Brett Henderson (CRD #2420629, Registered Representative, North Salt Lake City, Utah)

was fined $95,000, which includes restitution of $82,505 payable to customers, and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for 11 months. Henderson consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings without admitting or denying the allegations, that he engaged in a pattern of unsuitable VA switch transactions, employing a “one-size-fits-all” investment strategy for his diverse customer base.

FINRA’s findings stated that Henderson justified these switches by using the same rationale that the new annuity provided better features without fully describing how it provided customers with better features.

These findings stated the customers paid significant surrender penalties of $82,505 for the annuity switches and Henderson received approximately $84,296 in commissions.

Allegedly, Henderson conducted inadequate independent research or analysis into the features of the VA he recommended or the different aspects and risks of the product before recommending it.

The suspension is in effect from April 16, 2012, through March 15, 2013.

(FINRA Case #2009019513902)

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you have investment losses call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover those losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide

annunity switches · Brett Henderson FINRA · Brett Henderson North Salt Lake City Utah · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · failure to do due diligence by brokers · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · high commissions by brokers · high risk investments · inadequate due diligence by brokers · inadequate research by broker · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · supervisory failures · VA switch transactions

 The following information is from FINRA’s website under “Disciplinary Actions, April, 2012:”

E*Trade Capital Markets LLC (CRD #111528, Chicago, Illinois) 

submitted a Letter of  Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm was censured, fined $45,000, required to pay $812.13, plus interest, in restitution to customers and to revise its WSPs regarding trade reporting. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that in transactions for or with a customer, it failed to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best inter-dealer market and failed to buy or sell in such market so that the resultant price to its customer was as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions.

These findings stated that the firm failed to submit the market on open special handling code to OATS, and in one instance also failed to submit a new order report to OATS; failed to submit OATS information for proprietary orders not related to the firm’s market-making activity; failed to submit route reports; and improperly submitted execution reports to OATS, and in one instance submitted an inaccurate cancellation time. The findings also stated that the firm’s supervisory system for its Dempsey Unit Trading Desk did not provide for supervision reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws, regulations and FINRA rules concerning trade reporting (reporting trades accurately and timely, and the proper use of trade modifiers). 

These findings also included that the firm failed to provide documentary evidence that on the trade dates reviewed, it performed the supervisory reviews for its market-making desk set forth in its WSPs concerning trading and/or quoting during a trading halt. FINRA found that the firm transmitted trade reports for odd-lot trades and failed to report the transactions with the required odd-lot modifier of .RO to the NASD®/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (NNTRF).

(FINRA Case #2008013636701)

brokerage supervisory deficiencies · E*Trade Capital Markets LLC · e*trade fined by finra · E*Trade loss · etrade · Etrade failure to get best possible rate for customer · ETrade paying restitution to customers · failure by brokerage to submit information to OATS · failure to do due diligence by brokers · failure to report transactions to NASD/NNTRF · failure to supervise brokers · failure to supervise company policies · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inaccurate information submitted by etrade · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · OATs failure by E*Trade · OATS reporting · risky investments · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer · stock loss · stockbroker misconduct · supervisory failures · WSP regarding trade reporting failure by etrade · WSPs

The following appeared on FINRA’s website in the ’Disciplinary Actions.’

Brookstone Securities, Inc. (CRD #13366, Lakeland, Florida) and David William Locy (CRD #4682865, Registered Principal, Overland Park, Kansas)

the firm and Locy were censured and fined $25,000, jointly and severally. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Locy consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm, acting through Locy, did not have WSPs addressing due diligence requirements for third-party placements.

 These findings stated that the firm, acting through Locy, failed to conduct an adequate due diligence of a third-party private placement offering before Locy approved the offering of shares to customers. The findings also stated that Locy’s due diligence efforts did not include any investigation into an equity fund, despite acknowledging that he knew very little about it or the third-party placement and could not get any solid information about the fund, including pending litigation or financial statements.

These findings also included that Locy knew nothing about the fund that was not contained in a PPM the issuer prepared, but accepted that the firm representatives forming the offering had conducted due diligence and relied on their opinion of the fund.

Additionally, FINRA found that Locy acknowledged  the representatives had limited, if any, experience forming a private placement. FINRA also found that firm representatives sold or participated in sales of shares to customers without notifying Locy or anyone else at the firm, which caused those sales to not be recorded on the firm’s books and records.      (FINRA Case #20090198373)

Brookstone Securities, Inc. (CRD # 13366, Lakeland, Florida), Richard Joseph Buswell (CRD #4770105, Registered Representative, Lafayette, Louisiana) and Herbert Steven Fouke (CRD #5523938, Registered Representative, Lafayette, Louisiana)

 respondents in a FINRA complaint alleging that the firm, acting through Buswell andFouke, made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in connection with the sale of unsecured bridge notes and warrants. The complaint alleges that Buswell and Fouke, acting on the firm’s behalf, told purchasers of the bridge notes that they were guaranteed without any reasonable basis given the description of the placement agent’s limited role in the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) and disclosed no risks regarding the financing or financial health of the placement agent or the issuer of the bridge notes and warrants.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Buswell and Fouke provided unwarranted price predictions to customers regarding the future price of common stock for which warrants would be exchangeable. The complaint further alleges that Buswell and Fouke, acting on the firm’s behalf, guaranteed the payment at maturity of promissory notes although the PPM made clear that the placement agent had no commitment to provide financing for the private placement or a later public offering.

The complaint alleges that Buswell and Fouke, acting on the firm’s behalf, recklessly or knowingly failed to disclose the risk that the financing would not occur and recklessly or knowingly failed to disclose the other risks outlined in the PPM. The complaint alleges that Buswell and Fouke, acting on the firm’s behalf, guaranteed to customers that they would receive back their principal investments plus returns, failed to inform investors of any risks associated with the investments and did not discuss the risks outlined in the PPM that could result in investors losing their entire investment. The complaint also alleges that the firm, acting through Buswell, made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact 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 to customers; the PPM for the firm self-offering 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, and the PPM also stated that the investment was illiquid, contrary to Buswell’s representations.

Also, the complaint further alleges that Buswell represented to customers that he would invest their funds in another private placement, and in direct contradiction, invested the funds in the firm’s private placement. In addition, the complaint alleges that the firm, acting through Buswell and Fouke, recommended and effected the sale of securities without having a reasonable basis to believe that the transactions were suitable given the customers’ financial circumstances and conditions; Buswell recommended a trading strategy that relied upon frequent trading, use of margin and concentration of the accounts in a small number of financial stocks. The complaint alleges that Buswell exercised discretion in customers’ accounts without the customers’ prior written authorization or the firm’s acceptance of the accounts as discretionary. The complaint also alleges that the firm, acting through its chief executive officer (CEO) and its president, failed to reasonably supervise Buswell, and failed to follow up on red flags that should have alerted them to the need to investigate Buswell’s sales practices and determine whether trading restrictions, heightened supervision or discipline were warranted. The complaint further alleges that the firm, acting through its CEO, president and chief compliance officer, failed to establish, maintain and enforce supervisory procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of NASD Rule 2310 regarding suitability; the firm’s procedures were also inadequate to prevent and detect unsuitable recommendations resulting from excessive trading, excessive use of margin and over-concentration. The complaint alleges that the firm’s new account application process was flawed so that a reviewing principal was unable to obtain an accurate picture of customers’ financial status, investment objectives and investment history when reviewing a transaction for suitability. The complaint also alleges that the firm’s procedures failed to identify specific reports that its compliance department was to review and provided no guidance on the actions or analysis that should occur in response to the reports.(FINRA Case #2009017275301)

This information appeared on FINRA’s website in the ‘Disciplinary Actions, 2011.’

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., and/or David W. Locy, Richard J. Buswell, Herbert S. Fouke, 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.

bridge notes scam · broker failure to conduct due diligence · brokers recommending risky investments · Brookstone Securities · brookstone securities inc · Brookstone Securities Lakeland Florida · Class A common stock · Class B common stock · David Locy · David William Locy · did not have WSPs addressing due diligence · due diligence for private offerings · due diligence requirements for third-party placements · elder abuse in investments · failure to do due diligence by brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · finra securities arbitration · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · Herbert Fouke · Herbert Steven Fouke · high risk investments · inadequate due diligence by brokers · Lars Soreide · Limited experience forming a private placement · NASD Rule 2310 · no equity fund investigation · PPM · private placements · Richard Buswell · Richard Joseph Buswell · risky investments · securities arbitraton lawyer · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer · targeting elderly investors · third party placemnts · third-party private placement offerings · unsecured bridge notes and warrants · unwarranted price predictions · updating firms WSPs

WASHINGTON — From the FINRA Newsroom, it was announced that The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has filed a complaint against David Lerner & Associates, Inc. (DLA), of Syosset, NY, charging the firm with soliciting investors to purchase shares in Apple REIT Ten, a non-traded $2 billion Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), without conducting a reasonable investigation to determine whether it was suitable for investors, and with providing misleading information on its website regarding Apple REIT Ten distributions. DLA has sold and continues to sell Apple REIT Ten targeting unsophisticated and elderly customers with unsuitable sales of the illiquid security.

FINRA points out that since January 2011, as sole underwriter for Apple REIT Ten, DLA has sold over $300 million of an open $2 billion offering of the REIT’s shares. Apple REIT Ten invests in the same extended stay hotel properties as a series of other Apple REITs closed to investors. Apple REIT Ten and the closed Apple REITs were founded by the same individual, and are all under common management. DLA has been the sole underwriter for Apple REITs since 1992, selling nearly $6.8 billion of the securities into approximately 122,600 DLA customer accounts. DLA earns 10 percent of all offerings of Apple REIT securities as well as other fees. Apple REIT sales have generated $600 million for DLA, accounting for 60 to 70 percent of DLA’s business annually since 1996.

 FINRA alleges that DLA failed to sufficiently investigate the valuation and distribution irregularities of the closed Apple REITs prior to selling Apple REIT Ten. As the sole underwriter of all of the Apple REITs, DLA was aware of the Apple REITs’ valuation and distribution practices. Rather than conduct due diligence into those valuations and distribution irregularities to determine that they were reasonable and that the Apple REITs were suitable, DLA accepted the valuations and continued to record them on customer account statements.

The FINRA complaint against DLA alleges that since at least 2004, the closed Apple REITs have unreasonably valued their shares at a constant price of $11 notwithstanding market fluctuations, performance declines and increased leverage, while maintaining outsized distributions of 7 to 8 percent by leveraging the REITs through borrowings and returning capital to investors. As sole distributor, DLA did not question the Apple REITs’ unchanging valuations despite the economic downturn for commercial real estate.

 Additonally, the FINRA article goes on to say that in its solicitation of customers to purchase Apple REIT Ten, DLA’s website provided distribution rates for all of the previous Apple REITs. These distribution figures were misleading and omitted material information because they did not disclose recent distribution rate reductions or that distributions far exceeded income from operations and were funded by debt that further leveraged the REITs.

FINRA reminds us that the issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents the initiation of a formal proceeding by FINRA in which findings as to the allegations in the complaint have not been made, and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Under FINRA rules, a firm or individual named in a complaint can file a response and request a hearing before a FINRA disciplinary panel. Possible remedies include a fine, censure, suspension or bar from the securities industry, disgorgement of gains associated with the violations and payment of restitution.

 This information was obtained on FINRA’s website.

Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you feel you have become a victim of the sale of unsuitable REITs by David Lerner and Associates, Inc., or another broker/dealer, 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.

Apple REIT ten · Apple REIT X · brokers recommending risky investments · David Lerner Apple ten REITs · David Lerner Associates Inc · David Lerner Syosset NY · DLA · elder abuse awareness · elder abuse in investments · failure to do due diligence by brokers · failure to investigate the value of the REIT · Failure to provide suitablity to customers on REITs · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · finra securities arbitration · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities fraud lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · investment fraud · Lars Soreide · Real Estate Investment Trust · REIT · REIT recovery lawyer · risky investments · sale of REITs to elderly · securities arbitraton lawyer · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · targeting elderly investors