Investment Advisor - Russell L. Forkey

William J. Wells and Promitor Capital Management LLC. – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:38:35 GMT

William J. Wells and Promitor Capital Management LLC. – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

SEC Charges New Jersey Fund Manager With Securities Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged a New Jersey fund manager and his firm with defrauding investors by lying about his credentials, concealing trading losses, and using investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments to other investors.

The SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan alleges that William J. Wells, of River Vale, New Jersey, falsely told some investors that he was a registered investment adviser and would invest their money in specific stocks. Instead, Wells and his firm, Promitor Capital Management LLC, are alleged to have invested mainly in high-risk options with poor results that Wells concealed with phony investor account statements that grossly inflated performance. Wells further attempted to hide the losses by using funds from new investors to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors, the complaint alleges. Wells allegedly raised more than $1.1 million from dozens of investors since 2009, but by late summer, the Promitor fund brokerage accounts held less than $35, with the rest dissipated by trading losses and Ponzi-like payments, or diverted into Wells’s personal bank account, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, when one investor was unable to get Wells to return a portion of his investment, he asked Wells by text, “You running Ponzi scheme? Why the heck is this going down like this.” Wells later responded by text saying, “My explanation is that I’m an idiot and was trying to get some big trades to. . . make you more money.”

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Wells.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Wells and Promitor violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and SEC antifraud rules. Wells also was charged with aiding and abetting liability and control person liability for Promitor’s alleged violations. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions and financial penalties against Wells and Promitor, and return of allegedly ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest.

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.

Innovative Business Solutions, LLC. and Arthur Jacob – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser Fraud, Mismanagement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:51:20 GMT

Innovative Business Solutions, LLC. and Arthur Jacob – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser Fraud, Mismanagement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney Relating to Among Other Investments, Exchange Traded Funds.

SEC Charges Florida Investment Adviser and His Company With Defrauding Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against Florida-based investment adviser Arthur F. Jacob and his company, Innovative Business Solutions LLC, for allegedly deceiving clients over a period of at least five years.

In an order instituting administrative proceedings the SEC Enforcement Division alleges that from at least mid-2009 through July 2014:

Jacob and IBS misrepresented the risks and profitability of investments he purchased for investment advisory clients. Jacob was informed of investment risks of certain exchange traded funds but failed to disclose these risks to clients and told them that the investment strategy he used was safe, carried low or no risk, and would produce predictable profits.
Jacob concealed from clients his disciplinary history, which included being disbarred as a lawyer for misappropriating client funds and other professional misconduct.
Jacob and IBS were not registered with the SEC or any state as investment advisers and Jacob falsely told clients that he and IBS were not required to register as an investment adviser.
Jacob gave false information to a brokerage firm about the advisory services he and IBS provided so that he could retain trading authorization over clients’ accounts and continue to receive advisory fees for managing the accounts.

“Investment advisers owe their clients a duty of full and fair disclosure of all material facts,” said Antonia Chion, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Advisers who conceal their disciplinary history and mislead clients about their investment strategy and the risks associated with it, as we allege Jacob did, are in breach of that duty.”

The SEC’s order alleges that Jacob and IBS willfully violated the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws and an SEC antifraud rule. The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge to adjudicate and determine what if any remedial actions are appropriate.

Contact Us:

Mark Welhouse and Welhouse & Associates, Inc. – South Florida Improper Trade Allocation and Cherry-Picking FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:21:28 GMT

Mark Welhouse and Welhouse & Associates, Inc. – South Florida Improper Trade Allocation and Cherry-Picking FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

SEC Announces Cherry-Picking Charges Against Investment Manager

Case Arises From Enforcement Initiative Analyzing Large Volumes of Investment Advisers’ Trade Allocation Data

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against a Wisconsin-based investment advisory firm and its owner accused of improperly allocating to his personal and business accounts certain options trades that appreciated in value during the course of a trading day while allocating to his clients other trades that depreciated in value.

The SEC Enforcement Division has engaged in a data-driven initiative to identify potentially fraudulent trade allocations known as “cherry-picking,” and this enforcement action is the first arising from that effort. Working with economists in the agency’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, enforcement investigators analyze large volumes of investment advisers’ trade allocation data and identify instances where it appears an adviser is disproportionately allocating profitable trades to favored accounts.

The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that Mark P. Welhouse purchased options in an omnibus or master account for Welhouse & Associates Inc. and delayed allocation of the purchases to either his or his clients’ accounts until later in the day after he saw whether or not the securities appreciated in value. Welhouse allegedly reaped $442,319 in ill-gotten gains by unfairly allocating options trades in an S&P 500 exchange-traded fund named SPY. His personal trades in these options had an average first-day positive return of 6.28 percent while his clients’ trades in these options had an average first-day loss of 5.05 percent.

As described in the SEC order instituting administrative proceedings against Welhouse and his firm, SEC staff conducted a statistical analysis to determine whether Welhouse’s profitability in these accounts could have resulted from a coincidental or lucky combination of trades. After running a simulation test one million times, the staff concluded it could not.

The SEC Enforcement Division alleges that Welhouse and his firm violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge for proceedings to adjudicate the Enforcement Division’s allegations and determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate.

Contact Us:

Veros Partners, Inc., Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser and Private Offering Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:08:13 GMT

Veros Partners, Inc., Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Adviser and Private Offering Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Veros Partners, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-cv-000659-JMS-MJD (S.D.Ind., filed April 22, 2015)

SEC Halts Fraudulent Farm Loan Scheme by Indianapolis Investment Adviser

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against an Indianapolis investment adviser, its president, two associates and several affiliated companies for engaging in two fraudulent farm loan offerings, in which they made ponzi scheme payments to investors in other offerings and paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees. The SEC obtained a temporary restraining order and emergency asset freeze to halt the scheme.

According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in 2013 and 2014, Veros Partners, Inc., its president, Matthew D. Haab, and two associates, attorney Jeffrey B. Risinger and Tobin J. Senefeld, fraudulently raised at least $15 million from at least 80 investors, most of whom were Veros advisory clients. The investors were informed that their funds would be used to make short-term operating loans to farmers, but instead, significant portions of the loans were to cover the farmers’ unpaid debt on loans from prior offerings. According to the SEC’s complaint, Haab, Risinger and Senefeld used money from the two offerings to pay millions of dollars to investors in prior farm loan offerings and to pay themselves over $800,000 in undisclosed “success” and “interest rate spread” fees.

In addition to Veros, Haab, Risinger, and Senefeld, the SEC charged Veros Farm Loan Holding LLC and FarmGrowCap LLC, the issuers of the offerings, and PinCap LLC. The SEC also charged registered broker-dealer Pin Financial LLC as a relief defendant.

The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an asset freeze order against the defendants as well as a temporary restraining order prohibiting them from soliciting, accepting or depositing any monies from any actual or prospective investors, and in the case of Veros, any investors in private securities offerings. Judge Magnus-Stinson also ordered that a receiver be appointed. A preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for May 1, 2015.

The SEC’s complaint charges the defendants with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and also charges Veros and Haab with violating Sections 206(1), 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act, and Veros with violating Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-2. The SEC’s complaint seeks permanent injunctions and disgorgement against all defendants and a financial penalty. The SEC’s complaint names Pin Financial for the purposes of recovering proceeds it received from the fraud.

Contact Us:

Concealing Poor Performance of Fund Assets – South Florida Securities and Investment Mismanagement Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:52 GMT

Concealing Poor Performance of Fund Assets – South Florida Securities and Investment Mismanagement Attorney

SEC Announces Fraud Charges Against Investment Adviser Accused of Concealing Poor Performance of Fund Assets From Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges against an investment adviser and her New York-based firms accused of hiding the poor performance of loan assets in three collateralized loan obligation (CLO) funds they manage.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Lynn Tilton and her Patriarch Partners firms have breached their fiduciary duties and defrauded clients by failing to value assets using the methodology described to investors in offering documents for the CLO funds, which have portfolios comprised of loans to distressed companies. Instead, nearly all valuations of loan assets have been reported to investors as unchanged from the time they were acquired despite many of the companies making partial or no interest payments to the funds for several years. Investors have not only been misled to believe that objective valuation analyses were being performed, but Tilton and her firms allegedly have avoided significantly reduced management fees because the valuation methodology described in fund documents would have given investors greater fund management control and earlier principal repayments if collateral loans weren’t performing to a particular standard. Tilton and her firms also consequently have misled investors about asset valuations in fund financial statements.

According to the SEC’s order instituting an administrative proceeding, CLO funds raise capital by issuing secured notes and using proceeds to purchase a portfolio of collateral typically comprised of commercial loans. Investors are paid based on cash flows and other proceeds from the collateral. The three CLO funds managed by Tilton and the Patriarch Partners firms are collectively known as the Zohar funds, and more than $2.5 billion has been raised from investors. Tilton’s investment strategy for the Zohar funds has been to improve the operations of the distressed portfolio companies so they can pay off their debt, increase in value, and eventually be sold for a profit.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that under the contractual terms of the deals, Tilton and her firms are required to categorize the value of each loan asset in monthly reports by using a specific method set forth in deal documents. To be assigned the highest category, a loan has to be current in its interest payments to the Zohar funds. The category of each asset impacts the calculation of a fund’s “overcollateralization” ratio, which reflects the likelihood that investors will receive a return on their principal. If the overcollateralization ratio falls below a specific threshold, Tilton and her firms are not entitled to receive certain management fees and may be required to cede more control of fund management to investors.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that rather than following the required methodology for valuing these loan assets, Tilton and her firms have maintained their control over the funds and preserved their management fees by not lowering an asset’s category until she decides to cease financial support of the distressed company. Thus the valuation of an asset simply reflects Tilton’s subjective assessment of the company’s future. Absent an actual overcollateralization ratio test, investors aren’t getting a true assessment of the actual values of their investments, which in reality have declined substantially.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division further alleges that Tilton and her firms were responsible for misstatements in the quarterly financial statements of the Zohar funds. When preparing these financial statements, they failed to conduct a required impairment analysis on the assets of the Zohar funds despite disclosures stating that such analysis had occurred. They also falsely stated that assets of the Zohar funds were reported at fair value. Tilton repeatedly and falsely certified that the financial statements were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Tilton, Patriarch Partners LLC, Patriarch Partners VIII LLC, Patriarch Partners XIV LLC, and Patriarch Partners XV LLC violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206-4(8). Patriarch Partners LLC also is charged with aiding and abetting violations by the others. The matter will be scheduled for a public hearing before an administrative law judge for proceedings to adjudicate the Enforcement Division’s allegations and determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate.

Contact Us:

Frederic Elm and Elm Tree Investment Advisors – Boca Raton, Florida Securities and Investment Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:53:12 GMT

Boca Raton, Florida Securities and Investment Fund Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frederic Elm f/k/a Frederic Elmaleh, et al., Case No. 15-cv-60082-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

SEC Charges Investment Adviser and Manager in South Florida-Based Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based investment adviser, its manager, and three related funds with defrauding investors in a scheme that raised more than $17 million since November 2013.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida on January 15, 2015, charged Elm Tree Investment Advisors LLC, its founder and manager, Frederic Elm, and three funds, Elm Tree Investment Fund LP, Elm Tree “e”Conomy Fund LP, and Elm Tree Motion Opportunity LP. According to the complaint, Elm, formerly known as Frederic Elmaleh, his unregistered investment advisory firm, and three funds misled investors and used most of the money raised to make Ponzi-like payments to the investors. The complaint also alleges that Elm treated the funds as his personal piggy bank, tapping them to buy a $1.75 million home, luxury automobiles, jewelry, and cover daily living expenses. Elm’s wife, Amanda Elm, formerly Elmaleh, is named as a relief defendant based on her receipt of investor monies.

The SEC’s complaint charges Elm, his advisory firm and the Elm Tree funds with 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 complaint also charges Elm and ETIA with violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. The SEC is seeking relief for investors, including return of allegedly ill-gotten gains, with interest, and financial penalties.

The Honorable William Dimitrouleas on January 16 granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order and temporary asset freeze against Elm, his firm, and the three Elm Tree funds. The judge ordered a temporary asset freeze against Amanda Elm and required her and the other defendants to provide accountings. Judge Dimitrouleas also entered an order appointing Grisel Alonso as receiver for Elm Tree Investment Advisors and the Elm Tree funds. A court hearing has been scheduled for January 29.

Contact Us:

Anthony Coronati and Bidtoask LLC. – Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Advertising

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:38:43 GMT

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

SEC Charges Staten Island Man With Conducting Fraudulent Offerings and Stealing Investor Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission trecently charged the operator of an online stock recommendation business with conducting several fraudulent securities offerings and siphoning some of the money raised from investors for a Caribbean vacation and plastic surgery.

An SEC investigation found that Anthony Coronati, who lives on Staten Island, initially held himself out as an investment adviser to a hedge fund that he claimed would invest in equity securities. But the hedge fund was fictitious and Coronati used investor money for other purposes. When the money began drying up, he went on to defraud investors in additional schemes involving his New Jersey-based company Bidtoask LLC. Coronati and Bidtoask sold membership interests in the company for the purpose of investing in promising technology companies that had yet to hold initial public offerings (IPOs). Investors were told that Bidtoask would invest directly in pre-IPO Facebook shares without charging any fees, commissions, or markups to investors. However, Bidtoask’s Facebook-related investments actually did require the payment of significant fees that Coronati and Bidtoask concealed from investors. Bidtoask did not even own the shares of other technology companies in which it was supposedly investing, and these companies were not actually in the process of an IPO.

Coronati and Bidtoask have agreed to settle the SEC’s charges. Coronati must pay back $400,000 in funds stolen from investors, and the money will be deposited into a Fair Fund for distribution to victims of the fraud schemes. Coronati also agreed to be permanently barred from the securities industry.

Coronati, who operates the website BidToAsk.com that offers stock recommendations to subscribers, was the subject of a subpoena enforcement action filed by the SEC late last yearwhen he failed to produce documents or appear for scheduled testimony during the SEC’s investigation. As a result of his continued failure to comply with SEC subpoenas in spite of a court order, Coronati was held in contempt of court and arrested earlier this year.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, Coronati conducted his schemes from at least 2009 to 2013. As the various schemes unraveled, he faced increasing concerns from investors. Coronati placated certain investors by making Ponzi-like payments to them using other investors’ money, and he sent a phony account statement to at least one investor purporting a position in the fake hedge fund that was worth more than $120,000. The account statement also purported that the fictitious hedge fund was more than 80 percent invested in well-known public companies such as Apple. Meanwhile, Coronati used investor funds to pay business expenses and such personal expenses as the Caribbean vacation and plastic surgery, and he also used investor money to purchase securities in a personal brokerage account he held in his own name.

The SEC’s order finds that Coronati and Bidtoask violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Coronati additionally violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. Without admitting or denying the findings, Coronati and Bidtoask consented to the SEC’s order requiring them to cease and desist from further violations of those provisions of the securities laws and SEC rules. Information about the Fair Fund will be available at: www.sec.gov/litigation/fairfundlist.htm.

Contact Us:

Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, Harvey Altholtz, Stevens Resource Group, LLC and George Stevens – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund and Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 13:18:59 GMT

Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, Harvey Altholtz, Stevens Resource Group, LLC and George Stevens – Boca Raton, Florida Investment Fund and Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wealth Strategy Partners, LC, et al., Civil Action No. 14-CV-02427-JDW-TGW

SEC Charges General Partner and Investment Advisers to the Stealth and Adamas Funds with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action on September 25, 2014 charging Wealth Strategy Partners, LC (“Wealth Strategy”), a Sarasota, Florida company, and its principal, Harvey Altholtz of Sarasota, Florida, and Stevens Resource Group, LLC (“Stevens Resource”), a Washington company, and its principal, George Stevens of Lacey, Washington, with securities fraud involving the fraudulent offers and sales of securities in two investment funds – The Stealth Fund, LLLP and The Adamas Fund, LLLP. Wealth Strategy and Altholtz controlled and managed the two funds and later served as investment advisers to the funds. Stevens Resource and Stevens also served as investment advisers to both funds.

According to the Commission’s complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Stealth and Adamas Funds, combined, raised approximately $30.8 million from over 143 investors nationwide between 2007 and November, 2009. The complaint alleges that, from October 2008 through April 2010, the defendants failed to disclose in offering materials distributed to investors that Stealth’s assets could be used to guarantee certain loans that Altholtz’s family made to two portfolio companies that Stealth invested in and that his family also made loans to Adamas and Stealth in violation of the funds’ operating agreements. The complaint also alleges that Wealth Strategy and Altholtz committed fraud by giving an Altholtz family trust, who was an investor in Adamas, preferential treatment with regard to redemptions over other investors. The complaint further alleges that the defendants made misstatements and omissions in newsletters to investors regarding the financial condition of some of the funds’ portfolio companies.

The SEC’s complaint charges the defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against all of the defendants, and officer and director bars against Altholtz and Stevens. Stevens and Stevens Resource have agreed to settle the case against them by consenting to, among other things, the entry of a judgment permanently enjoining them from future violations of the securities laws, imposing a permanent officer and director bar against Stevens, and ordering them to pay disgorgement and civil penalties, in amounts to be determined by the Court later.

Contact Us:

Oscar F. Villarreal – Boca Raton, Florida Investment and Investment Advisor Fraud Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:34:45 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Oscar F. Villarreal, Civil Action No. 14-cv-01891

Former Cleveland-Area Investment Promoter Oscar F. Villarreal Indicted

On September 16, 2014, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio obtained a Grand Jury indictment charging Oscar F. Villarreal with ten counts of wire fraud, seven counts of money laundering, one count of securities fraud, and one count of investment adviser fraud.

The Indictment’s allegations are based on the same conduct underlying the Commission’s August 26, 2014 Complaint against Villarreal filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that from March 2009 through December 2010, Villarreal conducted a fraudulent offering, known as Fund III, which raised $9.2 million from 46 investors. According to the complaint, Villarreal told investors that their money was to be used to make private equity investments in companies in the petroleum, steel, and other industries in Mexico. Villarreal lied to these investors about the success of a previous fund he operated, lied in saying that he used their money to purchase and profitably operate a Mexican pipeline manufacturer, and lied by telling investors that Fund III had ownership interests in several U.S. and Mexican drilling companies. Villarreal instead used $7.4 million of Fund III assets to trade in publicly traded securities in a brokerage account-contrary to his representations to investors-and sustained heavy losses, and also stole $5.8 million for himself. By November 2011, Fund III was essentially insolvent.

The Commission’s complaint also alleges that, between August 2010 and March 2011, Villarreal conducted a second fraudulent offering, known as the Standard Asset Management Fund I, (“SAM Fund”), which raised $9 million from 11 investors, six of whom had previously invested in Fund III. According to the complaint, Villarreal told these investors that the SAM Fund would invest in companies listed on the Mexican stock exchange. Villarreal made numerous misrepresentations to these investors. Among other things, Villarreal repeated his earlier lies about Fund II and Fund III’s purported acquisition and profitable operation of a Mexican pipeline manufacturer, he stole at least $327,000 of SAM Fund assets, and Villarreal’s trading was a massive failure, resulting in an 83% loss for the SAM Fund.

The complaint also alleges that Villarreal defrauded the SAM Fund investors between March 2012 and May 2012 by offering to “exchange” limited partnership units he claimed he owned in Fund III for the SAM Fund investors’ limited partnership units in the SAM Fund. Eight SAM Fund investors accepted Villarreal’s offer and exchanged their SAM Fund units, which they had purchased for a total of $3.1 million. Villarreal, however, lied about the number of Fund III limited partnership units he owned and the value of the Fund III units. Villarreal did not disclose to these investors that the Fund III limited partnership units were worthless.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that Villarreal violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The Commission’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

Contact Us:

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:

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.

Robert G. Bard – South Florida Securities and Bank Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 01:33:59 GMT

Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach, Florida Investment Advisor Securities and Bank Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Robert Glenn Bard, et al., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-1473 (M.D. Pa.)

Pennsylvania-Based Investment Adviser Charged in SEC and Criminal Actions Receives Prison Sentence

A Pennsylvania-based investment adviser who was charged with fraud in an SEC enforcement action and later by criminal authorities has received a prison sentence of more than 21 years.

Robert G. Bard of Warfordsburg, Pa., was sentenced on July 31 by Sylvia H. Rambo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Bard had been found guilty by a jury and convicted of 21 counts of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements for defrauding his investment advisory clients between December 2004 and August 2009. Judge Rambo sentenced Bard to 262 months imprisonment and ordered him to pay $4.2 million in restitution to 66 victims.

The criminal case, filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 18, 2012, arose out of the same facts that were the subject of a civil injunctive action filed by the SEC on July 30, 2009. The Commission’s complaint alleged that defendant Bard, an investment adviser, and his solely-owned company Vision Specialist Group LLC had violated the federal securities laws through fraudulent misrepresentations regarding client investments, account performance and advisory fees, and by Bard’s creation of false client account statements, and forgery of client documents. On May 23, 2012, after granting summary judgment for the Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a final judgment against Bard and Vision Specialist Group finding both violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, § 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and §§ 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In that judgment, the court also entered permanent injunctions for violations of those provisions, and held Bard and Vision Specialist Group jointly and severally liable for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties totaling $3,003,039.

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:

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:

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:

Stop Order – Special Order and/or Trading Instruction – South Florida Broker/Dealer, Investment Advisor and Account Executive Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Mismanagement and Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:04:01 GMT

Special Orders and Trading Instructions – South Florida Broker/Dealer, Investment Advisor and Account Executive Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Mismanagement, Negligence and Negligent Supervision FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Special Orders and Trading Instructions:

In addition to market and limit orders, brokerage firms may allow investors to use special orders and trading instructions to buy and sell stocks. One of the most common special orders and trading instructions is the “stop order.”

Stop Order: A stop order, also referred to as a stop-loss order, is an order to buy or sell a stock once the price of the stock reaches a specified price, known as the stop price. When the stop price is reached, a stop order becomes a market order. A buy stop order is entered at a stop price above the current market price. Investors generally use a buy stop order to limit a loss or to protect a profit on a stock that they have sold short. A sell stop order is entered at a stop price below the current market price. Investors generally use a sell stop order to limit a loss or to protect a profit on a stock that they own. Before using a stop order, investors should consider the following: short-term market fluctuations in a stock’s price can activate a stop order, so a stop price should be selected carefully. The stop price is not the guaranteed execution price for a stop order. The stop price is a trigger that causes the stop order to become a market order. The execution price an investor receives for this market order can deviate significantly from the stop price in a fast-moving market where prices change rapidly. An investor can avoid the risk of a stop order executing at an unexpected price by placing a stop-limit order, but the limit price may prevent the order from being executed. For certain types of stocks, some brokerage firms have different standards for determining whether a stop price has been reached. For these stocks, some brokerage firms use only last-sale prices to trigger a stop order, while other firms use quotation prices. Investors should check with their brokerage firms to determine the specific rules that will apply to stop orders.

Contact Us:

Total Wealth Management and Jacob Cooper – South Florida Investment Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:17:51 GMT

South Florida, including Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Deerfield Beach, Boca Raton and Delray Beach, Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced charges against a San Diego-based investment advisory firm, its chief executive officer, chief compliance officer, and another employee for misleading investors and breaching their fiduciary duties to clients.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Total Wealth Management and its owner and CEO Jacob Cooper entered into undisclosed revenue sharing agreements through which they paid themselves kickbacks or so-called “revenue sharing fees.” They failed to disclose to clients the conflicts of interest created by these agreements as they recommended the underlying investments to clients and investors in the Altus family of funds. Total Wealth and Cooper also materially misrepresented the extent of the due diligence conducted on the investments they recommended. Total Wealth’s CCO Nathan McNamee and investment adviser representative Douglas Shoemaker also breached their fiduciary duties and defrauded clients by failing to disclose conflicts of interest and concealing the kickbacks they received from the investments they recommended.

“Investment advisers owe a fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and full and fair disclosure to their clients,” said Michele Wein Layne, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. “Total Wealth violated that duty with its pervasive practice of placing clients in funds holding risky investments while concealing the revenue sharing fees they paid themselves.”

In the order instituting administrative proceedings, the SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Total Wealth and Cooper willfully violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and McNamee and Shoemaker violated or aided and abetted violations of the antifraud provisions. They also are charged with violations of Form ADV disclosure rules and the custody rule. The SEC’s order seeks return of allegedly ill-gotten gains plus interest, financial penalties, an accounting, and remedial relief.

Contact Us:

Corporate and High Yield Bonds – South Florida Corporate and High Yield Bond Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unsuitability FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:57:23 GMT

Corporate and Corporate High Yield Bond Breach of Fiduciary, Unsuitability, Churining and Unauthorized Purchase and Sale FINRA Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Attorney:

If you are considering or if your account executive or investment advisor is soliciting you to purchase, hold or sell a corporate bond, you may wish to read this post to refresh your understanding of corporate bonds or, if you are an unsophisticated invesotr, arm youself with questions to ask your investment professional.

What Are Corporate Bonds?

A bond is a debt obligation, like an iou. Investors who buy corporate bonds are lending money to the company issuing the bond. In return, the company makes a legal commitment to pay interest on the principal and, in most cases, to return the principal when the bond comes due, or matures. To understand bonds, it is helpful to compare them with stocks. When you buy a share of common stock, you own equity in the company and will receive any dividends declared and paid by the company. When you buy a corporate bond, you do not own equity in the company. You will receive only the interest and principal on the bond, no matter how profitable the company becomes or how high its stock price climbs. But if the company runs into financial difficulties, it still has a legal obligation to make timely payments of interest and principal. The company has no similar obligation to pay dividends to shareholders. In a bankruptcy, bond investors have priority over shareholders in claims on the company’s assets to be distributed, if any.

Like all investments, bonds carry risks. One key risk to a bondholder is that the company may fail to make timely payments of interest or principal. If that happens, the company will default on its bonds. This “default risk” makes the creditworthiness of the company-that is, its ability to pay its debt obligations on time-an important concern to bondholders. As set forth below, this default risk has an effect on bond prices.

What are the basic types of corporate bonds?

Corporate bonds issued by listed and non-listed companies make up one of the largest components of the U.S. bond market, which is considered the largest securities market in the world. Other components include U.S. Treasury Bonds, other U.S. government bonds, and municipal bonds.

Companies use the proceeds from bond sales for a wide variety of purposes, including buying new equipment, investing in research and development, buying back their own stock, paying shareholder dividends, refinancing debt, including other bond series, and financing mergers and acquisitions. Call dates on a particular series of bonds are partially designed to assist in the refunding process.

There are a number of factors that you or your stockbroker in recommending the purchase or sale of a bond to you should take into consideration in determining whether a bond transaction is suitable for your investment objective and/or your asset mix. First, bonds can be classified according to their maturity, which is the date when the company has to pay back the principal to investors. Maturities can be short term (less than three years), medium term (four to 10 years), or long term (more than 10 years). Longer-term bonds usually offer higher interest rates, but may entail additional risks.

Second, bonds and the companies that issue them are also classified according to their credit quality. Credit rating agencies assign credit ratings based on their evaluation of the risk that the company may default on its bonds. Credit rating agencies periodically review their bond ratings and may revise them if conditions or expectations change. Based on their credit ratings, bonds can be either investment grade or non-investment grade. Investment-grade bonds are considered more likely than non-investment grade bonds to be paid on time. Non-investment grade bonds, which are also called high-yield or speculative bonds, generally offer higher interest rates to compensate investors for greater risk.

Third, bonds also differ according to the type of interest payments they offer. Many bonds pay a fixed rate of interest throughout their term. Interest payments are called coupon payments, and the interest rate is called the coupon rate. With a fixed coupon rate, the coupon payments stay the same regardless of changes in market interest rates. Other bonds offer floating rates that are reset periodically, such as every six months. These bonds adjust their interest payments to changes in market interest rates. Floating rates are based on a bond index or other bench-marks. For example, the floating rate may equal the interest rate on a certain type of Treasury Bond plus 1%. One type of bond makes no interest payments until the bond matures. These are called zero-coupon bonds, because they make no coupon payments. Instead, the bond makes a single payment at maturity that is higher than the initial purchase price. For example, an investor may pay $800 to purchase a five-year, zero-coupon bond with a face value of $1,000. The company pays no interest on the bond for the next five years, and then, at maturity, pays $1,000-equal to the purchase price of $800 plus interest, or original issue discount, of $200. Investors in zero-coupon bonds generally must pay taxes each year on a prorated share of the interest before the interest is actually paid at maturity.

What happens if a company goes into bankruptcy?

If a company defaults on its bonds and goes bankrupt, bondholders will have a claim on the company’s assets and cash flows. Consider what was just said. The bondholders will have a claim on and will not automatically receive the value of the bond. The bond’s terms determine the bond-holder’s place in line, or the priority of the claim. Priority will be based on whether the bond is, for example, a secured bond, a senior unsecured bond or a junior unsecured (or subordinated) bond. In the case of a secured bond, the company pledges specific collateral-such as property, equipment, or other assets that the company owns-as security for the bond. If the company defaults, holders of secured bonds will have a legal right to foreclose on the collateral to satisfy their claims, which collateral may or may not be sufficient to pay each bondholder in full. Bonds that have no collateral pledged to them are unsecured and may be called debentures. Debentures have a general claim on the company’s assets and cash flows. They may be classified as either senior or junior (subordinated) debentures. If the company defaults, holders of senior debentures will have a higher priority claim on the company’s assets and cash flows than holders of junior debentures. Bondholders, however, are usually not the company’s only creditors. The company may also owe money to banks, suppliers, customers, pensioners, and others, some of whom may have equal or higher claims than certain bondholders. Sorting through the competing claims of creditors is a complex process that unfolds in bankruptcy court.

What are the financial terms of a bond?

The basic financial terms of a corporate bond include its price, face value (also called par value), maturity, coupon rate, and yield to maturity. Yield to maturity is a widely used measure to compare bonds. This is the annual return on the bond if held to maturity taking into account when you bought the bond and what you paid for it.

A bond often trades at a premium or discount to its face value. This can happen when market interest rates rise or fall relative to the bond’s coupon rate. If the coupon rate is higher than market interest rates, for example, then the bond will likely trade at a premium.

What’s the relationship among bond prices, interest rates and yield?

It is important to remember that the price of a bond moves in the opposite direction than market interest rates-like opposing ends of a seesaw. When interest rates go up, the price of the bond goes down. And when interest rates go down, the bond’s price goes up. A bond’s yield also moves inversely with the bond’s price. For example, let’s say a bond offers 3% interest, and a year later market interest rates fall to 2%. The bond will still pay 3% interest, making it more valuable than newly issued bonds paying just 2% interest. If you sell the 3% bond, you will probably find that its price is higher than a year ago. Along with the rise in price, however, the yield to maturity for any new buyer of the bond will go down. Now suppose market interest rates rise from 3% to 4%. If you sell the 3% bond, it will be competing with new bonds that offer 4% interest. The price of the 3% bond may be more likely to fall. The yield to maturity for any new buyer, however, will rise as the price falls. It’s important to keep in mind that despite swings in trading price with a bond investment, if you hold the bond until maturity, the bond will continue to pay the stated rate of interest as well as its face value upon maturity, subject to default risk.

What are some of the risks of corporate bonds?

Credit or default risk:

Credit or default risk is the risk that a company will fail to timely make interest or principal payments and thus default on its bonds. Credit ratings try to estimate the relative credit risk of a bond based on the company’s ability to pay. Credit rating agencies periodically review their bond ratings and may revise them if conditions or expectations change.

The corporate bond contract (called an indenture) often includes terms called covenants designed to limit credit risk. For instance, the terms may limit the amount of debt the company can take on, or may require it to maintain certain financial ratios. Violating the terms of a bond may constitute a default. The bond trustee monitors the company’s compliance with the terms of its indenture. The trustee acts on behalf of the bondholders and pursues remedies if the bond covenants are violated.

Interest rate risk:

As discussed above, the price of a bond will fall if market interest rates rise. This presents investors with interest rate risk, which is common to all bonds, even U.S. Treasury Bonds. A bond’s maturity and coupon rate generally affect its sensitivity to changes in market interest rates. The longer the bond’s maturity, the more time there is for rates to change and, as a result, affect the price of the bond. Therefore, bonds with longer maturities generally present greater interest rate risk than bonds of similar credit quality that have shorter maturities. To compensate investors for this interest rate risk, long-term bonds generally offer higher interest rates than short-term bonds of the same credit quality. If two bonds offer different coupon rates while all of their other characteristics are the same, the bond with the lower coupon rate will generally be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates. For example, imagine one bond that has a coupon rate of 2% while another bond has a coupon rate of 4%. All other features of the two bonds-when they mature, their level of credit risk, and so on-are the same. If market interest rates rise, then the price of the bond with the 2% coupon rate will fall by a greater percentage than that of the bond with the 4% coupon rate. This makes it particularly important for investors to consider interest rate risk when they purchase bonds in a low-interest rate environment.

Inflation risk:

Inflation is a general rise in the prices of goods and services, which causes a decline in purchasing power. With inflation over time, the amount of money received on the bond’s interest and principal payments will purchase fewer goods and services than before.

Liquidity risk:

Liquidity is the ability to sell an asset, such as a bond, for cash when the owner chooses. Bonds that are traded frequently and at high volumes may have stronger liquidity than bonds that trade less frequently. Liquidity risk is the risk that investors seeking to sell their bonds may not receive a price that reflects the true value of the bonds (based on the bond’s interest rate and credit- worthiness of the company). If you own a bond that is not traded on an exchange, you may have to go to a broker when you want to sell it. In addition, the bond market does not have the same pricing transparency as the equity market, as the dissemination of pricing information is more limited for corporate bonds in comparison to equity securities such as common stock.

Call risk:

The terms of some bonds give the company the right to buy back the bond before the maturity date. This is known as calling the bond, and it represents “call risk” to bondholders. For example, a bond with a maturity of 10 years may have terms allowing the company to call the bond any time after the first five years. If it calls the bond, the company will pay back the principal (and possibly an additional premium depending on when the call occurs). One reason the company may call the bond back is if market interest rates have fallen relative to the coupon rate on the bond. That same decline in market interest rates would likely make the bond more valuable to bondholders. Thus, what is financially advantageous to the company is likely to be financially disadvantageous to the bondholder. Bondholders may be unable to reinvest at a comparable interest rate for the same level of risk. Investors should check the terms of the bond for any call provisions or other terms allowing for prepayment.

How can investors reduce their risks?

Investors can reduce their overall investment risks by diversifying their assets, if they so choose. Bonds are one type of asset, along with shares of stock (or equity), cash, and other investments. Investors also can diversify the types of bonds they hold. For example, investors could buy bonds of different maturities-balancing short-term, intermediate, and long- term bonds-or diversify the mix of their bond holdings by combining corporate, treasury, or municipal bonds. Investors with a greater risk tolerance may decide to buy bonds of lower credit quality, accepting higher risks in pursuit of higher yields. More conservative investors, however, may prefer to limit their bond holdings solely to high-quality bonds, avoiding riskier or more speculative bonds. Instead of holding bonds directly, investors can invest in mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) with a focus on bonds. Investors should base their decisions on their individual circumstances.

How do I research my bond or bond fund investment?

A prospectus is the offering document filed with the SEC by a company that issues bonds for sale to the public in a registered transaction. Among other things, the prospectus relating to a corporate bond issuance describes the terms of the bond, significant risks of investing in the offering, the financial condition of the company issuing the bond, and how the company plans to use the proceeds from the bond sale. Similarly, if you are investing in a bond-focused mutual fund or ETF, these funds also prepare prospectuses detailing important information about the fund. Investors can ask their broker-dealer for the prospectus of any bond or bond fund in which they are interested. Prospectuses also are available to the public without charge on the SEC’s Edgar website. You can also find a bond fund’s prospectus at the bond fund’s website. Additionally, if you are considering purchasing a private company bond, you should make sure that you receive the same type of information that you are entitled to receive in a registered offering.

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, you should consult a qualified expert.

Contact Us:

James Y. Lee – South Florida Investment Advisor and Securities Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:25:44 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission v. James Y. Lee, et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00347-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal.)

SEC Charges James Y. Lee for Defrauding His Advisory Clients

On February 13, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against James Y. Lee, a resident of La Jolla, California, alleging he defrauded his advisory clients.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in San Diego, alleges that Lee portrayed himself to prospective clients as a highly successful financial industry expert. According to the complaint, Lee recruited clients to open online brokerage accounts, including margin accounts in which he had discretionary authority to trade in options. He also charged his clients a management fee of as much as 50% of their monthly realized profits and promised clients that he would share equally in 50% of their realized losses. But when Lee’s clients suffered large realized losses, he failed to reimburse most of them for his promised share.

The complaint alleges that Lee defrauded his clients in several ways. He charged some clients fees for the month of February 2011 based on false performance and concealed from them that they had actually incurred realized losses that month. In addition, he misled clients about his background, including failing to disclose a criminal conviction for embezzlement and an SEC cease-and-desist order for his role in illegal unregistered penny stock offerings. He also misled clients about his promise to share in realized losses and the risks of his options trading strategy. Furthermore, he traded in penny stocks in client accounts outside of his discretionary authority, and fraudulently induced one client to loan money to a penny stock company.

The complaint charges Lee with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws – Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction as well as disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties against Lee.

The complaint names several relief defendants including Lee’s girlfriend, his son and his close business associate as well as their respective companies. According to the complaint, Lee diverted investor funds to all of the relief defendants to avoid holding assets in his own name.

In a related matter, on February 12, 2014, the SEC settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Ronald E. Huxtable II, of Palm Coast Florida. (Rel. 33-9547) In those proceedings the SEC found that Huxtable, one of Lee’s clients, aided, abetted and caused Lee’s violations by helping Lee charge certain clients fees for the month of February 2011 based on false performance and conceal the fact that they had actually incurred net realized losses for that month.

Contact Us:

Western Asset Management Company – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:06:23 GMT

Western Asset Management Company – South Florida Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cross Trading FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced sanctions against a California-based investment adviser for concealing investor losses that resulted from a coding error and engaging in cross trading that favored some clients over others.

Western Asset Management Company, which is a subsidiary of Legg Mason, agreed to pay more than $21 million to settle the SEC’s charges as well as a related matter announced by the U.S. Department of Labor.

According to an SEC order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Western Asset serves as an investment manager primarily to institutional clients, many of which are ERISA plans. Western Asset breached its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose and promptly correct a coding error that caused the improper allocation of a restricted private investment to the accounts of nearly 100 ERISA clients. The private investment that was off-limits to ERISA plans had plummeted in value by the time the coding error was discovered, and Western Asset had an obligation to reimburse clients for such losses under the terms of its error correction policy. Instead, Western Asset failed to notify its ERISA clients until nearly two years later, long after the firm had liquidated the prohibited securities out of those client accounts.

In a separate order involving a different set of client accounts, the SEC finds that Western Asset engaged in a type of cross trading that was illegal. Cross trading is the practice of moving a security from one client account to another without exposing the transaction to the market, and when done appropriately it can benefit both clients by avoiding market and execution costs. However, cross trading also can pose substantial risks to clients due to the adviser’s inherent conflict of interest in obtaining best execution for both the buying and the selling client.

The SEC’s order finds that during the financial crisis, Western Asset was required to sell mortgage-backed securities and similar assets into a sharply declining market as registered investment companies and other clients sought account liquidations or were no longer eligible to hold these securities after rating agency downgrades. Instead of selling the securities at prices that Western Asset believed did not represent their long-term value, it arranged for certain broker-dealers to purchase the securities from the Western Asset selling clients and sell the same security back to different Western Asset clients with greater risk tolerance in prearranged sale-and-repurchase cross trades. Because Western Asset arranged to cross these securities at the bid price rather than a price representing an average between the bid and the ask price, the firm improperly allocated the full benefit of the market savings on the trades to buying clients and denied the selling clients approximately $6.2 million in savings.

The SEC’s orders find that Western Asset violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7, and aided and abetted and caused violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm agreed to be censured and must cease and desist from committing or causing any further such violations. For the disclosure violations related to the coding error, Western Asset must distribute more than $10 million to harmed clients and pay a $1 million penalty in the SEC settlement and a $1 million penalty in the Labor Department settlement. For the cross trading violations, Western Asset must distribute more than $7.4 million to harmed clients and pay a $1 million penalty in the SEC settlement and a $607,717 penalty in the Labor Department settlement. An independent compliance consultant must be retained to internally address both sets of violations.

Contact Us:

With extensive courtroom, arbitration and mediation experience and an in-depth understanding of 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.

Hybrid Elder and Senior Financial Exploitation and Abuse – South Florida Senior, Elder and Retirement Abuse and Exploitation Litigation, FINRA Arbitration and Probate Estate Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:38:57 GMT

Hybrid Senior, Elder and Retirement Financial Abuse and Exploitation Arbitration, Litigation and Probate Estate Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

Hybrid financial exploitation.

It has been determined that a relatively unrecognized situation, referred to as hybrid financial exploitation, arises when financial exploitation co-occurs with physical abuse and/or neglect. These cases typically involve financially dependent family members, particularly adult offspring, who have been cared for by the elderly person for years , if not decades. The abuse suffered by these elderly victims is frequently longstanding. Over time, however, as the elderly person’s health declines and the elderly person becomes more socially isolated, often as the result of the death of a spouse, the elderly person increasingly becomes more dependent on another family member for care, resulting in a mutual dependency, albeit with each member of the dyad experiencing a different type of dependency. Although sharing some features in common with physical abuse and neglect, hybrid financial exploitation cases are unique in many ways and tend to result in worse outcomes for elderly victims than result from other forms of elder maltreatment. These outcomes may be attributable to the additional stress associated with the financial loss that is experienced.

As we have indicated on numerous occasions, the first line of defense in identifying such hybrid financial abuse and exploitation are other family members, friends and professionals such as healthcare providers, social workers, doctors, nurses, certified public accountants, financial planners, bank employees and the like.

If you are aware of such hybrid financial abuse and exploitation, please consider that if you don’t help who will.

Contact Us: