Investment Advisor

Form U4 – Application for Securities Industry Regulation or Transfer – South Florida Brokerage and Account Executive Attorney

Published on: August 14, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Form U4 – Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer – South Florida Broker/Dealer and Account Executive Alert.

The Form U4 is the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer. Representatives of broker-dealers, investment advisers, or issuers of securities must use the Form U4 to become registered in the appropriate jurisdictions and with the appropriate self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). The Form U4 elicits administrative information (e.g., residential history, office of employment, outside business activities) and disclosure information (e.g., criminal charges and convictions, customer complaints, bankruptcies) about a representative. Firms and individuals have a continuing obligation to ensure that a Form U4 is timely updated when an event or proceeding occurs that renders a prior response on the form inaccurate or incomplete.

The purpose of this post is to provide the reader with generic information relative to the Form U4. It is not designed to be complete in all material respects. Thus, it should not be relied upon as legal advice. If the reader has any questions concerning this issue, you should contact a qualified professional

Program Trading – South Florida Investment Loss FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: July 30, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Program Trading – Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Florida Investment Loss – FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

Program Trading is a computer-driven buying (buy program) or selling (sell program) of baskets of stocks by index arbitrage specialists of institutional traders. “Program” refers to computer programs that constantly monitor stock, futures, and options markets, giving buy and sell signals when opportunities for arbitrage profits occur or when market conditions warrant portfolio accumulation or liquidation transactions.

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

Taxable Municipal Bond – Bond Investment Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: July 27, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Taxable Municipal Bond – South Florida Bond Investment Fraud, Mismanagement and Misrepresentation, FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney:

A taxable municipal bond is a taxable debt obligation of a state or local governmental entity. Taxable municipal bond are issued as private purpose bonds to finance such projects as a sports stadium, as municipal revenue bonds where caps apply or as public purpose bonds where the 10% private use limitation has been exceeded.

A municipal revenue bond is a bond that is issued to finance various types of public work projects like bridges, tunnels or sewer systems and with payments to the bondholders coming directly from the revenues of the project. For example, if a municipal revenue bond is issued to build a bridge, the tolls collected from the motorists using the bridge are committed for paying of the bond. As with all bond issues, it is important to read the indenture establishing the bond for holders of municipal revenue bonds hove no claims on the issuer’s other income or assets unless stated otherwise in the indenture. Consequently, the risk associated with these types of bonds rise and fall with the economic viability of the project.

Steven J. Brewer – South Florida Promissory Note Fraud and Misrepresentation Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Published on: July 17, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

In the Matter of Steven J. Brewer:

On July 12, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the issuance of an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Steven J. Brewer.

The Order finds that from June 2009 through October 2010, Steven J. Brewer was engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the accounts of others by offering and selling promissory notes to investors. During that time, Brewer was associated with a registered broker dealer and with a registered investment adviser. On April 22, 2013, a judgment was entered by consent against Brewer, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and from aiding and abetting future violations of Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven Brewer, et al., Civil Action Number 10-cv-6932-BMM-AK, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Commission’s complaint alleged that, from June 2009 through at least the end of September 2010, Brewer and others participated in fraudulent, unregistered offerings of promissory notes issued by FPA Limited, an Isle of Man company, in the aggregate amount of $5.6 million to at least 74 investors. The offering materials created and used for the offerings misrepresented the risk of the investment and misrepresented the use of proceeds of the offering. The complaint alleged that Brewer originated the fraudulent offerings and participated in creating the fraudulent offering documents. Brewer also controlled the bank account into which the proceeds of the offerings were deposited and then disbursed, primarily to BIG.

Johnny Clifton – Florida Oil and Gas Limited Partnership Fraud and Misrepresentation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: July 17, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

The Securities and Exchange Commission Sanctions Johnny Clifton for Antifraud and Failure to Supervise Violations

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) recently announced that it barred Johnny Clifton, who was president, chief executive officer, and principal of MPG Financial, LLC, a former Commission-registered broker-dealer, from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, entered a cease-and-desist order, and imposed a $150,000 third-tier civil money penalty. The Commission found that Clifton violated Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 because he made material misrepresentations and omissions in the offer and sale of oil-and-gas limited partnership interests, and through those misrepresentations, omissions, and other misconduct he engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud on prospective investors. The Commission also found that Clifton violated Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because he failed reasonably to supervise at least one MPG Financial sales representative with a view towards detecting and preventing the sales representative’s securities law violations. Concluding that it was in the public interest to impose a full collateral bar on Clifton, the Commission stated that “[h]is repeated and egregious misconduct evidences an unfitness to participate in the securities industry that goes beyond the professional capacity in which he was acting” and “demonstrates his unfitness to participate in the securities industry in any capacity.”

Contact Us:

Yield To Maturity (YMT) – South Florida Fixed Income Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Supervision and Fraud FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: July 13, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Yield to Maturity (YTM) – South Florida Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Supervision and Breach of Contract Litigation and FINRA Arbitration Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

“Yield to Maturity” is a concept used to determine the rate of return an investor will receive if a long-term, interest-bearing investment, such as a bond is held to it maturity date. It takes into account the purchase price, redemption value, time to maturity, coupon yield, and the time between interest payments. Recognizing time value of money, it is the discount rate at which the present value of all future payments would equal the present price of the bond, also known as the internal rate of return. It is implicitly assumed that coupons are reinvested at the yield to maturity date.

Please keep in mind that the above referenced post 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.

MayfieldGentry Realty Advisors, LLC. and Chauncey C. Mayfield – Florida Securities and Business Theft Litigation and Arbitration Lawyer

Published on: June 11, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. MayfieldGentry Realty Advisors, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-12520 (E.D. Mich.)

SEC Charges Top Officials At Investment Adviser in Scheme to Hide Theft from Pension Fund of Detroit Police and Firefighters

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently charged the leader of a Detroit-based investment adviser for stealing nearly $3.1 million from the pension fund that the firm manages for the city’s police officers and firefighters so he could buy two strip malls in California. The SEC charged four other top officials at the firm for helping him try to cover up the theft.

John A. Grant – Florida Investment Advisor Fraud and Mismanagement Litigation Attorney

Published on: May 31, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. John A. Grant, Sage Advisory Group, LLC and Benjamin Lee Grant, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-11538 (GAO) (D. Mass.)

SEC Obtains Final Judgment and Issues Administrative Orders Against John A. (“Jack”) Grant

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced that on May 17, 2013, the Honorable George A. O’Toole Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a final judgment against defendant John A. (“Jack”) Grant, a lawyer and former stockbroker living in Yarmouth Port, MA. Among other relief, the final judgment imposes a permanent injunction against future violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and orders Jack Grant to pay a total of $201,392.27.

CMO REIT – South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud, Misrepresentation and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: May 19, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

CMO REIT: South Florida Securities and Investment Fraud, Mismanagement, Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Contract FINRA Arbitration and State and Federal Litigation Attorney:

A CMO Reit is a specialize type of Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) that invests in the residual cash flows of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs). CMO cash flows represent the spread (difference) between the rates paid by holders of the underlying mortgage loans and the lower, shorter term rates paid to investors in the CMOs. Spreads are subject to risks associated with interest rate levels and are considered risky investments.

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

Stephen B. Blankenship and Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC. – Florida Securities Broker – Dealer Misappropriation FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney

Published on: May 19, 2013 | By Russell L. Forkey, P.A.

Final Judgments Entered against Connecticut-Based Investment Adviser and His Firm Charged with Stealing Investor Funds

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) recently announced that on May 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entered final judgments by consent in a previously filed enforcement action against Stephen B. Blankenship and his investment advisory firm, Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC. The judgments enjoin Blankenship and Deer Hill from future violations of the federal securities laws.

On September 13, 2012, the Commission filed an enforcement action charging Blankenship, then a resident of New Fairfield, Connecticut, and Deer Hill Financial Group, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company under Blankenship’s control, with a scheme to defraud investors. The Commission’s Complaint alleged that, from at least 2002 through November 2011, Blankenship misappropriated at least $600,000 from at least 12 brokerage customers. The Court’s judgment enjoins Blankenship and Deer Hill from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The judgment also enjoins the defendants from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.