TAG | Brookstone Fined by FINRA
6
FINRA Fines Brookstone Securities Inc Over Sale of CMOs
Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA
In May, a FINRA arbitration panel fined Brookstone Securities Inc., $1 million over the sale of risky CMOs (collateralized mortgage obligations) and said they made “fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions of material fact in selling complex, esoteric and risky tranches of [CMOs] to unsophisticated, elderly and retired investors.” The FINRA panel also ordered its chief executive, Antony Lee Turbeville, along with a broker, Christopher Dean Kline barred from FINRA registered broker-dealers.
Brookstone and Antony Turbeville were jointly ordered to pay clients restitution of $440,600, while Brookstone and Christopher Kline were jointly ordered to pay $1,179,500 in restitution.
It was said in FINRA’s decision, that Turbeville and Kline “preyed on their elderly customers’ greatest fears,” such as losing their all of their savings to nursing homes and becoming penniless, thus enticing them into risky CMOs.
“Brookstone, Mr. Turbeville and Mr. Kline intentionally or recklessly misrepresented the CMO investments to their customers as a safe way, through government-backed bonds, to obtain a high rate of return on their investments,” according to the FINRA decision. “In reality, the CMOs the brokers purchased for the customers were high-risk investments whose returns were not assured, but instead, because of interest rate changes, were subject to dramatic changes in maturity, cash flow and value.”
According to FINRA, between July 2005 and July 2007, Brookstone earned $492,500 in commissions over that time on CMOs, and investors lost $1.62 million.
Seven clients, between 61 and 91, claimed they did not understand how CMOs worked and were not sophisticated investors, according to the FINRA decision. FINRA has a long-standing warning to firms and advisers about selling CMOs, since 1993, when the CMO market collapsed. Finra, formerly NASD, warned that “in light of the complexity and the varying risk characteristics of CMOs, member must be conversant in all of the characteristics of CMOs to assess adequately the suitability of CMOs for their customers. Moreover, members must ensure that their customers understand the characteristics and risks associated with CMOs.”
brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · Brookstone Fined by FINRA · Brookstone Securities · Collateralized Mortgage Obligations · elder abuse · elder abuse awareness · elder abuse in investments · failure to supervise brokers · failure to supervise sale of CMOs · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · misrepresentation by broker · risky CMO investments · securities fraud lawyer · supervisory failures · targeting elderly investors · Turbeville CEO Brookstone · Unsuitable investments to elderly
15
FINRA Takes Actions Against Brookstone Securities, Inc., of Lakeland FL and Three of It’s Representative
Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA
Brookstone Securities, Inc. (CRD® #13366, Lakeland, Florida), David William Locy (CRD #4682865, Registered Principal, Overland Park, Kansas), Mark Mather Mercier (CRD #1884246, Registered Principal, Lutz, Florida) and Antony Lee Turbeville (CRD #1721014, Registered Principal, Lakeland, Florida)
submitted Offers of Settlement in which the firm was censured and fined $200,000; Locy was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for three months, Mercier was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for three months, and Turbeville was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for three months. Mercier’s fine must be paid either immediately upon his reassociation with a FINRA member firm following his 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 allegations, the respondents consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that registered representatives, while associated with the firm, made misrepresentations or omissions of material fact to purchasers of unsecured bridge notes and warrants to purchase common stock of a successor company.
These findings stated that the registered representatives guaranteed customers that they would receive back their principal investment plus returns, failed to inform investors of any risks associated with the investments and did not discuss the risks outlined in the private placement memorandum (PPM) that could result in them losing their entire investment.
These registered representatives had no reasonable basis for the guarantees given the description of the placement agent’s limited role in the PPM. The findings further stated that the registered representatives provided unwarranted price predictions to customers regarding the future price of common stock for which the warrants would be exchangeable and guaranteed the payment at maturity of promissory notes, which led customers to believe that funds raised by the sale of the anticipated private placement would be held in escrow for redemption of the promissory notes. The findings also stated that the firm, acting through a registered representative, made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact to customers in connection with the sale of the private placement of firm units consisting of Class B common stock and warrants to purchase Class A common stock; the PPM stated that the investment was speculative, involving a high degree of risk and was only suitable for persons who could risk losing their entire investment.
These findings also included that the representative represented to customers that he would invest their funds in another private placement and in direct contradiction, invested the funds in the firm private placement.
This information appeared on FINRA’s website under ‘Disciplinary Actions.’
Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you or a family member have experienced a loss through Brookstone Securities, Inc., David William Locy, Mark Mather Mercier, or Antony Lee Turbeville, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.securitieslawyer.com.
Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Antony Lee Turbeville · bridge notes · bridge notes scam · broker falsely guaranteed returns · broker misrepresenting facts · brokers recommending risky investments · Brookstone Fined by FINRA · Brookstone Securities · brookstone securities inc · Brookstone Securities Lakeland Florida · common stock of a successor company · David William Locy · deceptive practices by brokers · elder abuse in investments · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra securities arbitration · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · high-risk private placements · Lars Soreide · Locy COO · Mark Mather Mercier · Mercier CCO Brookstone · NASD 2310 · PPM · price predicitons to customers · principal investment guaranteed · private placement memorandum · private placements · risky investments · securities arbitraton lawyer · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer · stock loss · supervisory failures · Turbeville CEO Brookstone · unsecured bridge notes and warrants · using margin accounts · WSPs
