract?
Is this an equity-indexed annuity?
What is the initial interest rate and how long is it guaranteed:
Does the initial rate include a bonus rate and how much is the bonus?
What is the guaranteed minimum interest rate?
What renewal rate is the company crediting on annuity contracts of the same type that were issues last year?
Are there withdrawal or surrender charges or penaltiesp if you want to end your contract and take out all of you money? How much are they?
Can you get a partial withdrawal without paying surrender or other charges or losing interest?
Does you annuity waive withdrawal charges for reasons such as dealth, confinement in a nursing home or terminal illness?
Is there a market value adjustment (MVA) provision in your annuity?
What other charges, if any, may be deducted from you premium or contract value?
If you pick a shorter or longer payout period or surrender the annuity, will the accumulated value or the way interest is credited change?
Is there a death benefit: How is it set: Can you change it?
What income payment options can you choose?
Once you choose a payment option, can it be changed?

While the above questions are important for anyone considering the purchase of an annuity to ask, these questions are much more important for seniors and retirees. As individuals get older, the pontential that they will need to access their capital for emergencies increases.

Before you decide to buy, exchange or close an annuity, you should review the contract terms and conditions very carefully as the terms of each annuity contract vary. Remember that taking money out of an annuity may mean you must pay taxes.

Contact Us:

Richard Olive, Susan Olive and We The People, Inc. – Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Florida Charitable Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 29 May 2014 22:45:36 GMT

South Florida, including Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Margate, Lighthouse Point, Deerfield Beach and Boca Raton Charitable Gift Fraud and Misrepresentation and Elder Abuse and Exploitation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Richard K. Olive and Susan L. Olive, Civil Action No. 2:13-civ-14047 (S.D. Fla.); Securities and Exchange Commission v. William G. Reeves, Esq., Civ. No. 2:13-cv-14048 (S.D. Fla.)

Husband and Wife Agree to $2 Million Settlement in Florida-Based Charity Fraud Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a husband and wife in Florida charged last year with defrauding seniors through a purported charitable organization have agreed to pay more than $2 million and be barred from the securities industry.

The SEC filed its enforcement action in February 2013 against Richard and Susan Olive and their Tallahassee-based entity We The People Inc. At the SEC’s request, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida subsequently appointed a receiver who has recovered approximately $60 million in investor funds.

The SEC also charged We The People’s former in-house counsel, who entered into a cooperation agreement with the agency. As a result of the significant assistance provided by William Reeves in the case, the SEC has decided not to seek a financial penalty against him.

The settlement, which has been approved by the court, requires Richard Olive to pay $1,054,131 in disgorgement and a $1,054,131 penalty. Susan Olive is required to pay $45,655 in disgorgement and a $150,000 penalty. Richard and Susan Olive consented to a final judgment providing permanent injunctive relief under Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

In a related administrative proceeding, the Olives agreed to be barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization or from participating in an offering of penny stock.

Contact Us:

Neal V. Goyal – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund Manager Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 29 May 2014 22:35:24 GMT

South Florida, including Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, Coral Springs, Delray Beach and Boynton Beach Investment Fund Manager Fraud and Ponzi Scheme FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Neal V. Goyal, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03900 (N.D. Illinois)

SEC Charges Chicago-Based Investment Fund Manager with Stealing Investor Money and Conducting Ponzi Scheme

On May 28, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a court order freezing assets and halting a fraudulent scheme by Chicago, Illinois-based investment adviser Neal V. Goyal. In its complaint, the SEC alleges that Goyal told investors that the private funds he managed would invest in securities following a “long-short” trading strategy. However, Goyal actually did little trading and simply operated a Ponzi scheme that used new investor funds to pay redemptions to existing investors and fund his own lavish lifestyle. Goyal concealed the poor results of the few investments he did make by sending investors phony account statements that grossly overstated the performance of the funds.

In a parallel action, on May 28, 2014, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a criminal information against Goyal.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Chicago, Goyal raised more than $11.4 million since 2006 for investments in four private funds that he managed and controlled. The complaint further alleges that Goyal’s investment strategy lost money from the outset, but he hid those losses from investors through the Ponzi payments and phony account statements. Meanwhile, Goyal misused investor funds to make down-payments and pay the mortgages on two homes he purchased. According to the SEC’s complaint, Goyal also siphoned away investor money to invest in a Chicago tavern, fund two children’s clothing boutiques that his wife operates in Chicago, and purchase artwork and lavish furniture.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Goyal along with Caldera Advisors and Blue Horizon Asset Management violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8(a). In its complaint, the SEC seeks financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction against Goyal, Blue Horizon Asset Management, and Caldera Advisors. The SEC named another Goyal-controlled entity Caldera Investment Group as a relief defendant in its complaint for the purpose of recovering any investor funds it received.

At the SEC’s request, the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer issued a permanent injunction and asset freeze against Goyal and his firms, who consented to the order without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint. Under the court’s order, monetary remedies will be decided at a later date.

Contact Us:

FAQs Annuity – South Florida Elder, Senior and Retirement Financial Abuse FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 23 May 2014 10:51:46 GMT

Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lantana, Lake Worth, West Palm Beach and Jupiter, Palm City and Stuart Florida Senior, Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse and Probate FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

FAQs – Annuity:

An annuity is a contract in which an insurance company makes a series of income payments at regular intervals in return for a premium or premiums you have paid. Annuities are most often bought for future retirement income. Only an annuity can pay an income stream that can be guaranteed to last as long as you live.

An annuity is neither a life insurance nor a health insurance policy. It’s not a savings account or a savings certificate. You shouldn’t buy an annuity to reach short-term financial goals.

Your value in an annuity contract is the premiums you have paid, less any applicable charges, plus interest credited. The insurance company uses the value to figure the amount of most of the benefits that you can choose to receive from an annuity contract.

A deferred annuity has two parts or periods. During the accumulation period, the money you put into the annuity, less an applicable charges, earns interest. The earnings grow tax-deferred as long as you leave them in the annuity. During the second period, call the payout period, the company pays income to you or to someone you choose.

Please keep in mind that this information is being provided for educational purposes only. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal or investment advice. If the reader has any quesitons relative to the contents of this post or relative to a unique situation that they are experiencing concerning themselves or a elder relative, you should contact a qualified professional immediately.

Contact Us:

Boca Raton, Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:02:17 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach, Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barry R. Bekkedam, Civil Action No. 14-cv-2488 (E.D. Pa.)

SEC Charges Barry R. Bekkedam with Defrauding Investment Advisory Clients in Connection with Multimillion Dollar Rothstein Ponzi Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that it filed securities fraud charges against Barry R. Bekkedam, of Hobe Sound, Florida. Bekkedam is the former owner, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Ballamor Capital Management, LLC (“Ballamor”), a formerly SEC-registered investment adviser located in Radnor, Pennsylvania.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that from April through October 2009, Bekkedam fraudulently induced, or assisted in inducing, his advisory clients and others to invest approximately $100 million in a fund that purportedly purchased lawsuit settlements from now-convicted Ponzi-schemer Scott Rothstein. The settlements Rothstein sold were not real and the supposed plaintiffs and defendants did not exist. Rothstein simply used the funds in classic Ponzi scheme fashion to make payments due other investors and support his lavish lifestyle. Rothstein’s scheme collapsed in October 2009, and he is currently serving 50 years in federal custody.

The complaint alleges that, in early 2009, Bekkedam met George Levin, a Florida businessman, who was himself a Rothstein investor and had been raising capital from investors to purchase settlements from Rothstein since 2007. Levin’s investments with Rothstein were at risk if he could not find additional investors. In April 2009, Levin and Bekkedam formed a private fund called Banyon Income Fund, LP (the “Banyon Fund”) to enable Bekkedam to raise funds from clients and others to be invested exclusively in Rothstein’s settlements.

The SEC alleges that, when soliciting his advisory clients and other prospective investors to invest in the Banyon Fund, Bekkedam made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the level of due diligence he and Ballamor had performed, including their access to information confirming the existence of the settlement funds, the authenticity of Rothstein’s investment program, and the overall safety of investing in the Rothstein settlements. At the time that Rothstein’s scheme collapsed, Banyon Fund investors had received approximately $2 million in interest payments, with their approximately $100 million principal investments lost in the Ponzi scheme.

The SEC’s complaint further alleges that Bekkedam also concealed from his advisory clients and other prospective investors the nature of his relationship with Levin and the clear conflicts of interest resulting from the financial arrangements between Levin and Bekkedam and his affiliates. Throughout 2009, Levin and Bekkedam engaged in a series of transactions designed to funnel money to Bekkedam and his related entities in exchange for Bekkedam’s solicitation of investors in the Fund. The transactions included Levin’s agreement to purchase approximately $3 million in municipal bonds from Bekkedam, Levin’s agreement to help Bekkedam restructure $10 million of his personal and business debt, Levin’s agreement to invest up to $5 million in Ballamor, and Levin’s purported investment of $5 million in a bank co-founded by Bekkedam with an agreement to invest up to an additional $13 million.

The complaint alleges that Bekkedam violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and seeks a final judgment ordering a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty against Bekkedam.

Contact Us:

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach and Pompano Beach, Florida Oil and Gas Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:19:10 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Deefrield Beach and Pompano Beach, Florida Oil and Gas Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Guardian Oil & Gas, Inc., Guardian Oil and Natural Gas, Inc., and Rick D. Mullins, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01533-L (N.D. Tx.)

SEC Charges Texas Resident and His Companies for Selling Fraudulent Oil and Gas Investments

On April 25, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed civil securities fraud charges against Guardian Oil & Gas, Inc. (“Guardian”), Guardian Oil & Natural Gas, Inc. (“GONG”) and their principal, Rick D. Mullins. The charges stem from an alleged oil and gas offering fraud.

The Commission’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that between August 2010 and June 2013, Mullins, Guardian, and GONG raised approximately $6.5 million through the fraudulent offer and sale of securities to investors in the form of limited partnership interests in oil and gas programs.

According to the complaint, Mullins and Guardian failed to disclose to investors Guardian’s deteriorating financial condition, including significant amounts owed on pre-existing bank loans. The Commission further alleges that defendants falsely represented to investors that their contributions would be used solely for the specific drilling project in which they had invested but instead, under Mullins’s direction, Guardian and GONG redirected investor funds for other unrelated purposes. The complaint also alleges that defendants falsely represented to investors that they would directly receive revenue from the sale of any oil and gas production from the project in which they were invested when, in truth, operators were deducting from production revenue expenses due on other unrelated projects, a process known as “net checking.” Moreover, according to the Complaint, Mullins made direct misrepresentations to investors. When, after collecting money from investors for one project and spending that money on unrelated expenses, Guardian was unable to obtain an interest in the oil and gas drilling project that it had purported to sell to investors, Mullins further lied to investors, telling them, among other things, that the well was unproductive and that Defendants had been approached by a possible purchaser of the partnership’s interest. The Commission alleges that Defendants never disclosed that the investors’ funds had been spent elsewhere and that Defendants had been unable to actually obtain an interest in the drilling project they sold.

The complaint alleges that Mullins, Guardian, and GONG violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest against all Defendants, and civil penalties against Mullins.

Contact Us: