Unauthorized Trading - Russell L. Forkey

Alan Scot Feigenbaum – Unauthorized Trading FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sat, 12 Mar 2022 15:27:57 GMT

Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a settled enforcement action against Alan Scot Feigenbaum (CRD #3132230, Boca Raton, Florida). In this action, an AWC was issued in which Feigenbaum was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Feigenbaum consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion without written authority in customer accounts. The findings stated that Feigenbaum entered orders on a discretionary basis for trades in customer accounts, including those of senior customers. Although the customers permitted Feigenbaum to exercise discretion and had not complained, none of them had given him written authorization to do so and neither of his member firms had approved the accounts as discretionary. Feigenbaum exercised discretion without written authorization despite having previously received a written letter of caution from one of his supervisors for similar misconduct. In addition, Feigenbaum inaccurately stated that he had not exercised discretion in any customer account on compliance questionnaires. The findings also stated that Feigenbaum caused one of his firms to create and maintain inaccurate books and records through his use of an unauthorized email account and by mismarking orders as unsolicited. Feigenbaum had an approved outside business through which he provided accounting and tax services to clients. Feigenbaum communicated with certain of his brokerage customers, including seniors, regarding securities-related matters over the email account he used for his tax preparation business. The content of the communications included investment recommendations. Because the firm was unaware of and had not authorized use of the email account, it was unable to supervise, preserve, or retain the securities-related emails. Furthermore, Feigenbaum inaccurately stated on compliance questionnaires that he had conducted all business-related communication over his firm email account. Feigenbaum also marked trades in a particular exchange-traded product in customer accounts as unsolicited, when in fact he had solicited the transactions. The suspension is in effect from December 6, 2021, through May 5, 2022. (FINRA Case #2019062006601)

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.

Kelly Marvin Barnett – Unauthorized Discretion, Unit Investment Trusts – Boca Raton, Florida FINRA Abribration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 12 Aug 2018 18:10:29 GMT

Kelly Marvin Barnett (CRD #4127608, Sarasota, Florida):

Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that Kelly Marvin Barnett executed and Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which Barnett was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Barnett consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he used discretion in five customers’ accounts without written authorization or acceptance of the accounts as discretionary. The findings stated that a customer of Barnett’s died of a heart attack. Barnett was unaware of his customer’s death and two days after his customer’s death, Barnett placed three trades in the customer’s account for the sale of two ETFs and for the purchase of an ETF. Four days after his customer’s death, Barnett placed two additional trades in his customer’s account for the purchase of a UIT and for the sale of an ETF. Barnett’s customer had orally granted him discretion to place trades in the account but had never given him a written grant of authorization to use discretion. Further, Barnett’s member firm had never accepted the account as a discretionary account. The findings also stated that Barnett exercised discretion in four additional customer accounts without a written grant of authorization and without having the accounts accepted as discretionary. The customers had orally agreed to a trading strategy. When Barnett could not reach the customers, he executed the planned strategy without speaking to the customers first. In total, Barnett executed 25 discretionary trades in the four customers’ accounts. The findings also included that Barnett maintained handwritten notes of customer contact in the firm’s customer files in order to document conversations with clients regarding orders and recommendations.

With regards to the trades in Barnett’s deceased customer’s account, after his customer’s death, Barnett created two handwritten documents falsely stating that he had spoken to the customer on the dates of the trades and that the customer had approved the transactions. Barnett maintained the falsified handwritten notes in the firm’s customer file to substantiate his contact with his customer on the dates of the trades. FINRA found that Barnett maintained blank, signed switch disclosure forms in the firm’s customer files. The forms contained important disclosures regarding UIT exchanges. On 19 occasions, Barnett used the blank signed forms to effect UIT exchanges without having each client sign a completed switch disclosure form. Each form detailed the UIT that was being sold, the UIT that was being purchased, provided the reasons for the switch, and detailed the charges associated with the switch. As a result, the switch forms were an instruction given or received in connection with the purchase or sale of a security and was a record that the firm was required to maintain. By completing the blank, signed forms to falsely evidence acknowledgement of disclosures, Barnett falsified the exchange forms and caused the firm’s books and records to be inaccurate. The suspension is in effect from June 4, 2018, through December 3, 2018. (FINRA Case #2015048320901).

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.

Brian John Hussey, Jr. – Unsuitable Trade Recommendations and Unauthorized Discretion

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:02:02 GMT

Brian John Hussey Jr. (CRD #4640067, Zephyrhills, Florida)

Recently, Brian John Hussey, Jr. entered into an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, in which Hussey was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for seven months. Apparnelty, in light of Hussey’s financial status, no monetary sanction was imposed. Hussey, without admitting or denying the findings consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he made unsuitable recommendations to a customer that she sell 100 percent of the mutual fund positions in her individual retirement account (IRA) and invest the proceeds in penny stocks focused on the marijuana business. The findings stated that the thinly-traded penny stocks recommendation was inconsistent with the client’s investment objectives and financial situation. In addition, the transactions were solicited in violation of Hussey’s member firm’s policies prohibiting the solicitation of penny stocks. In order to effect the transactions, Hussey mismarked solicited trades as unsolicited in the customer’s accounts to avoid the firm’s policy preventing its representatives from soliciting the purchase of penny stocks. Moreover, the SEC issued an Order suspending all trading in one of the penny stocks. Hussey had already heavily invested the customer’s accounts in that penny stock. Three days after trading resumed in the penny stock, Hussey purchased an additional $22,679.50 in the account. Hussey eventually had 100 percent of the customer’s portfolio concentrated in the two penny stocks. After the firm made inquiries regarding the trading activity in the customer’s IRAs, and to avoid future compliance issues, Hussey’s recommended that the customer move her account to another FINRA member firm, where Hussey, with the customer’s permission, engaged in discretionary trading of her account using her login credentials. Hussey did not disclose his exercise of discretion or his discretionary authority in this third party account to his firm or to the executing member firm. The customer complained to Hussey’s firm, asserting $58,572 of market losses in her accounts with the firm and the third party firm account, in addition to damages from the lost opportunity to participate in market gains. Hussey’s firm settled for $67,019.24, which he is obligated to pay back to the firm. The findings also stated that as stated above, Hussey mismarked order tickets for trades as unsolicited when, in fact, he solicited the trades and therefore caused his firm to maintain false and inaccurate books and records. The suspension is in effect from June 18, 2018, through January 17, 2019. (FINRA Case #2017053342601).

Contact Us:

Unauthorized Trading and Unauthorized Discretion Boca Raton, Florida, FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:19:17 GMT

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

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

February 2015 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Philip Taylor Lang (CRD #3006186, Jackson, Mississippi) submitted an AWC in which he was assessed a deferred fine of $20,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for nine months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Lang consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he executed discretionary trades in five accounts belonging to his family member without obtaining the family member’s prior written authorization and without having his member firm’s acceptance of the accounts as discretionary accounts. The findings stated that Lang failed to complete or submit any discretionary account disclosure forms for his family member’s accounts, as required by his firm’s WSPs. Lang completed and submitted annual employee certification forms with inaccurate answers regarding whether he handled any customer accounts on a discretionary basis that had not been previously reported to the firm. The findings also stated that Lang made unsuitable investment recommendations in four of the accounts. Unbeknownst to his family member, Lang changed the investment objective for each account and began speculative trading in the accounts on a discretionary basis. Lang’s speculative trading activity was inconsistent with the family member’s investment objectives, financial situation and needs. Lang, by misstating the investment objectives, caused his firm to maintain inaccurate books and records.

The suspension is in effect from January 5, 2015, through October 4, 2015. (FINRA Case#2012033887601).

Contact Us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Us:

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

Dawson James Securities, Inc. – Boca Raton, Florida Broker/Dealer Sales Practice Violations FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:51:37 GMT

June 2014 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

Dawson James Securities, Inc. (Boca Raton, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm was censured, fined $75,000, and required to revise its WSPs. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm’s WSPs failed to provide for one or more of the four minimum requirements for adequate WSPs in several subject areas, including registered representatives’ disclosure of potential conflicts of interests to clients; registered representatives’ trading in the opposite direction of solicited customer transactions, sales practice concerns, including unauthorized trading, suitability, excessive trading and free-riding; concentration of securities in clients’ accounts, sharing of profits or losses in clients’ accounts, wash sales, coordinated trading, marking the open and marking the close; cancel-rebill transactions in clients’ accounts and the review of registered representatives’ electronic communications. (Case # 2008012546802). To review the full release, please follow the above highlighted link.

Contact Us:

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

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:34:16 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 common special order and trading instruction is the “stop-limit order.”

Stop-limit Order:

A stop-limit order is an order to buy or sell a stock that combines the features of a stop order and a limit order. Once the stop price is reached, a stop-limit order becomes a limit order that will be executed at a specified price (or better). The benefit of a stop-limit order is that the investor can control the price at which the order can be executed. Before using a stop-limit order, investors should consider the following: (a) as with all limit orders, a stop-limit order may not be executed if the stock’s price moves away from the specified limit price, which may occur in a fast-moving market, (b) short-term market fluctuations in a stock’s price can activate a stop-limit order, so stop and limit prices should be selected carefully, (c) the stop price and the limit price for a stop-limit order do not have to be the same price. For example, a sell stop limit order with a stop price of $3.00 may have a limit price of $2.50. Such an order would become an active limit order if market prices reach $3.00, although the order could only be executed at a price of $2.50 or better, (d) for certain types of stocks, some brokerage firms have different standards for determining whether the stop price of a stop-limit order has been reached. For these stocks, some brokerage firms use only last-sale prices to trigger a stop-limit order, while other firms use quotation prices. Investors should check with their brokerage firms to determine the specific rules that will apply to stop-limit orders.

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:

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:

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:

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:

Financial Elder Abuse – Financial Elder Exploitation – Florida Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:47:38 GMT

Financial Elder Abuse and Elder Exploitation – Boca Raton, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Litigation and Arbitration Attorney:

Florida Statute Section 415.1111 grants to vulnerable (elder) adults a cause of action as a result of financial and other types of abuse. It provides that a vulnerable adult who has been abused, neglected, or exploited as specified in the law has a cause of action against any perpetrator and may recover actual and punitive damages for such abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The action may be brought by the vulnerable adult, or that person’s guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of the vulnerable adult with the consent of that person or that person’s guardian, or by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased victim without regard to whether the cause of death resulted from the abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such action and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation of or infringement on the rights of a vulnerable adult. A party who prevails in any such action may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of the action, and damages. The remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with other legal and administrative remedies available to a vulnerable adult.

As the elder population in Florida has increased, incidents of financial elder abuse has accelerated at an alarming rate. An area of financial elder abuse that has recently exploded is the twisting (unnecessary sale and purchase of annuities) of variable and fixed annuities.

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 advice. If after reviewing this post you have any questions, you should contact a qualified professional.

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.

Common Stock, Preferred Stock, Corporate Bonds, Municipal Bonds, ETF’s and Mutual Funds – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud, Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:08:40 GMT

Common Stocks, Preferred Stocks, Corporate Bonds, Municipal Bonds, Promissory Notes, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETF’s), and Mutual Funds – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud, Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

The elements of a breach of fiduciary duty action are (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty and (2) the breach of that duty that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party and trust accepted by the other. Such a relationship exists where confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other. When a fiduciary relationship has not been created by an express agreement, the question of whether the relationship exists generally depends upon the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the relationship of the parties in a transaction in which they are involved.

The law is clear that a broker owes a fiduciary duty of care and loyalty to a securities investor. The type and extent of this duty is fact specific. In other words, your relationship with, in the case, your broker/dealer and/or account executive will be determinative of the type of duty that you are owed. However, please keep in mind that the extent of this duty is organic. It is constantly changing. It is for this reason that your specific circumstances need to be reviewed by a qualified professional.

Fiduciary duties associated with a non-discretionary account. A non-discretionary account is an account in which the customer rather than the broker determines which purchases and sales to make. In a non-discretionary account each transaction is viewed singly. In such cases the broker is bound to act in the customer’s interest when transacting business for the account; however, all duties to the customer cease when the transaction is closed. The duties associated with a non-discretionary account include, but may not necessarily limited to: (1) the duty to recommend a stock only after studying it sufficiently to become informed as to its nature, price and financial prognosis; (2) the duty to carry out the customer’s orders promptly in a manner best suited to serve the customer’s interests; (3) the duty to inform the customer of the risks involved in purchasing or selling a particular security; (4) the duty to refrain from self-dealing or refusing to disclose any personal interest the broker may have in a particular recommended security; (5) the duty not to misrepresent any fact material to the transaction; and (6) the duty to transact business only after receiving prior authorization from the customer.

Of course the precise manner in which a broker performs these duties will depend to some degree upon the intelligence and personality of his customer. For example, where the customer is uneducated or generally unsophisticated with regard to financial matters, the broker will have to define the potential risks of a particular transaction carefully and cautiously. Conversely, where a customer fully understands the dynamics of the stock market or is personally familiar with a security, the broker’s explanation of such risks may be merely perfunctory. In either case, however, the broker’s responsibility to his customer ceases when the transaction is complete. A broker has no continuing duty to keep abreast of financial information which may affect his customer’s portfolio or to inform his customer of developments which could influence his investments. Although a good broker may choose to perform these services for his customers, he is under no legal obligation to do so.

Absent from the above list is the duty, on the part of the broker, to engage in a particular course of trading. So long as a broker performs the transactional duties outlined above, he and his customer may embark upon a course of heavy trading in speculative stocks or in-out trading as well as upon a course of conservative investment in blue chip securities.

Unlike the broker who handles a non-discretionary account, the broker handling a discretionary account becomes the fiduciary of his customer in a broad sense. Such a broker, while not needing prior authorization for each transaction, must (1) manage the account in a manner directly comporting with the needs and objectives of the customer as stated in the authorization papers or as apparent from the customer’s investment and trading history; (2) keep informed regarding the changes in the market which affect his customer’s interest and act responsively to protect those interests; (3) keep his customer informed as to each completed transaction; and (5) explain forthrightly the practical impact and potential risks of the course of dealing in which the broker is engaged.

Although no particular type of trading is required of brokers handling discretionary accounts, most concentrate on conservative investments with few trades usually in blue chip growth stocks. Where a broker engages in more active trading, particularly where such trading deviates from the customer’s stated investment goals or is more risky than the average customer would prefer, the broker has an affirmative duty to explain the possible consequences of his actions to his customer. This explanation should include a discussion of the effect of active trading upon broker commissions and customer profits.

Between the purely non-discretionary account and the purely discretionary account there is a hybrid-type account which usually exists between most customers and their broker. Such an account is one in which the broker has usurped actual control over a technically non-discretionary account. In such cases the courts have held that the broker owes his customer the same fiduciary duties as he would have had the account been discretionary from the moment of its creation.

In Hecht v. Harris, 430 F.2d 1202 (9th Cir. 1970), the plaintiff, a 77 year old widow, opened a non-discretionary account with a major brokerage firm. Consistent with the practice in such accounts plaintiff received confirmation slips of each transaction and monthly statements on the status of her account. In addition, she spoke personally with the defendant broker several times a week. Nonetheless, the court held that the broker was liable to plaintiff for churning her account on the ground that he had traded excessively without informing plaintiff of the potential hazards involved in such a course of trading. Since the plaintiff was informed, for the most part, of the individual transactions in her account, the court’s holding assumed that the defendant owed plaintiff the additional fiduciary duty to explain the risks of pursuing a particular course of trading. That assumption derived from the court’s finding that the broker had taken full control over the plaintiff’s account and thus owed her those fiduciary duties normally associated with discretionary accounts.

In determining whether a broker has assumed control of a non-discretionary account the courts weigh several factors. First, the courts examine the age, education, intelligence and investment experience of the customer. Where the customer is particularly young, old, or naive with regard to financial matters, the courts are likely to find that the broker assumed control over the account. Second, if the broker is socially or personally involved with the customer, the courts are likely to conclude that the customer relinquished control because of the relationship of trust and confidence. Conversely, where the relationship between the broker and the customer is an arms-length business relationship, the courts are inclined to find that the customer retained control over the account. Third, if many of the transactions occurred without the customer’s prior approval, the courts will often interpret this as a serious usurpation of control by the broker. Fourth, if the customer and the broker speak frequently with each other regarding the status of the account or the prudence of a particular transaction, the courts will usually find that the customer, by maintaining such active interest in the account, thereby maintained control over it.

Importantly, the category which you fall in is not something that you should try to figure out yourself. You should attempt to make this determination in conjunction with a qualified professional.

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 providing legal or investment advice. If you have any questions concerning this post, you should contact a qualified professional.

Contact Us:

Sales Practice Violations – Discretionary Trading Without Authorization, Unauthorized Trading, Unsuitable and Excessive Trading and Churning – South Florida FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:09:04 GMT

Securities and Exchange Commission Sustains FINRA Disciplinary Action against Registered Representative and Supervisor

The Securities and Exchange Commission has sustained disciplinary action by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) against William J. Murphy and Carl M. Birkelbach, formerly associated with member firm Birkelbach Investment Securities, Inc. In its opinion, the Commission sustained FINRA’s finding of sales practice violations by Murphy, which included discretionary trading without authorization, unauthorized trading, unsuitable and excessive trading, churning, and the creation and distribution of misleading communications. In one customer account at issue, Murphy engaged in excessive options trading that generated over one million dollars in commissions in the span of approximately three-and-half years. The Commission also sustained FINRA’s findings of supervisory violations by Birkelbach for ignoring obvious and repeated red flags with regard to Murphy’s handling of customer accounts. Finally, the Commission has sustained FINRA’s imposition of sanctions: a bar in all capacities and the disgorgement of $585,174.67 for Murphy and bar in all capacities for Birkelbach.

Contact Us:

Gary Lee Cousino – Florida Securities Unauthorized Trade, Unsuitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:59:31 GMT

Gary Lee Cousino – Registered Representative, Mackinac Island, Michigan:

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 and enforcement action, firms and licensed individuals have the responsibility to reflect such action of 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 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:

June 2012 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

FINRA Case No. 2010023057601– In June of 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) issued a release advising that Gary Lee Cousino submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. In order to view a copy of the full release, please follow above the referenced links.

Contact Us:

Milton Charles Ault III – Florida Unauthorized Stock and Bond Trading FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Russell L. Forkey — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:54:43 GMT

Milton Charles Ault III – Registered Principal, Fountain Valley, California:

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 and enforcement action, firms and licensed individuals have the responsibility to reflect such action of 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.

June 2012 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions

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

FINRA Case No. 2008016157101– In June of 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) issued a release advising that Milton Charles Ault III submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $75,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for two years and ordered to pay #312,916.06, plus interest, in restitution to invesotrs. In order to view a copy of the full release, please follow above the referenced links.

Contact Us: