A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel ordered a former employee of Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, and Oppenheimer & Co. to pay nearly $11 million to an investor who alleged his broker, Karl Hahn, misrepresented securities and made excessive trades.

The investor’s case against the former broker Karl Hahn, stems from transactions involving covered calls, a variable annuity and other investments. The investor filed the case in 2011, also named Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., a unit of Deutsche Bank AG and Oppenheimer & Co.

Karl Hahn worked at the three firms consecutively for approximately seven years between 2004 and 2011, according to FINRA’s BrokerCheck. The case against Merrill was settled, while those against Deutsche Bank and Oppenheimer were dismissed. Hahn’s alleged conduct toward the investor took place while the broker worked at all three of the firms.

The FINRA arbitrators awarded the investor approximately $4.1 million in compensatory damages and $6.4 million in punitive damages, according to the ruling. This is the second decision against Hahn in two months. FINRA arbitrators, held Deutsche Bank and Hahn jointly responsible in February in a $934,000 ruling on behalf of a couple and their trusts, who he allegedly swindled in a multi million-dollar insurance deal.

According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, Karl Hahn was previously registered with FINRA at the following brokerage firms:

OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.
CRD# 249
PORTSMOUTH, NH
06/2009 – 03/2011

DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
CRD# 2525
BOSTON, MA
02/2008 – 06/2009

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED
CRD# 7691
PORTSMOUTH, NH
09/2004 – 02/2008

If you have experienced a financial loss due to your stockbroker or financial advisor’s recommendations, call Soreide Law Group for a free consultation with an attorney at: 888-760-6552.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch · covered calls · Deutsche Bank · Deutsche Bank loss lawyer · elder insurance scam · excessive trades by broker · finra securities arbitration lawyer · insurance scams by brokers · Karl Hahn · Karl Hahn fined by FINRA · Merrill Lynch losses · misrepresented securities · Oppenheimer & Co Losses Lawyer · variable annuity loss lawyer

Crystallex has commenced a proceeding under chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to ensure that relevant CCAA orders are enforced in the United States. Many stock brokers recommended CRYXF to their clients as an undervalued mining company that is poised for a big jump. This investment may not have been suitable for conservative investors. If your stock broker recommended a significant investment into Crystallex recently you may be able to recover some or all of your investment losses.

On December 23, 2011, Crystallex received an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granting CCAA protection until January 21, 2012. Proceedings by creditors cannot be continued or commenced without the consent of the Company and Ernst & Young Inc. (the Monitor) or leave of the Court. The Court extended the stay until March 23, 2012. The Court approved the terms of an interim bridge loan for Crystallex in the amount of US$3.125 million. The bridge loan is a secured, short term loan, due the earlier of April 16, 2012 or the first draw on a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing facility, and is intended to provide the Company with working capital while it continues to pursue DIP financing and progress its arbitration claim.

Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian based mining company, with a focus on acquiring, exploring, developing and operating mining projects. Crystallex has operated an open pit mine in Uruguay and developed and operated three gold mines in Venezuela.

Call (888) 760-6552 if your stock broker recommended you purchase Crystallex CRYXF.

broker recommending risky investments · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · Crystallex gold mines · Crystallex International Corporation · Crystallex loss lawyer · Crystallex losses · CRYXF · CRYXF Canadian mining company · CRYXF loss lawyer · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · gold mining stock · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · mining project stock loss · mining stock · mining stock loss lawyer · risky investments · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · undervalued mining stock

On Feb. 6th., 2013, LPL Financial, LLC, was ordered by Massachusetts Security Division to pay restitution of more than $2 million to investors who bought shares of nontraded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and a $500,000 administrative fine, which involved investors who bought shares of several different nontraded REITs in violation of state limitations, and the company’s own rules and procedures. LPL also has agreed to review all nontraded REITs sold in Massachusetts and offered to make restitution to all other investors who bought the securities in violation of state limits or company rules.

LPL Financial and Ameriprise Financial Inc. are the two biggest sellers of nontraded REITs, accounting for almost 20% of the industry’s annual sales of $10 billion. Regulators recently have put the nontraded REITs on close watch as a number of the largest REITs have suffered sharp devaluations.

In its consent order with Massachusetts regulators, LPL admitted to a series of statements of fact around the sales of the REITs but neither admitted nor denied allegations stemming from the training and oversight of sales of nontraded REITs as well as alleged violations of securities laws. The REIT sales occurred between 2006 and 2009.

Below is a list of non-traded REITs sold by many broker/dealers:

American Realty Capital Daily Net Asset Value, Inc.
American Realty Capital Global Trust, Inc.
ARC Retail Centers of America
American Realty Capital Trust IV, Inc.
ARC Healthcare Trust
American Realty Capital Phillips Edison
Shopping Center REIT
American Realty Capital Trust, Inc.
American Realty Capital New York Recovery REIT
ARC Property Trust, Inc.
Arciterra National REIT, LP
Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT II, Inc.
Bluerock Enhanced Multifamily Trust, Inc.
Carter Validus Mission Critical REIT
Clearwater Opportunity REIT
CNL Global Growth Trust, Inc.
CNL Global Income Trust, Inc.
Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, Inc. 2nd Offering
Hines Global REIT, Inc. 2012 Update
Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc.
Inland Diversified REIT
Lightstone Value Plus REIT II
NetREIT Dubose Model Home REIT, Inc.
NetREIT $200,000,000 Stock Offering Update
O’Donnell Strategic Industrial REIT, Inc.
Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc.
RREEF Property Trust, Inc.
UCM US RMBS Opportunity REIT, Inc.
US Apartment Investors 2010, Inc.
Wells Core Office Income REIT

Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you or a family member have experienced losses through LPL Financial, LLC, or any other nontraded REIT, 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 http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

Ameriprise Financial Inc · broker violating company policy on REITs · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · finra securities arbitration lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · LPL Financial LLC · LPL fined over REIT sales · LPL nontraded REITs · non-traded real estate investment trusts · Non-traded REIT loss lawyer · nontraded REIT loss · Nontraded REITs · securities lawyer

In a FINRA NTM 13-07 posted last Thursday on its website, FINRA asked for comment on an updated proposal that would keep the 5% guideline in place.

The action follows complaints about an earlier proposal to eliminate the 5% rule for markups and markdowns.

In other words, any FINRA broker/dealer can make up to 5% commission on the front and back end of every trade. This “commission” is hidden on the order ticket called a mark up. Many investors look at the transaction fee which is a usually a low flat consistent fee that they see on every ticket. A mark up is when firms add a cost to the price per share that is their profit. Look for it at the bottom of the order ticket in fine print where it will tell you the per share mark up and multiply by the number of shares you bought and suddenly the $25 you thought you were paying per trade just shot up to over $1,000.00. Yes, the industry is in it to make money for themselves, not for you.

“A majority of the comments received on the initial proposal opposed the elimination of the 5% policy,” FINRA said in the notice. “These commenters stated that the 5% policy generally has been effective in regulating broker-dealers for over 70 years and eliminating it would reduce investor protection.” It is only logical that the industry will oppose what keeps them rich and the investors poor.

In its initial proposal — floated nearly two years ago — FINRA had promised updated guidance to replace the 5% threshold, but commenters warned against eliminating it without setting a new standard.

Nevertheless, industry attorneys don’t like the old 5% limit, which dates from 1943.

It’s really is sending a bad message to member firms that a 5% markup or markdown is generally OK.

FINRA examiners actually use something closer to a 2% to 3% markup, observers say, and FINRA has consistently said the 5% rule is a guideline only.

“It’s like charades; you don’t know what they’re looking for,” Ms. Baird said.

If you have been charged excessive mark ups or mark downs call a securities lawyer at (888) 760-6552 or visit http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

5% broker dealer markup rule · 5% commission by brokers · 5% markup and markdown FINRA · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · complaints about stock markups · eliminate 5% policy with brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · FINRA end 5% markup rule · finra lawyer · FINRA NTM 13-07 · finra securities arbitration lawyer · FINRA update 5% threshold · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · investor check tickets for markup · Lars Soreide · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC

There are many real estate investors attracted to Tenant-In-Common (TICs) for the purported tax savings through the like kind exchange provisions in the IRS code Section 1031, which allows for the investor a deferral of capital gains. Up until 2013, the capital gains rate was only 15%. Investors need to calculate the net amount of real estate that they are actually acquiring when they buy a Tenant-In-Common investment because many times it is less than 80% and the investor would net more money by paying the taxes.

Also, a factor to consider is that a TIC investment is really just a creative way to finance a real estate transaction that results in 1031 investors acquiring significantly more real estate than they needed to accomplish the like kind exchange. For example, if an investor sells 2 multi-family units and has $500k in proceeds, all the investor needs to do is purchase $500k or more in like kind real estate to qualify under section 1031. However, many TIC deals are highly leveraged and the $500k they use to buy into the property is usually encumbered by a pro rata share of a mortgage, which is typically 3 times the investment and the investor will end up with 4 times the amount of real estate they need to effectuate their 1031 exchange.

Securities Lawyer, Lars Soreide, points out that, “One of the errors investors make in TIC cases is to assume that the unit value of the investment equals the property value divided by the units.” When TIC cases are litigated, “many of these cases bog down in property valuation when in reality the issue in not the property value but the investment value, which is next to worthless even if the property has residual value. Think of this way, who would buy a unit in this investment given that the purchaser would have to take on 150% on additional debt, give up all property rights to become a tenant in common that is worthless as collateral and cannot be turned into cash? Given the structure of ownership with loans with covenants signed by the sponsor and cross collateralized usually, property value is secondary in these cases.” Often these investments are sold by a stock broker or financial adviser because a Tenant-in-Common Investment is a security. In a FINRA arbitration, “often Respondents/Defendants put on an appraiser to prove the property value, but there is an objection on relevance of this testimony because the appraiser does not opine on the market value of the security on the notional value of the unit which is usually not much at all if anything,” says Soreide. It is “critical to obtain the principal loan documents and assumption agreements to ascertain how encumbered and how much real estate you actually own.”

Soreide Law Group represents investors nationwide in Tenant-In-Common (TIC) cases before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. For a free consultation on how to potentially recover your financial losses call: 888-760-6552. More information on TICs and FINRA Arbitrations can be found on http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

1031 exchange · 1031 tax deferred tic investment · 1031 tic · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high risk investments · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · investing in TICs · IRS code Section 1031 · Lars Soreide · section 1031 · Soreide Law Group PLLC · supervisory failures · Tenant-in-common exchanges · Tenant-in-Common investment considerations · Tenants in Common · TIC losses · TIC losses Lawyer · TICs

Tenant in Common (TIC) investments, or 1031 exchanges, are a form of real estate ownership in which multiple investors own fractional interests in a property. Many brokers and brokerage firms sold billions of these products to investors across the country allegedly charging high fees, and doing little or no due diligence. They were investments with high risk and highly illiquid, often not suitable for certain investors’ portfolios.

Below is a list of some of the firms who are present or former members of the Real Estate Investment Securities Association (REISA) (previously known as TICA – Tenant in Common Association):

AEI Fund Management Inc
St Paul, MN

American Capital Group
Bellevue, WA

American Investment Exchange
Hermosa Beach, CA

Argus Realty Investors, LP
San Clemente, CA

Ashforth Paradigm Capital Advisors
Boston, MA

Atlas Venture Partners, Inc.
Irvine, CA

B&H Real Estate Holding, LLC
Encino, CA

Behringer Harvard
Dallas, TX

BGK-Integrated Group
Santa Fe, NM

Bluerock Real Estate LLC
New York, NY

Bonaventure Realty Group, LLC
Arlington, VA

Cabot Investment Properties
Boston, MA

Capital Real Estate LLC
Denver, CO

Cole Companies
Phoenix, AZ

Cottonwood Capital, LLC
Salt Lake City, UT

Covington Realty Partners
Chicago, IL

DBSI Group of Companies
Meridian, ID

DeSanto Realty Group
Media, PA

Direct Invest LLC
Linthicum, MD

Dividend Capital
Denver, CO

Eliason 1031 Properties Corporation
Saint Germain, WI

Equitable Companies, LLC
Los Angeles, CA

Evergreen Realty Group, LLC
Pasadena, CA

ExchangePoint Properties, LLC
Beverly Hills, CA

First Guardian Group, LLC
San Jose, CA

FOR 1031/ Spectrus Real Estate Group
Boise, ID

FORT Properties, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA

Franklin 1031 Investments L.L.C.
Oakbrook, IL

Gemini Real Estate Advisors, LLC
New York, NY

Grand Peaks 1031 Properties
Denver, CO

Granite Investment Group, Inc.
Irvine, CA

Griffin Capital Corp.
El Segundo, CA

Inland Real Estate Exchange Corporation
Oak Brook, IL

International Realty Advisor
San Antonio, TX

Investment Properties of America
Richmond, VA

KBS Capital Markets Group, LLC
Newport Beach, CA

Kodiak Capital Partners L.L.C.
Dallas, TX

Meridian Realty Advisors, LP
Dallas, TX

Moody National Companies
Houston, TX

National Exchange Advisors, LLC
Sherman Oaks, CA

Noble Royalties, Inc.
Addison, TX

ORIX Real Estate Capital, Inc.
Dallas, TX

Parthenon Realty 1031 Investors, LLC
Alpheretta, GA

PASSCO Companies, LLC
Irvine, CA

Pennbridge Capital
Lehi, UT

Principle Equity Management
Houston, TX

Rainier Capital Management, LP
Dallas, TX

Real Estate Partners, Inc.
Irvine, CA

Real Estate Value Advisors LLC
Richmond, VA

REEF Oil & Gas Partners
Richardson, TX

Resource Real Estate, Inc.
Philadelphia, PA

RK Properties
Long Beach, CA

Sagebrush Realty Holdings LLC
Denver, CO

SCI Real Estate Investments, LLC
Los Angeles, CA

Sequoia 1031 Companies LLC
Northglenn, CO

Southfork
El Dorado Hills, CA

SRS Investments, LLC
Sarasota, FL

Texas Energy Holdings Inc.
Dallas, TX

The Geneva Organization
Minneapolis, MN

The Woodlark Companies
White Plains, NY

TIC Capital LLC
Boise, ID

TIC Properties, LLC
Greenville, SC

TREC Investment Realty
Las Vegas, NV

Triple Net Properties, LLC
Santa Ana, CA

TSG Real Estate, LLC
Chicago, IL

U.S. Advisors, LLC
Ladera Ranch, CA

Wells Real Estate Funds
Norcross, GA

Western America Equities LLC
Bellevue, WA

1031 Xpress Inc
Bellevue, WA

American Realty Capital
New York, NY

Atel Securities
San Francisco, CA

ATEL Securities Corp
San Francisco, CA

Axxcess Capital LLC
Newport Beach, CA

Bluerock Capital Markets LLC
Newport Beach, CA

Brennan Investment Group LLC
Des Plaines, IL

Calliance Realty Fund LLC
San Francisco, CA

CM Group
Henderson, NV

Coachman Energy LLC
Denver, CO

Commonwealth Capital Corp
Clearwater, FL

Cottonwood Capital LLC
Salt Lake City, UT

Cypress Capital Corporation
San Francisco, CA

Dividend Capital
Denver, CO

Energy Hunter Securities
Houston, TX

Gemini Real Estate Advisors LLC
New York, NY

Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors LLC
Santa Ana, CA

GWG Holdings
Minneapolis, MN

Hamilton Point Investments LLC
Old Lyme, CT

Healthcare Trust of America
Scottsdale, AZ

Hertz Capital Markets Group
Santa Monica, CA

Hines Real Estate Investments Inc
Houston, TX

Inland Private Capital Corporation
Oak Brook, IL

Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation
Oak Brook, IL

JH Financial Group LLC
Newport Beach, CA

KBR Capital Partners
Irvine, CA

KBS Capital Markets Group
Newport Beach, CA

Lightstone Securities LLC
Mahwah, NJ

MacDonald Realty Group
Desoto, TX

Moody National Companies
Houston, TX

New Start Capital LLC
Dallas, TX

Noble Royalties Inc
Addison, TX

NorthStar Realty Finance Corporation
Greenwood Village, CO

Passco Companies LLC
Irvine, CA

Penneco Oil Company
Delmont, PA

Preferred Apartment Communities Inc
Atlanta, GA

Principle Equity Management
Houston, TX

Rainier Capital Management LP
Dallas, TX

Somerset Partners LLC
New York, NY

Somerset Partners LLC
New York, NY

Steadfast Capital Markets Group
Irvine, CA

Strategic Capital Holdings LLC
Ladera Ranch, CA

Thompson National Properties
Irvine, CA

Time Equities Inc
New York, NY

Vertical Capital Markets Group
Irvine, CA

Waveland Capital Partners LLC
Irvine, CA

Wells Real Estate Funds Inc
Norcross, GA

Wilkinson Capital, LLC
Yakima, WA

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, represents clients nationwide in arbitrations before FINRA. Call to speak to an attorney regarding your investment losses. For a free consultation on how to potentially recover those losses call: 888-760-6552, or you may visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

broker-dealer selling TICs · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · Real Estate Investment Securitites Association · REISA · risky investments · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Tenant in Common Associatio · Tenants in Common · TIC · TIC losses · TIC losses Lawyer · TICA

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., also known as FINRA, is proposing to tighten its definition of “public” arbitrator. FINRA would like to exclude people associated with a mutual fund or hedge fund from its pool of public arbitrators and require others to wait for two years after ending an industry affiliation before being classified as a public arbitrator, writes Dan Jamieson in an article from the InvestmentNews.com.

On the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, Finra said the change “would improve investors’ perception about the fairness and neutrality of Finra’s public arbitrator roster.”

FINRA is proposing a two-year cooling-off period for attorneys, accountants and others who have done a certain amount of work for securities industry clients, and for those who work for or serve as officers or directors of entities controlled by securities firms. This two-year wait would cover spouses and immediate family members of such individuals as well.

“In one instance, an individual applying to be a public arbitrator had retired one month earlier from a lengthy career at a law firm that represented securities industry clients,” FINRA said in its filing.

FINRA already has a five-year waiting period for former securities industry employees wishing to serve as public arbitrators, and bans those associated with the industry for at least 20 years from ever becoming public arbitrators.

Many feel Finra needs to go further and eliminate anyone who has had any connection with the industry as an arbitrator.

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, represents clients nationwide before FINRA. If you or a loved one have sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

5 year waiting period for FINRA arbitrator · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · FINRA arbitrators · FINRA arbitrators affiliation with securities industry · finra lawyer · FINRA Public Arbitrator Qualifications · finra securities arbitration · finra securities arbitration lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · Lars K. Soreide · securities fraud lawyer · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) released its 2013 regulatory and examination priorities letter. The annual letter alerts the broker-dealer community to what Finra examiners will be looking for in the coming year. FINRA will continue to watch yield-oriented products this year but FINRA also will be focusing on business development companies (BDCs), exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and products that use leverage and the use of automated investment advice writes Dan Jamieson in an article for InvestmentNews.com.

FINRA is “particularly concerned about sales practice abuses, yield-chasing behaviors and the potential impact of any market correction, external stress event or market dislocation on market prices,” FINRA said in the letter.

With reference to BDCs, FINRA warned that they have “significant market, credit and liquidity risks” and risk over-leveraging illiquid portfolios with low-cost financing. Leveraged loans are relatively illiquid and hard to value, while CMBS and high-yield often carry higher risks than normal, given their historically low yields, Finra said. High distribution rates on closed-end funds attract investors who may not understand that some of these funds are returning capital, the letter warned.

FINRA’s notice also expressed concern about a “proliferation” of ETFs and ETNs that use leverage or track volatility measures, emerging markets and currencies.

For the first time this year, FINRA examiners will be looking at the use of automated investment advice.

Just because FINRA doesn’t include something in a current letter doesn’t mean examiners won’t be looking into it.

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, who represents clients nationwide before FINRA. For a free consultation with an attorney on how to potentially recover your losses, call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

automated investment advice · BCDs · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · brokers yield chasing · business development companies · ETFs · exchange traded fund · Exchange-Traded Funds · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · FINRA focus of 2013 · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · Ft. Lauderdale Securities Lawyer · high distribution rates on closed end funds · impact of market correction · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · Leveraged ETFs · leveraged exchange traded funds · liquidity risk · market dislocation on market prices · risky investments · Soreide Law Group PLLC · Stock fraud lawyer

The following information is from FINRA’s website under “Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions, January, 2013.”

Kenneth Andrew Mauchin (CRD #2366345, Registered Principal, Sanford, Florida)

was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he misappropriated $23,750 from elderly customers’ accounts by converting their funds to cashier’s checks and depositing those checks into a bank account of an entity he controlled.

FINRA’s complaint alleges that Mauchin did so without the customers’ knowledge or authorization. The complaint also alleges that Mauchin prepared a customer’s application for a variable annuity and falsely listed his bank branch office address as the customer’s mailing address, which he knew to be false.

Also, a customer applied for a premiere select IRA brokerage account with Mauchin’s firm and, without the customer’s knowledge or authorization, he falsely listed his bank branch office address as the customer’s mailing address, which he knew to be false. These applications became part of the firm’s books and records, causing his firm’s books and records to be false.

This complaint further alleges that Mauchin failed to appear for FINRA testimony.
(FINRA Case #2011028452701)

This ends the information from FINRA’s website.

Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, represents clients nationwide before FINRA. If you or a loved one have sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

broker failing to receive approval from customers · broker failure to respond to FINRA's requests · broker listing false information · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · elder abuse · elder abuse awareness · elder abuse in investments · failure to respond to FINRA requests · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA arbitration · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fort lauderdale securities lawyer · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Kenneth Andrew Mauchin Sanford Florida · Kenneth Mauchin FINRA charges · Lars K. Soreide Soreide Law Group · misappropriation of funds by broker · misappropriation of funds by broker on elderly · securities arbitraton lawyer · supervisory failures · targeting elderly investors · Unsuitable investments to elderly

Moshar v. Wells Fargo, FINRA ID # 11-00556 (Los Angeles, CA, 1/9/2013)
A couple was recently awarded $1,333,300 in compensatory damages through a FINRA arbitration. The claimants charged Wells Fargo with the following: breach of fiduciary duty, breach of written contract, fraud by misrepresentation and omission, failure to supervise and control, and violation of federal and state securities laws and statutory and common law as well as NASD Rules of fair practice and NYSE Rules.
The causes of the action related to multiple investments in Exchange Traded Funds or ETF’s.

Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you have sustained investment losses due to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations regarding ETFs, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

breach of fiduciary duty · breach of written contract by broker · brokerage supervisory deficiencies · brokers recommending risky investments · ETF loss lawyer · etf losses · ETFs · Exchange-Traded Funds · failure to supervise brokers · Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · FINRA · FINRA 11-00556 · FINRA arbitration · FINRA Awards damages against Wells Fargo · FINRA brokercheck · finra lawyer · finra securities arbitration lawyer · fraud by broker by misrepresentation and omission · inadequate supervisory procedures by broker/dealers · Lars K. Soreide · Moshar v Wells Fargo · securities lawyer · Soreide Law Group PLLC · violation of federal and state securities laws