Apr 4, 2023

Broker-Dealer Fraud & Misconduct

This is the ultimate guide to understanding broker-dealer fraud and misconduct for investors. For more than 40 years, the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has been helping investors understand brokers, broker-dealers and the rules governing their activities. We understand that brokers and broker-dealers do not always act in the best interests of their customers. As a result, we have devoted our practice to helping investors who have been harmed by unscrupulous or negligent broker-dealers recover their losses through litigation or arbitration proceedings. In this guide, we’ll cover: What is Broker-Dealer Fraud? Broker-dealer fraud occurs when stockbrokers put their own financial interests ahead of their customers, violating their fiduciary duty. This can take many forms, including churning accounts to generate more commissions, misappropriating funds from customer accounts, making unsuitable investment recommendations, or even outright theft. Broker-dealers are held to a high standard of care in their dealings with customers. They must exercise care, skill and diligence when recommending investments, executing trades, and providing advice. When they fail to do so, they can be held liable for any losses suffered by their customers. Sometimes fraud is easy to spot – if a broker-dealer is stealing funds directly from an account, for example. Other times it may be more subtle, such as recommending investments that are not suitable for the customer’s needs or risk tolerance. When investors suffer significant losses due to broker-dealer fraud or misconduct, they may be able to recover damages through a process called FINRA arbitration. In these situations, it is best to consult with a securities attorney to determine the best course of action. What’s the Difference Between Broker-Dealer Fraud and Misconduct? Broker-dealer fraud is the intentional act of causing financial harm to customers by deliberately making false or misleading statements or omissions or engaging in dishonest or unethical practices. On the other hand, broker-dealer misconduct refers to negligence by a stockbroker in failing to meet their responsibilities and obligations as outlined in FINRA rules and regulations. For example, if a broker-dealer provides incorrect information to their customers or fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of statements they make, this could be considered misconduct. Similarly, recommending investments that are not suitable for a customer’s needs or risk tolerance can also be considered misconduct. Investment losses due to either fraud or misconduct can be recovered through a FINRA arbitration. What are the Most Common Types of Broker-Dealer Fraud? There is a wide variety of broker-dealer fraud schemes, but there tend to be a few that are more common than others. When a broker-dealer fails to act in the best interest of their client, they may be engaging in one or more of the following practices: High-Yield Investment Frauds High-yield investment frauds are characterized by promises of high returns on investment with little to no risk. These types of fraud can involve several forms of investments, including securities, commodities, real estate, or other highly-valuable investments. You can identify these schemes by their “too good to be true” offers. Perpetrators may elicit investments from investors by internet postings, emails, social media, job boards, or even personal contact. They may also use mass marketing techniques to reach a large number of potential investors at once. Once the fraudster has received the investment money, they may simply disappear with it or use it to fund their own lifestyle. The investment itself may not even exist. Ponzi & Pyramid Schemes Ponzi and pyramid schemes use the money collected from new investors to pay the high rates of return that were promised to earlier investors in the scheme. Payouts over time give the early impression that the scheme is a legitimate investment. However, eventually, there are not enough new investors to support the payouts, and the entire scheme collapses. When this happens, the people who invested at the beginning of the scheme often lose all of their money. In these schemes, the investors were the only source of funding. Other Broker-Dealer Fraud In addition to the above list, at The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., we have found that the following types of securities fraud are also common: Misconduct by an Investment Advisor By far the most common type of broker-dealer securities fraud that our firm sees is misconduct by brokers. Brokers are supposed to act in their clients’ best interests (fiduciary duty), but some broker-dealers put their own interests ahead of their clients. For example, a broker-dealer might recommend that a client invests in a certain stock or mutual fund because it will generate a high commission for the broker, not because it is a good investment for the client. Other examples of misconduct by an investment advisor or broker include: Structured Notes Structured notes are investments that often combine securities of different asset classes as one investment for a desired risk and return over a period of time. They are complex investments that are often misunderstood by not only investors but the financial advisors who recommend them. Due to their complexity, it is easy for the terms of the investment to be misrepresented. For example, an advisor might tell their client that a structured note is “risk-free” when, in reality, there is a significant risk of loss. What Actions Can You Take if You Suspect Broker-Dealer Fraud? Broker-dealers must register with FINRA to participate in the securities industry, and FINRA’s arbitration program typically handles disputes between investors and broker-dealers rather than court proceedings. Compared to court proceedings, FINRA arbitration is typically faster, less expensive, and more private. To seek justice for losses due to broker-dealer fraud, filing a claim with FINRA’s arbitration program is recommended. Investors are advised to consult with an attorney to understand their rights and determine if they have a valid claim against the broker-dealer or associated financial professionals. An experienced investment fraud attorney can provide valuable guidance throughout the process. If you’ve lost a significant amount of your investments due to fraudulent broker-dealer activities, don’t hesitate to reach out for help. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., can assess your case and represent you in the FINRA...

Continue Reading

Mar 30, 2023

Broker C. Raymond Weldon Investigation & Customer Complaints

C. Raymond Weldon Of Independent Financial Group, LLC And Formerly With The Investment Center, Inc. and Cetera Advisor Networks LLC, Has Six Customer Complaints For Alleged Broker Misconduct. C. Raymond Weldon has been the subject of at least six (6) customer complaints that we know about to recover investment losses. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. currently represent five of his customers in a FINRA arbitration claim against Weldon’s employers. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with C. Raymond Weldon and had similar investments, a similar investment strategy, and a similar bad experience to help us win our clients’ case. Please contact us online via our contact form or by giving us a ring at (800) 732-2889. Raymond Weldon Customer Complaints Weldon has been the subject of at least six (6) customer complaints that we know about to recover investment losses. We currently represent five of his customers against Weldon’s employers. A summary of the allegations made in the FINRA arbitration filed for investment losses realized by five of Weldon’s clients were as follows: 1. Introduction Claimants filed an arbitration claim against Respondents Cetera Advisors Networks, LLC (“CAN”), The Investment center, Inc. (“TIC”), and (“IFG”) for their registered representative C. Raymond Weldon (“Weldon”) failure to act in Claimants’ “best interest,” and his unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, misleading statements, acts, and omissions. Weldon had written discretionary authority to manage Claimants’ accounts and failed to do so. Respondents CAN and TIC formerly employed and IFG who currently employs Weldon held him out and other employees on his team as stockbrokers, investment advisers, investment managers, financial advisers, and financial planners with special skills and expertise in the management of securities portfolios and financial, estate, retirement, and tax planning matters. Weldon was a Chartered Financial Consultant, a professional with a certification which would indicate Respondents and Weldon knew or should have known his mismanagement Claimants’ accounts was in breach of his fiduciary duties and below the acceptable standard of care of professionals like him.  2. THE RELEVANT FACTS All Claimants, except one Claimant’s wife, worked together. They were introduced to Weldon as an investment manager who successfully managed securities brokerage accounts for a local synagogue and many of its members. With one limited exception, none of the Claimants had any securities brokerage accounts or experience investing in the stock or bond markets before they met Weldon. They were all interested in saving for retirement and he solicited them to establish an investment advisory and brokerage relationship for that purpose. Claimants Richard, Anthony, Alex, Chris, and, later on, Jessica, opened small, unleveraged, and well diversified mutual fund investment accounts, which Weldon managed for a fee on an annualized basis (the “ProFunds Accounts”). The Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC (“CAN”) Accounts In or about October 2020, Weldon boasted about his performance in managing the ProFunds Accounts and introduced them to another type of customized stock brokerage account he managed for synagogue members. He encouraged Claimants to open additional accounts with him to invest in the stock market for their retirement (the “CAN Accounts”). Weldon met with Claimants and showed them documents related to his performance managing other clients’ accounts. He spoke with the other Claimants over the telephone about his performance record. He provided little detail about his management style other than he had a “track record” for substantially growing the assets deposited in his clients’ securities brokerage accounts and preserving assets for their retirement. Weldon claimed that his pro-active management style allowed him to maximize growth in the up markets and minimize losses in down markets. There was no discussion with them about the true nature, mechanics, or risks of the highly leveraged and overly concentrated investment strategy he deployed in the technology sector of the stock market.  The individual Claimants gathered assets from savings, bonuses, and/or refinanced real estate to open and deposit cash in their CAN Accounts. They each deposited substantial amount of money in each of their accounts in December of that year and the following year for Weldon to manage for their retirement. The Claimants’ employer was the last to open an account and deposit funds it had reserved for working capital in January 2021. Weldon prepared and all the Claimants signed management agreements and gave Weldon the authority to manage their accounts on margin without any prior consultation about the investments being made or strategy deployed and paid him a management fee to do so. Claimants did not realize Weldon’s papers also allowed Respondents to get paid commissions on each transaction in their accounts. Weldon also prepared and completed new account opening documents and agreements for managed accounts with false and/or misleading information to suit his strategy and his own “best interest,” as opposed to Claimants. For example, he wrote that one Claimant that was a construction company had over 20 years’ experience investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds when he knew it did not even exist until 2013 and never had any securities brokerage accounts. Further, Weldon knew that the company was depositing working capital which needed to be conservatively invested in non-volatile liquid investments and yet he falsely identified the company’s investment objective as “aggressive growth” and risk tolerance as “significant” meaning “an investor who seeks maximum return and accepts the risk of significant volatility and decreases in the value of a portfolio.” According to Weldon, the company had no need for liquidity, which was untrue. These were not clerical errors; rather, they were intentional mischaracterizations by Weldon to slip under the Compliance Department’s radar and manage the accounts in a speculative manner against Claimants’ instructions.  Weldon regularly encouraged Claimants to bring in more money for him to manage. Why? Because it was in his “best interest,” not the Claimants. The greater the total account market value, the greater the management fees which were based upon assets under management. The more money Claimants deposited, the more transactions and more commissions, Respondents and he received, in addition...

Continue Reading

Mar 30, 2023

Aaron Graham Investigation For Alleged Broker Misconduct

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is representing two Co-Trustees of a family trust in a FINRA arbitration case against United Planners’ Financial Services of America and AG Financial advisor Aaron Graham for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, negligence, and negligent supervision and fraudulent concealment of Graham’s misconduct. Aaron Graham Of United Planners’ Financial Services Of America A Limited Partner And AG Financial Has 4 Customer Complaints For Alleged Broker Misconduct. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is currently representing two Co-Trustees of a family trust who have filed an arbitration claim against his employer, United Planners’ Financial Services Of America, and Aaron Graham himself. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with Aaron Graham and had similar investments, a similar investment strategy, and a similar bad experience to help us win our clients’ case. Please contact us online via our contact form or by giving us a ring at (800) 732-2889. Aaron Graham Customer Complaints Aaron Graham has been the subject of 4 customer complaints that we know about. Two of Aaron Graham’s customer complaints were settled in favor of investors. One of Aaron Graham’s customers’ complaints was denied, and, to date, the customer has not taken any further action. We represent another customer whose arbitration claim was recently filed and is pending. Current Allegations Against Aaron Graham A sample of the allegations made in the previously FINRA reported arbitration claim settlements and/or complaints for investment losses were as follows:  We currently represent two Co-Trustees of a family trust who have filed an arbitration claim against his employer, United Planners’ Financial Services Of America and Aaron Graham himself. A summary of the allegations made in the FINRA arbitration filed for investment losses realized by the family’s trust were as follows: 1. Introduction Beginning in the late summer 2017, Graham, who had written discretionary authority to manage Claimants’ account in a reasonable manner, deployed a highly speculative strategy involving speculative investments and an excessive amount of leverage, which were inconsistent with Claimants instructions, needs, financial condition, and agreements related to their brokerage and investment advisory relationships. Graham mismanaged Claimants’ TDA account and made other investments for Claimants in violation of securities law, state and securities industry rules and regulations, and brokerage and/or advisory agreements. Respondent Graham is a registered representative and agent of and employed by United Planners Financial Services of America (“UP”) and was held out as a stockbroker, investment advisor, investment manager, financial advisor, and financial planner with special skills and expertise in the management of securities portfolios and financial, estate, retirement, and tax planning matters. Graham was a Certified Trust Financial Advisor (CTFA), a designation he held since 1999 for expertise in trust and other fiduciary matters. As a registered principal with UP, Graham held FINRA Series 7, 9, 24, 63 and 65 and various insurance licenses. This arbitration was filed by Claimants as Co-Trustees of their family’s trust against Respondent UP and its registered representative Graham for his breach of brokerage and advisory agreements, statutory and common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, negligence, failures to act in Claimants’ “best interest,” unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, omissions, misleading statements, and other acts and omissions, which were fraudulently concealed from Claimants. 2. The Relevant Facts Claimants are 68 and 63 years, respectively. Neither one has had any education beyond high school. They both went to work immediately thereafter. They have been married since 1980 and have children. The husband went to work in the oil fields with his father, and the wife became a dental assistant.  In 1999, the Claimants formed a company that drilled the initial conductors, mouseholes, and ratholes for oil producers before they constructed the drilling rigs that drilled for the oil. This was the family business that the husband learned from his father. After his father retired, the husband set out on his own and became very successful in a short period. By 2008, the Claimants had accumulated several million dollars and were introduced to Graham through their friends in the oil business. Neither one of the Co-Trustees had any education or experience investing in the stock or bond markets prior to meeting him. Graham would travel from his Salt Lake City office to meet with his clients. On those occasions, he would stop by the Claimants’ office to visit and solicit their business. Eventually, Graham was successful in persuading the Claimants to open a TDA account, which Graham managed for a management fee on a discretionary basis. In 2010, the Co-Trustees sold their company and deposited all the sales proceeds along with their other savings previously deposited into the TDA account managed by Graham. By the end of 2010, Respondent UP’s agent Graham controlled $12.5 million of the Claimants’ life savings held in trust for them. Graham managed the TDA account exclusively; he did not consult with Claimants with respect to any transaction therein.  In or about 2011 Graham began to distribute $15,000 per month to Claimants. The next year he increased the distribution to $25,000 per month to Claimants. From inception of the relationship, Graham continuously assured Claimants they would have more than enough funds for a lifetime of distributions at a rate of $25,000/month. Indeed, this might have been true if Graham had only continued to manage the account as he was instructed and agreed. Initially, Claimants received monthly account statements from TDA at Claimants’ business office PO Box address. Graham also supplied Claimants with written reports supposedly summarizing the account activity and performance of the account. However, after the sale of the business, Claimants only received Graham’s summary reports and annuity statements at their home. Graham never notified TDA that the Claimants sold their business, moved, and no longer received TDA statements that may have been delivered to their former business office. When Claimants asked Graham about the whereabouts of the TDA statements, he told them he was receiving them and all they needed...

Continue Reading

Mar 20, 2023

Elder Financial Abuse: Definition, Signs & What You Can Do

Growing up, one of the lessons we’re all taught is to respect our elders. Unfortunately, many people fail to take this to heart. Unscrupulous family members and other bad actors often take advantage of senior citizens, especially when it comes to their finances. According to one study, elder financial abuse accounted for roughly 18% of elder abuse reports. However, the actual percentage is likely much higher; only about 1 in 44 financial abuse cases is ever reported. Because many elderly people live off of their investments, the consequences of this type of abuse can be particularly extreme. The best way to protect our elderly family members is to know the signs of elder financial abuse. By recognizing the abuse as soon as possible, we can hopefully prevent irreversible damage to their finances. In this article, we will cover everything you need to know about elder financial abuse. What Is Elder Financial Abuse? Elder financial abuse is theft or mismanagement of an elderly person’s assets and/or investments. These may include real estate, bank accounts, or other property that belongs to the elderly person. Need Legal Help? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at 800-732-2889. Because the abuser is often a close family member, or trusted financial advisor, elder financial abuse frequently goes unnoticed. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder financial abuse, it’s important to act quickly. The elder financial abuse attorneys at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. can help walk you through the process to protect your rights and interests. Contact us today to schedule a consultation. Signs of Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation At the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. we have seen firsthand the effects of elder financial abuse. Spotting the signs of elder financial abuse can be tricky, but it’s important to learn how to recognize them so that you can protect your loved ones. The following are some common signs of elder financial abuse and exploitation: Sign 1. Unusual Bank Account Activity As they get older, many people grant financial powers of attorney to their spouse or adult children or trusted financial advisors. While this is perfectly normal, it opens up the possibility that the designated person may abuse that power. If you suspect elder financial abuse, pay close attention to the elderly person’s bank accounts and investments in their brokerage accounts. Withdrawals, transfers, or other suspicious activity like new or inactive accounts suddenly becoming active are red flags. The elderly person may be making these transfers themself, but it’s always good to be sure, since it could be for the wrong reasons (like the internet scams discussed below). Keep an eye on their investments as well. An elderly person’s portfolio is typically structured to provide a livable income off interest alone through low-risk investments. Keep an eye out for restructuring of investments to riskier funds or unexplained “cash outs.” Sign 2. Suspicious Internet Activity Over the past few years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of online scams targeting elderly people. Because elderly people are more trusting and less able to distinguish a scam from a legitimate venture, scammers frequently target them with fake tech support calls and the like. One of the most common online scams involves the scammer posing as a lover, friend, or family member online. After contacting the elderly victim, the scammer then requests money for plane tickets or some kind of emergency. This sign may be impossible to notice without speaking to the potential victim. Be wary if they mention someone new they met online or if you notice suspicious financial activity initiated by the victim. Sign 3. Missing Food or Unpaid Bills Ordinarily, caregivers or family members will make sure that an eldery person’s home is stocked with food and that bills are paid on time. Especially in a world with automatic bill payments, aging parents shouldn’t have to worry about paying their bills on time. A lack of food in the house and unpaid bills are indicators that that money is going elsewhere. Sign 4. Frequent Requests for Money by Someone Close to the Victim If someone makes frequent demands for money, that could be an indicator of financial exploitation. Anyone from neighbors to adult children may try to make frequent requests for money because they know the victim may have a poor memory or may have difficulty saying no.  Keep in mind that elder financial abuse like this is often subtle. Demands may not always be for large amounts of cash; this sign also includes polite requests for small amounts here and there. Over time, however, those “small amounts” can become exploitative. Sign 5. Payment for Unnecessary Services Door-to-door salesmen and “cold callers” may try to a upsell your elderly family member on services they don’t want or need. One common example of door-to-door sales abuse is roof repair or landscaping work. Cold callers barrage elderly at home with the next best investment in gold, silver, diamonds, and the next supposed Apple, Amazon, or Nextflix investment opportunity  to get into before its too late! These scams can take many different forms and may be difficult to spot. Sign 6. Threats or Coercion It may be difficult to imagine, but people may threaten their elderly family members to obtain money. These threats usually do not involve force, but rather things like, “I will put you in a home” or “I will stop visiting you.” If you don’t buy this stock, I’ll never call you again with any investment opportunities.  The abuser may also instruct the victim not to tell anyone what is happening. As a result, you’ll often have to pay close attention to spot this sign of elder financial abuse. Watch for a change in the elderly person’s demeanor or mood, especially around a suspected abuser.  What to Do If You Suspect Elder Financial Abuse If you suspect your loved one is the victim of elder financial abuse, there are a couple things you can...

Continue Reading

Mar 18, 2023

J.P. Morgan Sued For Edward Turley’s Alleged Misconduct: $55 Million!

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has filed another case against Ex-J.P. Morgan broker Ed Turley for alleged misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce has filed another case against J.P. Morgan Securities for alleged misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts continuing in fall 2019 and thereafter by Edward Turley (“Turley”), a former “Vice-Chairman” of J.P. Morgan. At the outset, it is important for our readers to know that our clients’ allegations have not yet been proven. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with J.P. Morgan and Mr. Turley and had similar investments, a similar investment strategy, and a similar bad experience to help us win our clients’ case. Please contact us online via our contact form or by giving us a ring at (800) 732-2889. Latest Updates on Ed Turley – November 18, 2022 The Advisor Hub reported today that the former star broker with J.P. Morgan Advisors in San Francisco Edward Turley agreed to an industry bar rather than cooperate with FINRA’s probe of numerous allegations of excessive and unauthorized trading that resulted in more than $100 million worth of customer complaints. FINRA had initiated its investigation of Edward Turley as it related to numerous customer complaints in 2020. The regulator noted in its Acceptance Waiver and Consent Agreement (AWC) that the investors had generally alleged “sales practice violations including improper exercise of discretion and unsuitable trading.” According to Edward Turley’s BrokerCheck report, he had been fired in August 2021 for “loss of confidence concerning adherence to firm policies and brokerage order handling requirements.” On October 28th, FINRA requested Turley provide on-the-record testimony related to his trading patterns, including the “use of foreign currency and margin, and the purchasing and selling of high-yield bonds and preferred stock,” but Edward Turley through counsel declined to do so. As a result, Edward Turley violated FINRA’s Rule 8210 requiring cooperation with enforcement probes, and its catch-all Rule 2010 requiring “high standards of commercial honor,” the regulator said and he was barred permanently from the securities industry. Related Read: Can You Sue a Financial Advisor or Stockbroker Over Losses? Turley Allegedly Misrepresented And Misled Claimants About His Investment Strategy The claims arise out of Turley’s “one-size-fits-all” fixed income credit spread investment strategy involving high-yield “junk” bonds, preferred stocks, exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), master limited partnerships (“MLPs”), and foreign bonds. Instead of purchasing those securities in ordinary margin accounts, Turley executed foreign currency transactions to raise capital and leverage clients’ accounts to earn undisclosed commissions. Turley over-leveraged and over-concentrated his best and biggest clients’ accounts, including Claimants’ accounts, in junk bonds, preferred stocks, and MLPs in the financial and energy sectors, which are notoriously illiquid and subject to sharp price declines when the financial markets become stressed as they did in March 2020. In the beginning and throughout the investment advisory relationship, Turley described his investment strategy to Claimants as one which would generate “equity returns with very low bond-type risk.” Turley and his partners also described the strategy to clients and prospects as one “which provided equity-like returns without equity-like risk.” J.P. Morgan supervisors even documented Turley’s description of the strategy as “creating portfolio with similar returns, but less volatility than an all-equity portfolio.” Note: It appears that no J.P. Morgan supervisor ever checked to see if the representations were true and if anybody did, they would have known Turley was lying and have directly participated in the scheme. The Claimants’ representative was also told Turley used leverage derived from selling foreign currencies, Yen and Euros, to get the “equity-like” returns he promised. Turley also told the investor not to be concerned because he “carefully” added leverage to enhance returns. According to Turley, the securities of the companies he invested in for clients “did not move up or down like the stock market,” so there was no need to worry about him using leverage in Claimants’ accounts and their cash would be available whenever it was needed. The Claimants’ representative was not the only client who heard this from Turley; that is, he did not own volatile stocks and not to worry about leverage. Turley did not discuss the amount of leverage he used in clients’ accounts, which ranged from 1:1 to 3:1, nor did Turley discuss the risks currency transactions added to the portfolio, margin calls or forced liquidations as a result of his investment strategy. After all, Turley knew he could get away without disclosing those risks. This was because J.P. Morgan suppressed any margin calls being sent to Turley’s clients and he liquidated securities on his own to meet those margin calls without alarming clients.  This “one-size-fits-all” strategy was a recipe for disaster. J.P. Morgan and Turley have both admitted that Turley’s investment strategy was not suitable for any investor whose liquid net worth was fully invested in the strategy. It was especially unsuitable for those customers like Claimants who had other plans for the funds in their J.P. Morgan accounts in fall 2019 and spring 2020. Unfortunately, Turley recommended and managed the “one-size-fits-all” strategy for his best clients and friends, including Claimants. Turley was Claimants’ investment advisor and portfolio manager and required under the law to serve them as a “fiduciary.” He breached his “fiduciary” duties in making misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts. The most egregious breach was his failure to take any action to protect his clients at the end of February 2020, when J.P. Morgan raised the red flags about COVID-19 and recommended defensive action be taken in clients’ accounts. Turley Allegedly Managed Claimants’ Accounts Without Written Discretionary Authority Claimants’ representative hired Turley to manage his “dry powder,” the cash in Claimants’ accounts at J.P. Morgan, which he would need on short notice when business opportunities arose. At one point, Claimants had over $100 million on deposit with J.P. Morgan. It was not...

Continue Reading

Mar 14, 2023

How to Sue Your Financial Advisor or Broker Over Investment Losses

If you’ve lost a significant amount of money in your investment portfolios, you could be wondering if you can sue your financial advisor or broker to help recover those losses. While every case is different, there are a number of factors that will influence whether or not you have a successful lawsuit. In this article, we will discuss some of the key things to consider if you are thinking about suing your financial advisor or stockbroker. IMPORTANT: If you are considering suing your advisor, it is important to seek legal counsel. Do not file without legal representation. Securities is a complex area of law, and without an experienced investment loss attorney, you may not be able to recover the full extent of your losses. Can I Sue My Financial Advisor? Yes, you can. You may file an arbitration claim with FINRA to seek financial compensation if your investment advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm violated FINRA’s regulations and rules, resulting in financial losses on your part. Investment Losses? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at (800) 732-2889. A Financial Advisor’s Duty of Care People hire financial advisors and brokers to grow and protect their money. Financial advisors have advanced education and training, which should provide their clients with valuable insight and accurate financial advice. Individual investors expect that their advisors will not defraud or harm them in any other way. Market volatility is difficult to predict with any certainty. Markets dip and rebound over time. A financial advisor must guide you through those difficult times and offer you sound investment advice to minimize or avoid losses.  Some investments are riskier than others. Brokers and financial advisors need to understand their clients’ risk tolerance, as well as their clients’ investment needs. Losses could ruin years of hard work and financial planning.  Market volatility is one thing—negligence, deception, and fraud are something else entirely. Therefore, you should review your portfolio closely to see if you are a victim of misconduct.

Continue Reading

Mar 11, 2023

Selling Away: Definition, Examples, and How to Recover Losses

The securities industry is one of the most regulated, largely because of the high potential for fraud and abuse. Various laws and regulations protect investors by imposing requirements on securities transactions and the people who facilitate them. Individual brokers and brokerage firms must be registered and licensed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before they are permitted to conduct securities transactions. FINRA also administers a number of exams that provide certification for selling specific kinds of securities. All of these regulations exist to protect investors from fraudulent conduct by brokers. Nevertheless, brokers occasionally attempt to skirt the rules and offer private deals to their clients. Not only do these transactions violate FINRA rules, they also pose additional risks for investors. What Is Selling Away? Selling away describes the practice of selling securities in unauthorized private transactions outside the regular scope of the broker’s business. Need Legal Help? Let’s talk. or, give us a ring at 561-338-0037. Brokerage firms maintain a list of approved securities their brokers are allowed to offer. By approving products ahead of time, brokerage firms ensure that their brokers sell only securities that are vetted and verified as legitimate products. Brokers sell away when they offer their clients securities not on the firm’s approved product list. Brokers may sell away if they want to make extra commissions without sharing with their firm. Selling away is not always malicious; sometimes, a broker means well but isn’t able to offer the securities a client wants through normal channels. Regardless of the broker’s intent, however, FINRA prohibits selling away and sanctions brokers for doing so. Common Examples of Selling Away While there is no specific form a selling-away transaction takes, they frequently involve certain types of investments. These investments include: Deals that involve selling away often exhibit the same red flags as other types of investment fraud, like Ponzi schemes. Excessively high or consistent returns are indicators that the deal is probably too good to be true. What Are the Risks of Investing in Securities That Are Sold Away? Investments of all kinds carry a certain level of risk. However, investing in a selling-away deal carries more risk because they come without the safeguards that accompany approved investments. Lack of screening First, selling-away deals involve securities that are not screened by the brokerage firm. Brokerage firms screen the products they offer for a reason: to make sure that their customers have access to solid investments. Without these safeguards, investors are taking on significantly higher risk. Lack of disclosures Second, selling away deals rarely include the formal risk disclosures found with approved brokerage products. There is no review of the investment by the brokerage’s compliance department, and the exact nature of the risk involved may be unclear. Less accountability Finally, it may be harder to recover losses. When a broker engages in an approved transaction, the brokerage takes on liability for the broker’s activity. Because brokerages are often completely unaware of selling-away transactions, it is much harder to prove liability on the part of the brokerage. In the case of significant investor losses, this can mean less money recovered overall. Selling-Away FINRA Regulations There are two main FINRA regulations that cover selling away: Rule 3270 and Rule 3280.  FINRA Rule 3270 prohibits brokers from engaging in activities that are outside of the broker’s relationship with their brokerage firm unless written notice is provided to the firm.  FINRA Rule 3280 is similar, and prohibits brokers from engaging in private securities transactions (including selling away) without first providing written notice to their firm. After receiving that notice, the member firm may approve or disapprove the transaction. If the firm approves, then the firm supervises and records the transaction. Disapproval, on the other hand, prohibits the broker from participation in the transaction either directly or indirectly. What Are the Penalties for Selling Away? Both brokers and brokerage firms can be held liable when a broker sells away. FINRA regulations require brokers to offer securities products suitable for each of their client’s needs. Brokers must account for their clients’ objectives, level of investing sophistication, and risk tolerances. When a broker fails to fulfill this obligation, FINRA may sanction, suspend, or bar the broker from the financial industry. According to FINRA’s Sanctions Guidelines, Brokers who engage in selling away open themselves up to monetary sanctions between $2,500 and $77,000 for each rule violation. For serious violations, FINRA may suspend the broker for up to two years or permanently bar them from practicing as a broker. The severity of the penalty depends on several factors: Because selling away involves transactions outside of a broker’s relationship with their brokerage firm, holding the firm responsible for investor losses is more difficult. Nevertheless, a brokerage firm may still be liable for the conduct of its brokers under FINRA regulations. Brokerage firms have an obligation to supervise the brokers with which they are associated. Failure to do so may result in the firm’s liability to the investor. How Do I Recover Losses from Selling Away Deals? Investors can try to recover their losses through several formal and informal methods. Speaking with a selling away lawyer is the best way to determine which method is right for your situation. FINRA Arbitration Many brokerage firms require their customers to sign mandatory arbitration clauses. If this is the case, then the investor must use FINRA’s arbitration process rather than filing a lawsuit.  Arbitration starts when the investor files a claim. From there, the parties go through similar procedures to those in the regular court system. Each side will engage in discovery and present their case at a hearing before an arbitrator. The arbitrator is responsible for reviewing the evidence and ultimately issuing a decision and award. Contacting Your Brokerage Firm A brokerage firm’s compliance department may be interested in reaching a resolution without involving the courts. In some cases, investors recover losses from their broker’s selling away deals through mediation. FINRA provides access to informal mediation to facilitate a mutually acceptable agreement between...

Continue Reading

Mar 10, 2023

GWG Holdings L Bonds: Complaints & Investment Losses

Are you grappling with significant financial losses due to GWG Holdings’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the turmoil surrounding GWG L Bonds? Understandably, this situation has left many investors in distress, facing uncertain futures. Our firm specializes in assisting those impacted by the GWG L Bonds crisis. If you’re an investor facing losses, immediate legal assistance might be crucial. Contact us to explore your options for recovery and ensure your rights are protected in this complex financial debacle. IMPORTANT: As of February 2022, GWG Holdings has failed to pay $13.6 million in payments to GWG L bondholders. These were high yield, high risk, illiquid investments that as stockbrokers should have been wary and not recommended to investors with conversative or moderate risk tolerances. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is currently investigating claims against stockbrokers related to recommendations to purchase GWG Holdings L bonds (“GWG L bonds”) and is offering free consultations to those who have suffered GWG L bond losses. If you have suffered GWG L bond investment losses, our experienced securities litigation attorneys are prepared to discuss the matter and provide their legal opinion as to whether you can recover damages against the broker-dealer who recommended and sold you GWG L bonds. Please contact our law firm at 561-338-0037 or online for a free consultation. What are GWG L Bonds? In 2012, GWG Holdings created and has since sold nearly $2 billion in GWG L bonds to investors. These high-yield bonds were unrated and illiquid investments and therefore, unsuitable for investors with conservative or moderate risk tolerances. Need Legal Help? Let’s talk. or, give us a ring at 561-338-0037. GWG Holdings issued the GWG L bonds to raise capital to purchase an individual life insurance policyholder seeking liquidity or cash by selling his/her life insurance policy to GWG Holdings for more than the surrender value but substantially less than the policy’s face value. GWG Holdings would then make the premium payments and hope to receive a payout worth greater than what it paid for the policy after the original policy matures or the policyholder passes away. The subject GWG L bonds were created to finance these life insurance policy purchases by GWG Holdings.  The problem for investors was the GWG L bond investments depended on insurance policy premiums and benefits being paid out according to assumptions and statistical models, thus making them speculative investments for investors seeking income and protection of their capital. Further, GWG L bonds had no secondary market, which prevented investors from liquidating should they need the cash immediately. In other words, money used to purchase GWG L bonds was essentially trapped from the moment of purchase. Moreover, the only collateral supposedly backing GWG Holdings are interests in GWG subsidiary companies that purportedly owned real assets, including the insurance policies. Don’t Be Discouraged by GWG Holdings’ Bankruptcy  As early as April 2022, news sources reported that GWG Holdings was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. However, this news should not stop investors from seeking the opinion of a skilled and experienced securities attorney and getting just compensation. Broker-dealers and their agents who misrepresented and/or made unsuitable recommendations as to the GWG L bonds may still be held liable for losses in investor accounts. In other words, an account holder can still file a FINRA arbitration against the broker-dealer to recover losses in GWG L bonds for misrepresentations, unsuitable recommendations, failure to conduct adequate due diligence, negligence, etc. You should not let your broker-dealer or broker/financial advisor convince you otherwise. Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. Recovers Investment Losses The attorneys at Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. are experienced in litigating high-yield and speculative fixed-income instrument securities loss cases. For over 40 years we have represented investors in arbitration and securities litigation matters, including FINRA arbitration proceedings in nearly every state. Contact us now at 561-338-0037 or contact us online to schedule your free initial consultation.  GWB L Bonds Were Sold for High Commissions! According to GWG Holdings, the GWG L bonds were sold by Emerson Equity, the managing broker-dealer, which partnered with other brokerage firms that also sold the L bonds to their retail customers. The commissions on such sales by the brokerage firms were as high as 8%. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. suspects that many other broker-dealers were involved in the recommendation and sale of the GWG L bonds to their customers. Some of the firms alleged to have sold L bonds to their customers include: If the name of your broker-dealer does not appear on the list above, do not be alarmed. Rather, call us at 561-338–0037 or contact us online for free consultation to discuss whether you may have a claim to recover damages. Recover Your GWG L Bond Investment Losses in a FINRA Arbitration The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is prepared to help investors who have sustained damages or monetary losses not only in GWG L bonds but other investments in your account in FINRA arbitration. If you were one of those investors who have suffered losses, you should seek the immediate advice of an experienced investment fraud attorney with more than 40 years of experience representing investors in investment fraud and broker-dealer negligence cases. It is imperative that you seek our consultation as soon as possible, as there are applicable eligibility rule and/or statutes of limitation that may forever bar your claim against the broker-dealer who sold you the GWG L bonds if you do not file your claim in a timely manner.  We Don’t Get Paid Unless You Get Paid! The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. accepts cases on a contingency fee basis. This means if we do not recover money for you, you will not incur any fees owed to our firm. In other words, our attorney’s fees are collected only if we successfully settle your case or obtain a monetary award at the final arbitration hearing. We will also bear the cost of your case through the...

Continue Reading

Mar 3, 2023

What are Options in the Stock Market?

There are many different investing tactics and strategies that brokers leverage to generate returns on the stock market. Among these are options, which are a type of derivative security. For the common investor, understanding exactly what are options in stocks may leave you scratching your head. In this guide you’ll learn: So if you are ready to learn more about options, you have landed on the right page. Let’s get started. What are Options? Options are a type of derivative security that gives the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset (such as a stock, commodity, or currency) at a specified price (known as the strike price) within a certain period of time. For the average investor, understanding options can be complicated and intimidating. Despite this, some brokers still partake in the purchase and sale of options for their clients without properly warning them about the risks involved. Options trading is both complex and risky and may be considered unsuitable for many investors. When you (or your broker) buy an options contract, it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to make the purchase or sale at the agreed-upon price. This means that the price of the options contract is connected to the price of the underlying asset. If you think the price of the underlying asset will go up or down, you can buy an options contract to potentially profit from that change without actually owning the asset. IMPORTANT: Options trading is highly speculative in nature and can carry a substantial risk of loss. As such, this type of trading is not suitable for all investors. Investors who have lost significant amounts of money in options trading have been known to sue their brokers for failing to properly inform them about the risks involved. It is important to note that, unlike stocks, there is no actual physical “exchange” of the underlying asset when an options contract expires; rather, your broker will simply adjust your account balance accordingly (or not). The Types of Options: Calls and Puts There are two types of options: call options and put options. A call option gives the options contract holder the right to buy an underlying asset at a specified price (known as the strike price) within a certain period of time while a put option gives the holder the right to sell an underlying asset at a specified price within a certain period of time. What is a Call Option? A call option gives the owner of the contract the right to buy an underlying asset at a certain price (known as the strike price) within a specific period of time. If the underlying asset increases in value above the strike price by the time of expiry, the option buyer will make a profit from the difference. To purchase a call option, the buyer must pay a premium (the cost of the option). The buyer has no obligation to buy the underlying asset at any time; they can simply let the option expire. If the call option expires, the buyer will lose the money (premium) they paid for the option. With call options, you’re ultimately betting that the price of the underlying asset will climb in value over time. Understandably, this carries a certain degree of risk and speculation. What is a Put Option? A put option gives the owner of the contract the right to sell an underlying asset at a certain price (the strike price) within a specific period of time. If the underlying asset decreases in value below the strike price by the time of expiry, the option seller will make a profit from this difference. To purchase a put option, the buyer must pay a premium (the cost of the option). If you own put options, it is in your best interest for the stock price to decrease below the strike price. In this event, whoever sold you the option must purchase shares from you at a value higher than what they are currently being traded on the market – granting you a profit and providing an insurance policy against drastic depreciation of worth. If, instead, the market price increases rather than decreases, your shares will have gained value and all you’ll be out is the cost of the put premium. In this case it’s best to allow your option to expire. The Risks of Options Trading While the intent behind purchasing options is to increase the potential for profits, it’s important to understand that the potential for losses is just as real. Options trading is highly speculative in nature and can carry a substantial risk of loss. Some option strategies are nothing short of gambling and carry immense risk. An example of this would be the sale of a naked (uncovered) call or put option. When a call is exercised it gives the purchaser the right to buy shares at a set price (the strike price) within a certain time period independent of whether or not the investor is currently in possession of the underlying asset. If the option is exercised and the shares are not owned, then the seller of the option must purchase them in order to fulfill their obligation, regardless of how high the price of the underlying asset has risen. In the worst-case scenarios, these losses can be catastrophic and wipe out an entire trading account in a single trade. Did Your Broker Make Unsuitable Recommendations Based on Your Risk Tolerance? Not all brokers take the time to understand their clients’ needs, preferences, financial situation and risk tolerance levels. As a result, these brokers may make unsuitable recommendations regarding investments and strategies in options trading. If you have investment losses because your broker recommended unsuitable options trading strategies, you may have a valid claim to recover your losses. Contact an experienced investment fraud lawyer to discuss your legal rights and options.

Continue Reading

Feb 2, 2023

Can a Lawyer Help Investors with Unauthorized Trading?

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has experience handling unauthorized trading and investor disputes with broker-dealers. Our unauthorized trading lawyers understand the complexities of securities law, as well as the impact that unauthorized trading can have on an investor’s financial future. Brokers must get approval from clients before making trades in a standard brokerage account. When a broker makes a trade (or trades) without first discussing this with their client, this is known as unauthorized trading. If you’ve been a victim of unauthorized trading and suffered financial losses, there is hope – you may be able to recover your money.  But you must call us at (800) 732-2889 promptly to avoid ratification and waiver defenses the financial advisors lawyers will raise to avoid paying you back! What is unauthorized trading? Unauthorized trading is any purchase or sale of securities made on behalf of a client without prior permission, knowledge or consent. FINRA Rule 2510(b) prohibits brokers from buying or selling securities in non-discretionary brokerage accounts without talking to customers and getting their approval. This may also be considered a violation of FINRA’s standards for commercial honor, fair trade practices, and prohibitions against manipulative or fraudulent behavior (FINRA Rule 2010 and FINRA Rule 2020). Unauthorized trading doesn’t apply to discretionary accounts. A discretionary account is an account in which the broker has been granted authority (prior written authority) to make decisions regarding investments and the brokerage firm has approved the account for discretionary trading. How to Spot Unauthorized Trading To prevent unauthorized trading, it’s important to stay on top of your investment account. Here are some tips to help you spot it: Remember, the quicker you report unauthorized trading, the stronger your case will be. So don’t hesitate to take action if you suspect something’s amiss. Have You Suffered Investment Losses Due to Unauthorized Trading? If you think your broker made unauthorized trades, it’s important to act. A securities lawyer can help you understand the situation and figure out the next steps. Contact us today at (800) 732-2889 or fill out one of our short contact forms. Can You Sue Your Broker for Unauthorized Trading? Yes, you can sue your broker for unauthorized trading. Investment loss claims are most often addressed through arbitration, which is governed and regulated by FINRA. The FINRA arbitration process allows investors to resolve disputes with their brokerage firms without having to go to court. The arbitration process tends to be faster and less expensive than a traditional lawsuit. If you’ve suffered financial losses due to unauthorized trading, our experienced securities attorneys can help you file a claim against the broker-dealer. We are here to fight for your rights as an investor. Contact us today for more information. Related Read: Can You Sue a Financial Advisor or Stockbroker Over Losses? Do You Need an Unauthorized Trading Lawyer? It is crucial to have an attorney who understands the complexities of securities law, as well as the rules that brokers must abide by when dealing with clients’ accounts. Making the wrong choices now could result in losing your ability to recover any losses. A good unauthorized trading attorney knows how to avoid the ratification and waiver defenses! At the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., our attorneys understand how difficult it is for investors when brokers breach their fiduciary duty and make unauthorized trades. We are here to help you get the compensation that you deserve for your losses. We’ve been helping investors recover lost money for over 40 years. Our track record speaks for itself. We’ve helped recover over $175 million for our clients. Contact the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. today to learn how we can help you with your unauthorized trading dispute. We provide free consultations, so don’t wait – schedule yours now and get the legal help you need.

Continue Reading