General Investment News - Russell L. Forkey

Tribal Capital Markets, LLC. a/k/a Blue Capital Securities, Inc. – CMO Risk Disclosure – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:18:29 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:

August 2015 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Tribal Capital Markets, LLC aka Blue Capital Securities, Inc. (CRD #38901, New York, New York) submitted an AWC in which the firm was censured and fined $50,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that in connection with selling collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), it provided marketing materials for a proposed CMO transaction to customers that failed to adequately disclose and present a balanced discussion of certain risks involved in the transaction. The findings stated that the firm failed to provide required CMO educational materials prior to its sales of CMOs to retail customers. The findings also stated that the firm violated books and records rules in connection with its mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and CMO business, in that its order memoranda transactions were incomplete or contained inaccuracies. Order tickets failed to identify the registered representative who entered the order, contained inaccurate order execution times, and were marked as unsolicited when that was not the case. The findings also included that the firm violated FINRA’s TRACE rules in connection with its MBS and CMO business. The firm failed to report transactions, failed to report transactions within 15 minutes of the execution time, and failed to accurately report times of order receipt, order entry and order execution for transactions in TRACE-eligible securitized products to TRACE. To review the complete release, please follow the above link.

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.

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:

Registration of Dealers, Associated Persons and Investment Advisers in Florida – South Florida Securities Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:33:53 GMT

Registration of Dealers, Associated Persons, and Investment Advisers in the State of Florida – South Florida Securities Attorney:

Chaper 517.12 Fla.Stat. labeled Registration of dealers, associated persons, and investment advisers provides in relevant part that:

(1) No dealer, associated person, or issuer of securities shall sell or offer for sale any securities in or from offices in this state, or sell securities to persons in this state from offices outside this state, by mail or otherwise, unless the person has been registered with the Department of Financial Regulation (“office”) pursuant to the provisions of this section. The office shall not register any person as an associated person of a dealer unless the dealer with which the applicant seeks registration is lawfully registered with the office pursuant to this chapter.

(2) The registration requirements of this section do not apply to the issuers of securities exempted by s. 517.051(1)-(8) and (10).

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 517.061(11)(a)4., (13), (16), (17), or (19), the registration requirements of this section do not apply in a transaction exempted by s. 517.061(1)-(12), (14), and (15).

(4) No investment adviser or associated person of an investment adviser or federal covered adviser shall engage in business from offices in this state, or render investment advice to persons of this state, by mail or otherwise, unless the federal covered adviser has made a notice-filing with the office pursuant to s. 517.1201 or the investment adviser is registered pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and associated persons of the federal covered adviser or investment adviser have been registered with the office pursuant to this section. The office shall not register any person or an associated person of a federal covered adviser or an investment adviser unless the federal covered adviser or investment adviser with which the applicant seeks registration is in compliance with the notice-filing requirements of s. 517.1201 or is lawfully registered with the office pursuant to this chapter. A dealer or associated person who is registered pursuant to this section may render investment advice upon notification to and approval from the office.

(5) No dealer or investment adviser shall conduct business from a branch office within this state unless the branch office is notice-filed with the office pursuant to s. 517.1202.

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 questions concerning the contents of this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

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.

Do CFPs Have to Register as an Investment Adviser in Florida – Delary, Deerfield Beach, Boca Raton and Boynton Beach, Florida FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Elder Abuse Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:54:46 GMT

Do CFPs have to register as an Investment Adviser in Florida – Delray, Boynton Beach, Lantana, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Elder Abuse Attorney:

Any person who for compensation refers, solicits, offers, or negotiates for the purchase or sale of investment advisory services is required to be registered in Florida, regardless of their professional designation as a Investment Adviser and/or Associated Person of a broker/dealer.

Please keep in mind that this 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 advise. If the reader has any questions relating to this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse – How To Spot Investment Fraud – South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 22:23:15 GMT

Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Elder and retirees should think twice about investing if you spot any of these red flags of investment fraud:

Limited history of posts. Fraudsters can set up new accounts specifically designed to carry out their scam while concealing their true identities. Be skeptical of information from social media accounts that lack a history of prior postings or sending messages.
Pressure to buy or sell RIGHT NOW. Take the time to research the stock before you invest. Be skeptical of messages urging you to buy a hot stock before you “miss out” or to sell shares of a stock you own before the price goes down after negative news is announced. Be especially wary if the promoter claims the recommendation is based on “inside” or confidential information.
Unsolicited investment information or offers. Fraudsters may look for victims on social media sites, chat rooms, and bulletin boards. Exercise extreme caution regarding information provided in new posts on your wall, tweets, direct messages, e-mails, or other communications that solicit an investment or provide information about a particular stock if you do not personally know the sender (even if the sender appears connected to someone you know).
Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms who offer and sell investments to be licensed or registered. Many fraudulent investment schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms. Check license and registration status by searching the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)’s BrokerCheck website.

Contact Us:

Microcap and Penny Stock Fraud – South Florida Securities Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:49:26 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Lantana, West Palm Beach and Stuart, Florida Microcap and Penny Stock Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation, FINRA Arbitration and Elder Abuse Attorney:

SEC Announces Charges in Scheme to Secretly Enable Lawbreakers to Run Microcap Company

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against four individuals and a microcap company for concealing from investors that two lawbreakers ran the company.

According to the SEC’s orders instituting administrative proceedings, the mission of Natural Blue Resources Inc. was to create, acquire, or otherwise invest in environmentally-friendly companies, including an initiative to locate, purify, and sell water recovered from underground aquifers in New Mexico and other areas with depleting water resources. What investors didn’t know was that two individuals with prior law violations – James E. Cohen and Joseph Corazzi – secretly controlled the operational and management decisions of Natural Blue while calling themselves outside “consultants.” This arrangement enabled them to be de facto officers of Natural Blue and personally profit from the company without disclosing their past brushes with the law to investors. Cohen, who lives in Windermere, Fla., was previously incarcerated for financial fraud. Corazzi, who resides in Albuquerque, N.M., was previously charged with violating federal securities laws and permanently barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company.

The SEC has suspended trading in Natural Blue stock. The other two individuals charged in the case are Toney Anaya and Erik Perry, who were former chief executive officers at Natural Blue. The SEC’s orders find that they misled investors by failing to disclose that Cohen and Corazzi were running the company in spite of their criminal or disciplinary histories.

Anaya, who is a former New Mexico governor and attorney general, and Perry each agreed to settle the charges. Anaya has cooperated extensively with the SEC’s investigation.

According to the SEC’s orders, Cohen and Corazzi created Natural Blue so they and other entities they controlled could receive money and stock from the company and profit by hundreds of thousands of dollars. While Natural Blue was ostensibly led by Anaya and subsequently Perry, management decisions made by Cohen and Corazzi resulted in no revenues or viable business operations for the company. Anaya and Perry each deferred to Cohen and Corazzi in derogation of their responsibilities. Natural Blue and Perry also made various material misrepresentations about the company, its contracts, and its anticipated revenue in a February 2011 press release as well as on a website and verbally to investors.

Anaya, who served as Natural Blue’s CEO from August 2009 to January 2011, has signed a cooperation agreement with the SEC in which he has consented to the entry of a cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying the charges. He will be barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock for at least five years. Any financial penalties will be determined at a later date.

Perry, who replaced Anaya and served as CEO until June 2011, agreed to settle the case by consenting to the entry of a cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying the charges. Perry, who previously resided in Massachusetts and currently lives in Bulgaria, agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty and be permanently barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company and from participating in any offerings of penny stock.

The SEC’s orders charge Natural Blue, Cohen, and Corazzi with violations of Section 17(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c). The orders also charge Natural Blue with violations of Section 17(a)(2) for misrepresentations made to investors in press releases and public filings, and violations of Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15d-1 and 15d-13 by failing to make required SEC filings.

Contact Us:

South Florida – Certified Public Accountant Independence and Negligence Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:24:16 GMT

Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, Delary Beach, Boynton Beach, Lantana, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach Certified Public Accountant and Public Accountant Independence and Negligence Litigation and Arbitration Attorney: SEC Charges Ernst & Young With Violating Auditor Independence Rules in Lobbying Activities

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged Ernst & Young LLP with violations of auditor independence rules that require firms to maintain their objectivity and impartiality with clients.

Ernst & Young agreed to pay more than $4 million to settle the charges.

The SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding finds that an Ernst & Young subsidiary lobbied congressional staff on behalf of two audit clients. Such lobbying activities were impermissible under the SEC’s auditor independence rules because they put the firm in the position of being an advocate for those audit clients. Despite providing the prohibited legislative advisory services on behalf of the clients, Ernst & Young repeatedly represented that it was “independent” in audit reports issued on the clients’ financial statements.

According to the SEC’s order, Ernst & Young’s subsidiary Washington Council EY (WCEY) impaired the firm’s independence in several lobbying actions:

WCEY sent letters signed by a senior executive of an Ernst & Young audit client to congressional staff, urging passage of certain legislation.
WCEY asked congressional staff to insert language into a bill that was favorable to the business interests of an Ernst & Young audit client.
WCEY met with congressional staff in order to defeat legislation detrimental to the business interests of an Ernst & Young audit client.
WCEY asked third parties to approach a U.S. senator in order to seek support for a legislative amendment sought by an Ernst & Young audit client.
WCEY marked up a draft of a bill by inserting an Ernst & Young audit client’s language and sending it to congressional staff.

According to the SEC’s order, Ernst & Young had issued a written independence policy intended to provide guidance on the provision of legislative advisory services to audit clients. However, Ernst & Young did not provide WCEY with formal, in-person training specifically tailored to the policy.

The SEC’s order finds that Ernst & Young committed violations of Rule 2-02(b)(1) of Regulation S-X; caused violations of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13a-1; and engaged in improper professional conduct pursuant to Exchange Act Section 4C(a)(2) and Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. The SEC’s order requires Ernst & Young to cease and desist from violating the auditor independence rules and from causing violations of the corporate periodic reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC also censured Ernst & Young and ordered payment of $4.07 million in monetary sanctions, including disgorgement of $1.24 million, prejudgment interest of $351,925.98, and a penalty of $2.48 million. The SEC took into consideration the remedial acts undertaken by Ernst & Young and its cooperation with SEC staff during the investigation. For example, Ernst & Young voluntarily issued new guidance in June 2012 restricting such legislative advisory services. The firm issued similar final guidance in May 2013.

Contact Us:

FAQ’s Relating to a Brokerage Account Transfer – Boca Raton, Florida Broker/Dealer FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:03:09 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach, Florida Broker/Dealer FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

FAQ’s You Should Consider Asking Before You Initiate Your Account Transfer:

Discussing the transfer process with your new firm is the best way to become familiar with the account transfer process. If the answers to your questions are not clear, ask the new firm for a written response. You should ask questions, such as:

Can you explain the transfer process to me?
Can you tell me what fees I should expect to pay (including transfer fees and any other fees associated with the account (e.g. annual fees, brokerage commissions)?
What documents or information do I need to transfer my account to your firm?
What do I need to do to start the transfer process and what should I expect after that?
What is the anticipated length of the transfer process given the specific type of account (such as cash, margin, IRA, custodial) and the assets held (such as stocks, bonds, options, limited partnership interests)?
Can you identify any issues that may cause a delay during the account transfer process?
How and when will you inform me that the transfer process is complete?
Does your firm have any specific policies or constraints that might impact the account transfer? For example, if you have a margin account, ask if the new firm will accept a margin account and, if so, what its minimum requirements are. In short, make sure the new firm is a good fit for you as a customer before you attempt to transfer your account.
Are there any restrictions on transactions I can execute during the transfer process? For example, buying and selling securities during the account transfer process can complicate and delay the transfer.
Can you identify any securities or assets in my account that may not transfer and how they will be handled? Before initiating the transfer process, ask your new firm which assets in your account may not transfer.

These securities may include:

securities sold exclusively by your old firm;
mutual funds or money market funds not available at the new firm, typically because the new firm does not maintain a relationship or arrangement with the fund necessary to hold the asset;
limited partnerships that are private placements, typically because the asset is held at the issuer, not the broker or investment adviser who sold it to the customer;
fractional shares of securities; and
bankrupt securities.

You will need to make an informed decision regarding these non-transferable assets.

You may be able to simply sell the non-transferable asset and transfer the cash proceeds, but you should consult your tax adviser first because selling the asset may affect your taxes. Also, before selling a mutual fund and buying a similar fund at your new firm, find out the fees that will be charged for the transactions by the old and new firms.
If you choose to leave the non-transferable assets at the old firm in an inactive account, ask whether a fee will be charged.
You may be able to take physical delivery of assets directly from your old firm. However, this may not be a wise choice. Taking possession of a physical security poses risks, such as the security being lost or stolen. Lost or stolen securities require significant time and money to replace. Also, it usually takes longer to sell a physical security than one your broker or investment adviser already holds electronically.

If you own some of these non-transferable securities, it may take longer to complete a transfer while you decide how to handle them. Your old firm is required to transfer whatever securities or assets it can through ACATS and ask you what you would like to do with the others.

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:

Investment Newsletters – South Florida Investment Newsletter Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:23:25 GMT

Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Lighthouse Point, Deerfield Beach and Boca Raton, Florida Investment Newsletter Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Investment newsletters come in many forms. They may be found online or in hard copy; they may be available for a fee or free of charge. Some newsletters address general securities topics, such as which types of stocks, bonds, or funds might make good investments. Others may provide commentary and analysis about particular companies, investment products, or financial trends.

While many investment newsletters are legitimate, some are used to carry out schemes designed to deceive investors. Such schemes can include:

Touting – promoting a stock without properly disclosing compensation received for promoting the stock.
Pump and dump schemes – pumping up a company’s stock price by making false and misleading statements to create a buying frenzy, and then selling shares at the pumped up price.
Scalping – recommending a stock to drive up the stock price and then selling shares of the stock at inflated prices to generate profits.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest – falsely claiming to provide independent analysis or failing to explain conflicts of interest (or biases), including financial incentives, that may influence the investment recommendations.
False performance claims – misrepresenting the track record of the newsletter’s investment recommendations.

Some investment newsletters claim to be sources of unbiased information, when in fact the newsletter publisher will make a lot of money if the newsletter convinces investors to buy or sell particular stocks. Do not take comfort because a newsletter encourages you to purchase or sell a stock through your own brokerage account. Even if you do not give the newsletter publisher any money to place trades for you, the newsletter publisher may profit from your trading activity. For example, you may purchase a stock (causing the stock price to rise) and then the newsletter publisher may sell its shares of that stock (profiting at your expense).

If a newsletter promotes a particular stock, read carefully what the newsletter says about compensation it receives and look for these red flags:

No disclosures. Be suspicious if the newsletter does not disclose having received any compensation.
Vague disclosures. Be skeptical of newsletters that do not specifically disclose who paid them, the amount, and the type of payment.
Buried disclosures. Be wary if the newsletter’s disclosures are difficult to find or appear in tiny, hard-to-read print.
Questions about your stock purchases. Be careful if a newsletter representative asks you detailed questions about your stock purchases like how many shares you bought, when you purchased the shares, or which broker you used to buy the shares. The newsletter publisher may make money based on the amount of shares its subscribers buy.

Even if a newsletter makes specific disclosures about being compensated for promoting a stock, be aware that fraudsters may include such disclosures to create the false appearance that the newsletter is legitimate.

Fraudsters may also use newsletters as a way to get their foot in the door to pitch fraudulent investments by phone. Be careful if someone tries to get you to subscribe to a newsletter and then calls you with specific investment recommendations.

When considering any potential investment, watch out for these warning signs of investment fraud:

Promises of high investment returns. Be highly suspicious if the promoter guarantees you a high rate of return on your investment.
Pressure to buy RIGHT NOW. Be skeptical if the promoter pitches the investment as a “limited time only” opportunity, especially if the promoter claims to base the recommendation on “inside” or confidential information.
Sounds too good to be true. Exercise caution if the investment sounds too good to be true. Investments providing higher returns typically involve more risk.

Please keep in mind that the above 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 you have any questions concerning the contents of this post, please contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

Daniel Kim – South Florida Broker/Dealer and Investment Advisor Selling Away and Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:50:48 GMT

South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Elder, Senior and Retirement Financial Abuse and Exploitation, Negligent Supervision, Breach of Fiduciary and Unapproved Outside Business Activity (Selling Away) FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Attorney:

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Daniel Kim (CRD #5372539, Registered Representative, New York, New York) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which he was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for one month. The fine must be paid either immediately upon Kim’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following his suspension, or prior to the filing of any application or request for relief from any statutory disqualification, whichever is earlier. Without admitting or denying the findings, Kim consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in an outside business activity without providing prior written notice of such activity to his firm. FINRA Case No. 2011030219601. To review the entire FINRA release relative to this matter, please follow one of the above referenced links.

Contact Us:

Alejandra Gandara – Florida Unapproved Outside Business Activity and Account Executive Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 23:56:34 GMT

South Florida Broker/Dealer Negligent Supervision, Breach of Fiduciary and Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Alejandra Gandara (CRD #2828142, Registered Representative, El Paso, Texas) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which she was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the findings, Gandara consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that she informed FINRA that she would not appear to testify at an on-th-record interview concerning her possible undisclosed outside business activities while registered with a member firm, among other possible activities. FINRA Case No. 2012031460901

Contact Us:

Lunick Jean Dorleus – Florida Securities Investment Club and Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 01:07:14 GMT

South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Investment Club and Unapproved Outside Business and Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Lunick Jean Dorleus (CRD #5436401, Registered Representative, Greenacres, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which he was suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for nine months. In light of Dorleus’ financial status, no monetary sanction has been imposed. Without admitting or denying the findings, Dorleus consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that, at the behest of an individual, Dorleus and other individuals formed an investment club whereby investors’ funds would be collected, forwarded to the individual or entities the individual controlled, and ultimately used by the individual for unspecified securities investments. The findings stated that Dorleus participated in private securities transactions of investors. FINRA Case No. 2011029760701. To review the entire FINRA release relative to this matter, please follow one of the above referenced links.

Contact Us:

Donald Richard Dahn – Florida Financial Abuse, Misappropriation and Unauthorized Loan FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:51:00 GMT

Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Negligent Supervision and Account Executive Financial Misappropriation, Unauthorized Loan and Elder Abuse FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Donald Richard Dahn (CRD #2172800, Registered Representative, Palm City, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the findings, Dahn consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he borrowed a total of $27,100 from public customers without the ability to repay the loans that had been represented to be used for operating expenses for a company Dahn ran with his brother. The findings stated that Dahn failed to disclose the loans to his members firms. The firms’ WSPs prohibited borrowing money from customers. Dahn has failed to repay either of the loans, one of which required payment within 90 days. Dahn misappropriated the funds by failing to repay either loan, and by borrowing customer funds without the ability to repay the loans. FINRA Case No. 2013036768101

Contact Us:

Timothy John Coyle – South Florida Forgery and Unauthorized Activity FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:37:59 GMT

South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Negligent Supervision, Forgery and Unauthorized Activity FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Timothy John Coyle (CDR #2437046, Registered Representative, Palm Harbor, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for six months. The fine must be paid either immediately upon Coyle’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following his suspension, or prior to the filing of any application or request for relief from any statutory disqualification, whichever is earlier. Without admitting or denying the findings, Coyle consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he forged signatures on documents and also forged customer’s initials next to amendments to a variable annuity application. The findings stated that the customer signatures and initials Coyle forged were done without the customer’ knowledge or consent. FINRA Case No. 2012031517302

Contact Us:

South Florida Oil and Gas Suitability, Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:24:45 GMT

South Florida Oil and Gas Suitability, Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Benjamin Irby Cox (CRD #5761085, Registered Representative, Dallas, Texas) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which he was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for one year. The fine must be paid either immediately upo0n Cox’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following his suspension, or prior to the filing of any application or request for relief from any statutory disqualification, whichever is earlier. Without admitting or denying the findings, Cox consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he cold-called potential investors as part of a process to identify investors for oil and gas offerings his firm offered and sold. The findings stated that during the cold calls, Cox was responsible for gathering and documenting suitability information about the potential investors. Cox was supposed to verify the potential investor’s name, address and occupation, and obtain financial investment experience information, and was also supposed to determine the potential investor’s interest in oil and gas investments. Upon obtaining this information, Cox was required to document the information he gathered on contact forms and submit them to the firm. The findings also stated that Cox falsified the suitability information on some contact forms he submitted to the firm. In particular, the contact forms contained false information about the potential investor’s address, occupation, financial status and/or investment experience. FINRA Case No. 2012030728501.

Contact Us:

South Florida Broker/Dealer and/or Account Executive Negligent Supervision, Selling Away and Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:23:31 GMT

South Florida Broker/Dealer and/or Account Executive Negligent Supervision, Selling Away and Unapproved Outside Business Activity FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Rinnie KF Chan (CRD #4225956, Registered Representative, Edison, New Jersey) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which she was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for one month. The fine must be paid either immediately upon Chan’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following her suspension, or prior to the filing of any application or request for relief from any statutory disqualification, whichever is earlier. Without admitting or denying the findings, Chan consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that she sold fixed life insurance policies issued by a non-member firm-affiliated insurance company for which she was compensated approximately $69,000 in commissions. The findings stated that Chan did not submit the applications through the firm’s Enterprise General Agency or declare the sales to the firm as an outside business activity. In her annual attestation, Chan falsely certified to the firm that she had not been engaged in any outside business activities, except for those previously disclosed. FINRA Case No. 2011030533101

Contact Us:

Irving Marvin Burstein – South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:15:04 GMT

Irving Marvin Burstein – South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney.

January 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Irving Marvin Burstein (CRD #1218326, Registered Principal, Boynton Beach, Florida, formerly licensed with R.M. Stark & Co., Inc., Legend Securities, Inc., and MSM Securities, Inc. respectively) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Wavier and Consent in which he was suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for one year and required to cooperate with FINRA or any other regulator in any further investigation and hearing related to his member firm. In light of Burstien’s financial status, no monetary sanctions have been imposed. Without admitting or denying the findings, Burnstein consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he was his firm’s CCO, whose duties included reviewing customer accounts to detect and monitor for unsuitable transactions, excessive trading activity, unauthorized trading/transactions, excessive losses, wholesale recommendations, excessive securities concentrations, and large or routine debit balances. The findings stated that Burnstein failed to review customer accounts for any of these things and limited his daily activities to reviewing the trade blotter and order tickets, and listening to registered representatives make cold calls. FINRA Case No. 2011027667401.

Contact Us:

Samuel Braslau, Rand Chortkoff and Stuart Rawitt – Florida Securities and Investment Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:14:20 GMT

South Florida Ponzi Scheme, Boiler Room and Movie Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

SEC Charges Three California Residents Behind Movie Investment Scam

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged three California residents with defrauding investors in a purported multi-million dollar movie project that would supposedly star well-known actors and generate exorbitant investment returns.

The SEC alleges that Los Angeles-based attorney Samuel Braslau was the architect of the fraudulent scheme that raised money through a boiler room operation spearheaded by Rand Chortkoff of Encino, Calif. High-pressure salespeople including Stuart Rawitt persuaded more than 60 investors nationwide to invest a total of $1.8 million in the movie first titled Marcel and later changed to The Smuggler. Investors were falsely told that actors ranging from Donald Sutherland to Jean-Claude Van Damme would appear in the movie when in fact they were never even approached. Instead of using investor funds for movie production expenses as promised, Braslau, Chortkoff, and Rawitt have spent most of the money among themselves. The investor funds that remain aren’t enough to produce a public service announcement let alone a full-length motion picture capable of securing the theatrical release promised to investors.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California today announced criminal charges against Braslau, Chortkoff, and Rawitt.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Braslau set up companies named Mutual Entertainment LLC and Film Shoot LLC to raise funds from investors for the movie project. In January 2011, Mutual Entertainment spent $25,000 to purchase the rights to Marcel, an unpublished story set in Paris during World War II. Shortly thereafter, Mutual Entertainment began raising money from investors through a boiler room operation that Chortkoff operated out of Van Nuys, Calif.

The SEC alleges that Braslau, Chortkoff, and Rawitt claimed that 63.5 percent of the funds raised from investors would be used for “production expenses.” However, very little if any money was actually spent on movie expenses as they instead used the vast majority of investor funds to pay sales commissions and phony “consulting” fees to themselves and other salespeople. Rawitt made numerous false claims to investors about the movie project. For instance, he flaunted a baseless projected return on investment of about 300 percent. He falsely depicted that they were just shy of reaching a $7.5 million fundraising goal and the movie was set to begin shooting in summer 2013. He instilled the belief that Mutual Entertainment was a successful film company whose track record encompassed the Harold and Kumar movies produced by Carsten Lorenz. And he falsely stated that investors would realize revenues from action figures and other products tied to the movie when in fact no such licensing rights had been sold.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Rawitt was the subject of a prior SEC enforcement action in 2009, when he was charged for his involvement in an oil-and-gas scheme.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Braslau, Chortkoff, and Rawitt violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The complaint further alleges that Chortkoff and Rawitt violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rawitt violated Section 15(b)(6)(B) of the Exchange Act. The SEC seeks financial penalties and permanent injunctions against Braslau, Chortkoff, and Rawitt.

Contact Us:

Credit Suisse Group AG – Failure To Register – South Florida Failure To Register FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:58:37 GMT

Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to U.S. Clients

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group AG for violating the federal securities laws by providing cross-border brokerage and investment advisory services to U.S. clients without first registering with the SEC.

Credit Suisse agreed to pay $196 million and admit wrongdoing to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Credit Suisse provided cross-border securities services to thousands of U.S. clients and collected fees totaling approximately $82 million without adhering to the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. Credit Suisse relationship managers traveled to the U.S. to solicit clients, provide investment advice, and induce securities transactions. These relationship managers were not registered to provide brokerage or advisory services, nor were they affiliated with a registered entity. The relationship managers also communicated with clients in the U.S. through overseas e-mails and phone calls.

According to the SEC’s order, Credit Suisse began conducting cross-border advisory and brokerage services for U.S. clients as early as 2002, amassing as many as 8,500 U.S. client accounts that contained an average total of $5.6 billion in securities assets. The relationship managers made approximately 107 trips to the U.S. during a seven-year period and provided broker-dealer and advisory services to hundreds of clients they visited. Credit Suisse was aware of the registration requirements of the federal securities laws and undertook initiatives designed to prevent such violations. These initiatives largely failed, however, because they were not effectively implemented or monitored.

According to the SEC’s order, it was not until after a much-publicized civil and criminal investigation into similar conduct by Swiss-based UBS that Credit Suisse began to take steps in October 2008 to exit the business of providing cross-border advisory and brokerage services to U.S. clients. Although the number of U.S. client accounts decreased beginning in 2009 and the majority were closed or transferred by 2010, it took Credit Suisse until mid-2013 to completely exit the cross-border business as the firm continued to collect broker-dealer and investment adviser fees on some accounts.

The SEC’s order finds that Credit Suisse willfully violated Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Credit Suisse admitted the facts in the SEC’s order, acknowledged that its conduct violated the federal securities laws, accepted a censure and a cease-and-desist order, and agreed to retain an independent consultant. Credit Suisse agreed to pay $82,170,990 in disgorgement, $64,340,024 in prejudgment interest, and a $50 million penalty.

Contact Us: