Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog

Silver Law Group Represents 93 year old Victim of Elder Financial Abuse

July 3, 2014 | Silver Law Group

According to the Sun Sentinel, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office has charged Sultaine Valcius of Boynton Beach with fraud after taking $1.4 million from a 93 year-old man that hired her as a medical aide.

The Sun Sentinel reports Sultaine Valcius, 48, is charged with organized scheme to defraud for taking the money from her employer for at least five years. Ms. Valcius requested the money for various reasons, including, nursing school tuition, purchasing a home as an investment property, repairing a home in Haiti that had been destroyed by an earthquake and for general financial assistance due to her husband purportedly losing his job. However, Ms. Valcius was allegedly never enrolled in school, the house that was purchased was used as the primary residence by Ms. Valcius and her husband was never laid off from the job she claimed he had.

Ms. Valcius convinced the elderly gentleman to write her numerous checks ranging from a couple of hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars from two of his brokerage accounts maintained at two national broker/dealers. However, even if convicted, it is unlikely that Ms. Valcius will have the adequate resources to repay the victim.

Winsome Investment Trust, U.S. Ventures LC, and their Individual Owners Assessed $44 Million Sanction for Commodity Pool Fraud and Misappropriation

July 2, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has obtained a federal court Order imposing $44 million in sanctions against Robert J. Andres of Houston, TX; his company, Winsome Investment Trust (“Winsome”); Robert L. Holloway of San Diego, CA; and his company, US Ventures LC (“US Ventures”); for fraud in operating a commodities futures pool. The sanction includes a civil monetary penalty of over $32 million as well as a restitution award of $12 million to be paid to defrauded investors. The Order also imposes upon the individuals and companies a permanent trading and registration ban.

According to the Order entered by the Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Andres and Winsome (from May 2005 through November 2008) fraudulently solicited and accepted over $50 million from investors who were told that they would be investing in a commodity futures pool operated by Holloway and US Ventures. To garner the investors’ funds, Andres and Winsome purportedly made false statements claiming that the investment program had a successful track record and that each investor would be guaranteed a return of his/her principal plus profits. The Court found those representations to be false, as Holloway and US Ventures’ futures trading actually suffered nearly $11 million in net losses.

The Court went on to conclude that the defendants misappropriated the majority of participant funds to pay investors false “profits” in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme and that the defendants used investor funds for other improper purposes, such as providing money to Andres’ wife, funding Holloway’s and his wife’s lavish personal expenses (houses, cars, jewelry, etc.), and investing in various unrelated and undisclosed businesses including a business Holloway’s wife ran on eBay. The Court Order explained that Andres and Holloway attempted to conceal the fraud by directing employees to falsify participants’ account records and to falsely represent to investors that the pool funds were trading profitably with virtually no losses during the relevant period.

Silver Law Group Named Commodities Law Firm of the Year by Finance Monthly

June 27, 2014 | Silver Law Group

Silver Law Group is proud to be awarded Commodities Law Firm of the Year by Finance Monthly magazine. According to Finance Monthly, “the Finance Monthly Global Awards reflect the very best of those professionals working in or within the finance industry today. Each winner has demonstrated excellence and stands out as a first among equals in what is a highly competitive sector.”

Silver Law Group routinely represents institutional and retail investors in commodities litigation and arbitration claims. Our attorneys routinely represent investors in claims before the CFTC and NFA arbitration. Amongst other accomplishments, our attorneys obtained confirmation of an NFA arbitration award against a top commodities clearing firm, represented several victims of MF Global and currently represents multiple victims of a Forex trading scheme.

If you have questions about your legal rights, or have been the victim of investment fraud, please contact Scott Silver of the Silver Law Group for a free consultation at ssilver@silverlaw.com or Toll Free at (800) 975-4345.

Silver Law Group Settles Investor Class Action for $13 Million

June 27, 2014 | Silver Law Group

Silver Law Group settles a Class Action Complaint on behalf of a group of investors which generally alleged Regions Bank assisted U.S. Pension Trust Corp (“USPT”) in the sale of unregistered securities and failed to properly disclose the high fees and costs of the program. Plaintiffs pursued a class action because many investors were located internationally and a class action was an appropriate vehicle to pursue damages. The SEC had previously charged USPT with violating the federal securities laws and entered judgment against USPT in September 2010. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act and aided and abetted the unregistered sale of securities, amongst other claims.

The victims were primarily from Latin America and over 5,000 investors were identified as potential class members. A United States District Court Judge in Miami appointed Silver Law Group and its co-counsel as attorneys to represent the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further alleged Regions advised USPT on the design and content of marketing materials, had a role in drafting documents, participated in sales conventions and was paid as the trustee on USPT trust accounts. The class action ultimately settled for approximately $13 million. The case was reported by the Daily Business Review.

If you have questions about your legal rights, or have been the victim of investment fraud, please contact Scott Silver of the Silver Law Group for a free consultation at ssilver@silverlaw.com or Toll Free at (800) 975-4345.

FINRA Proposes New Rule to Make Brokerage Fees More Transparent to Customers

June 24, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has recently sponsored a new securities industry rule that makes the information included on customer account statements more transparent. Transparent commissions will likely lower the total up-front commissions a broker can collect on certain popular securities as investors realize the steep fees they are paying.

Nontraded real estate investment trusts (REITs) are among the most popular investment products sold by registered representatives and their broker-dealers. Typically sold for less than $10 per share, the commission to a rep and the firm in this $1.4 billion “alternative investment” sector of the retail investment market is 7%, though the amount that goes toward the total upfront commission is split amongst several different players involved in selling the REIT. A problem for investors is that their account statements do not clearly show the breakdown of those commissions or the estimated per-share valuation of their investment — something that the current rules do not require be revealed to them until 18 months after the REIT sponsors stop raising funds.

Under FINRA’s proposed new rule, the time frame in which broker-dealers will have to show investors a true valuation of such purchases will be drastically sped up. By accelerating that timetable, investors will be provided quicker and much greater transparency in seeing the commissions being charged to them; and industry experts anticipate that broker-dealers are likely to lower the fees they assess to investors on such alternative investments. Both nontraded REITs and illiquid private placements known as “direct participation programs” (DPPs), which would also fall directly under this new rule, have frequently been criticized for high commissions.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds SEC Ban on Broker-Dealer Principal for Failing to Prevent Churning and Excessive Trading

June 19, 2014 | Silver Law Group

In July 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a lifetime ban upon Carl Birkelbach, the founder and principal of Birkelbach Investment Securities (headquartered in Chicago, Illinois), which prevents him from participating in any working capacity in the securities industry. Mr. Birkelbach appealed the SEC’s ban, claiming in part that the SEC exceeded its authority in imposing such a severe penalty upon him. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago denied his appeal and upheld the SEC ban, stating that Mr. Birkelbach’s offenses were sufficiently egregious to warrant the sanction imposed by the SEC.

As the head of Birkelbach Investment Securities, Mr. Birkelbach was required to supervise the trading activities of the company’s registered representatives, including William Murphy. According to the SEC, Mr. Murphy engaged for years in unauthorized conduct, steering clients into unsuitable investments, and churning in client accounts — all of which Mr. Birkelbach was purportedly aware of. Despite Mr. Birkelbach’s alleged knowledge of the wrongdoing taking place at his company, he imposed no discipline upon Mr. Murphy, never disapproved of a single trade by Murphy, and never contacted the most egregiously harmed customer to discuss the high volume of trading in the customer’s account. During the years in question, the revenues from Mr. Murphy’s trading in that account, according to SEC calculations, represented nearly 20% of Birkelbach Investment Securities’ total revenue. Even when the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) requested that Mr. Birkelbach place Mr. Murphy on heightened supervision, Mr. Birkelbach failed to comply. As a result, FINRA imposed upon Mr. Birkelbach a punishment that ultimately became a lifetime ban from the securities industry in any capacity, which the SEC subsequently affirmed in its July 2013 ruling.

If you have questions about your legal rights, or have been the victim of investment fraud, please contact Scott Silver of the Silver Law Group for a free consultation at ssilver@silverlaw.com or Toll Free at (800) 975-4345.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $8 Million and Orders it to Repay Over $89 Million to Retirement Accounts for Overcharging for Mutual Funds

June 18, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a fine against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. for $8 million for charging excessive mutual fund sales charges for retirement accounts. FINRA also ordered Merrill Lynch to pay $24.4 million in restitution to damaged customers on top of $64 million Merrill Lynch has already compensated damaged investors. According to the FINRA decision, mutual funds offer several classes of shares, each with different sales charges and fees and many mutual funds waive their initial charges for retirement accounts. However, Merrill Lynch failed to pass these savings on to the investors.

Merrill Lynch’s retail platform frequently offered such discounts to retirement plan accounts and disclosed those waivers in their prospectuses. However, Merrill Lynch failed to frequently pass these savings on to the investors including retirement accounts. Accordingly, about 41,000 small business retirement plan accounts, and approximately 6,800 charities and 403(b) retirement accounts available to ministers and employees of public schools, either paid sales charges when purchasing Class A shares, or purchased other share classes that unnecessarily subjected them to higher ongoing fees and expenses. Incredibly, in 2006, Merrill Lynch learned its small business retirement plan customers were overpaying, but continued to sell them more costly shares and failed to report the issue to FINRA for more than five years.

If you believe your portfolio was improperly managed or was charged excessive fees or costs, Silver Law Group will analyze your portfolio at no charge. Additionally, if you have questions about your legal rights, or have been the victim of investment fraud, please contact Scott Silver of the Silver Law Group for a free consultation at ssilver@silverlaw.com or Toll Free at (800) 975-4345.

SEC Charges Investment Advisor with Improperly Raising Funds for Ponzi Scheme

May 28, 2014 | Silver Law Group

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) continued its onslaught against Scott Rothstein associates earlier this month when it filed suit in federal court against Barry R. Bekkedam (“Bekkedam”), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of investment advisory firm Ballamor Capital Management (“Ballamor”). The SEC suit follows a growing number of SEC actions against individuals and corporations accused of providing investor funds and assistance to convicted South Florida Ponzi-schemer Scott Rothstein.

The SEC alleges that Bekkedam, through Ballamor, solicited his clients and other prospective investors to invest $100 million into the Banyon Income Fund (“Banyon Fund’”), an enormous hedge fund that primarily financed Rothstein’s Ponzi-scheme operations. The Banyon Fund was created by Bekkedam and Rothstein investor George Levin to solicit additional funds for Rothstein and, the SEC alleges, bolster Ballamor’s business and protect Levin’s multi-million dollar investments with Rothstein.

In seeking disgorgement and civil penalties against Bekkedam, the SEC details allegations of Bekkedam’s material misstatements and omissions to his customers in connection with the Banyon Fund, as well as misrepresentations about his dealings with George Levin, which the SEC alleges were quid pro quo for Bekkedam’s securing investments in the Banyon Fund. The SEC also alleges numerous securities law violations.

Connecticut Securities Regulator Seeks to Bar Meyers Associates from Selling Securities in Connecticut

April 16, 2014 | Silver Law Group

If the Connecticut Department of Banking (the “Department”) has its way, Meyers Associates and its owner, Bruce Meyers, will be barred from selling securities in Connecticut. A February 2014 Order to Cease and Desist issued by the Department, charges Meyers Associates and Bruce Meyers (“Respondents”) with numerous violations of Connecticut securities laws. The Order states the Department’s intent to fine Respondents and revoke their registration to sell securities in Connecticut.

The present charges against Respondents stem from a 2012 examination by the Department, out of which the Department claims to have discovered multiple violations of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act and FINRA rules. Notably, the Department alleges that Respondents failed to properly supervise employees with known disciplinary histories, violated an order from the Vermont securities regulator, and failed to completely respond to both the Department’s and FINRA’s requests for information and documents.

In seeking fines and revocation of Respondents’ licenses, the Department cites to Meyers Associates’ history of run-ins with the Department over allegations that it employed unregistered agents, offered and sold unregistered securities, engaged in fraud in connection with the sale of securities, engaged in dishonest and unethical practices, violated FINRA conduct rules, and failed to enforce and maintain adequate supervisory procedures. FINRA’s BrokerCheck report for Meyers Associates shows 14 final regulatory events, two pending regulatory events, and nine final arbitrations.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Orders UBS to Pay $5.3 Million for Misleading a Financial Advisor and his Clients about a Proprietary Product Tied to Lehman Brothers

April 15, 2014 | Silver Law Group

A former UBS broker recently won a FINRA arbitration claim against UBS Financial Services for misleading him and his clients about the risks associated with structured notes tied to Lehman Brothers Holdings, which suffered significant losses in 2008. Silver Law Group primarily represents investors in claims against UBS and other brokerage firms. However, this award deserves attention because it highlights a fundamental flaw in Wall Street’s business model. UBS created a system to use its sales force to sell millions of dollars in Lehman Brothers debt. However, faced with undesirable evidence of Lehman’s financial problems, UBS knowingly chose to not inform its financial advisors or retail clients about the problems. Put differently, this was a “top down” problem because the misconduct was by UBS senior management. We are seeing the same set of facts in claims by investors against UBS in Puerto Rico, where UBS senior management served as the biggest supporters of proprietary UBS bond funds and UBS placed no restrictions on financial advisors or on the concentration levels in a customer’s portfolio.

The FINRA arbitration panel awarded $4 Million in compensatory damages, $1 Million in punitive damages and $335,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, specifically finding UBS had “deliberately prevented the distribution of material information about Lehman Brothers sinking financial condition and continued to recommend the sale of Lehman Brothers [Notes] despite clear evidence of the company’s rapid decline.” The panel also ordered that the 39 complaints filed against this broker be erased from his record.

The backdrop leading to this award is eerily similar to what is happening today at UBS in Puerto Rico (“UBS-PR”). UBS-PR aggressively pushed the sale of closed-end bond funds (CEFs) involving Puerto Rican debt which were proprietary to UBS. UBS allegedly misled the majority of its brokers and clients concerning the risks associated with CEFs. UBS is also alleged to have withheld negative information about the CEFs from its brokers and its clients, thereby preventing a full understanding of Puerto Rico’s deteriorating economy and the effects that decline would have on the leveraged and illiquid CEFs. Could it be that the majority of UBS-PR brokers who now find themselves facing numerous customer complaints were simply following the instructions given by UBS and doing what they were trained to do—sell UBS recommended products?