Securities Lawyer Blog | Victim of Fraud?

TAG | PPM

Feb/12

28

Palm Harbor, FL, Rep Barred by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA

The following information was obtained on FINRA’s website’s ‘Disciplinary Actions, February 2012.”
 
Neal Seth Smalbach (CRD #1459854, Registered Principal, Palm Harbor, Florida)
 
submitted an Offer of Settlement in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity.
 
Without admitting or denying the allegations, Smalbach consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he fraudulently misrepresented the risks and omitted material facts, for the sale of an oil and gas private placement
investment to retired, senior citizen customers. The findings stated that Smalbach claimed to have conducted his own due diligence, which included reviewing the PPM, subscription agreement, promotional material and speaking with employees of the issuer and firm due diligence personnel.
 
These findings also stated that Smalbach told investors that the investment was safe and high-yielding, which was false and misleading, and Smalbach virtually guaranteed his customers a yearly dividend and the return of their principal after three years but omitted telling them that the company had no significant assets, no current cash flow, and no prior operating history which was disclosed in the subscription agreement and PPM.
 
In addition, FINRA determined that Smalbach’s recommendations were unsuitable to unaccredited customers in light of the customers’ age, limited investment experience, conservative risk tolerance and need for the preservation of principal and also unsuitable for accredited investors because of his misrepresentations and omissions of material fact.
 
These findings also included that Smalbach’s member firm required customers to complete a client information new account form that asked for customers’ contact information, investment experience, risk tolerance, investment objectives, net worth, annual income, liquid net worth, retirement horizon and other background information, and to complete subscription agreements the firm kept and maintained, but Smalbach asked customers to sign blank information forms and subscription agreements and initial risk and financial disclosures on the subscription agreement without giving some of the customers the opportunity to read what they were signing. FINRA found that Smalbach had an administrative assistant complete the forms with false information Smalbach provided, which enabled him to shroud unsuitable transactions from the firm’s supervisory review.
 
Moreover, FINRA found that Samlbach falsified client information new account forms and subscription agreements that the firm kept and maintained caused its books and records to be inaccurate. FINRA also found that as a result of these fraudulent misrepresentations, omissions and acts, Smalbach caused customers to sustain approximately $840,116 in net out-of-pocket losses on the $925,000 investment they purchased, and Smalbach received $74,000 in gross commissions from his activities. Furthermore, FINRA found that Smalbach failed to adequately respond to FINRA requests for information and documents.
(FINRA Case #2010021972801)
 

The information from FINRA’s website has ended.
 
Securities Lawyer, Lars K. Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide.
For a free consultation with an attorney, please call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: www.securitieslawyer.com.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Dec/11

23

Dawson James Securities, Inc., of Boca Raton, and Two Florida Reps Fined and Censured by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA

Dawson James Securities, Inc. (CRD® #130645, Boca Raton, Florida), Albert
James Poliak (CRD #1270681, Registered Principal, Parkland, Florida), and
Douglas Fulton Kaiser (CRD #1674570, Registered Principal, Deerfield Beach,
Florida)
 
submitted Offers of Settlement in which the firm was censured and fined $90,000. Poliak, Dawson’s CEO, and Kaiser, who acted at times as both the firm’s head of trading and the Financial and Operations Principal (FINOP), were each fined $30,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA®-regulated broker-dealer in any capacity for one year.
 
Without admitting or denying the allegations, Dawson, Poliak and Kaiser consented to these sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm entered into a de facto commission recapture agreement with a firm customer without meeting the minimum required net capital of $250,000 and without filing an application for amendment of the firm’s FINRA membership agreement.
 
These findings stated that the firm and a customer entered into a consulting agreement whereby the customer was to provide research and advisory services. However, the firm did not request, nor did the customer provide, research reports or advisory services or any of the other services set forth in the consulting agreement.
 
Additionally, the firm paid the customer a total of $1,215,000, which exceeded by $885,000 the payments due to the customer per the contractual requirements under the consulting agreement. The payments exceeded the contractual requirements of the consulting agreement because the agreement was a de facto commission recapture arrangement through which the customer was paid larger amounts based upon the level of security transactions the customer was executing in its brokerage account at the firm.
 
These findings also stated that Poliak was responsible for the creation of the consulting agreement and approved each wire transfer payment to the customer, including the payments that were in excess of amounts due to the customer under the consulting agreement.
 
These findings also included that Kaiser was responsible for calculating the payments owed to the customer and that he pulled research concerning the customer’s trades in an effort to document the consulting agreement, but the firm was unable to document its use of the purported research or other financial benefit arising from the consulting agreement.
 
Poliak and Kaiser acted unethically in that they facilitated the improper commission recapture arrangement between the firm and customer, and caused the firm to fail to comply with the requirement of NASD® Rule 1017.
 
Also, FINRA found that the firm, acting through Poliak and Kaiser, violated the
Customer Protection Rule in several ways. First, in connection with the commission recapture agreement described above, the firm held, or was in control of, customer funds without establishing a special reserve bank account for the exclusive benefit of the customer in violation of Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3, By holding customer funds
and failing to forward the funds to its clearing firm, the firm became a broker or dealer that receives and holds funds for customers, which required it to increase its net capital
and establish a reserve bank account for customer protection. Second, after a commission recapture agreement was ultimately established for the customer by the firm’s clearing firm, the firm deposited into its own checking account a check from the clearing firm which included at least $136,700 in commission rebates due to the customer. Rather than record a liability to the customer, the firm made a journal entry to reduce the commission receivable. The firm’s receipt of customer funds increased its minimum net capital to $250,000, a level that the firm did not meet, Third, the firm held and segregated security positions in its proprietary account for the benefit of two customers in order to satisfy the obligation of promissory notes and a confidential private placement memorandum (PPM). Fourth, the firm acted in the capacity of a noteholder’s agent to facilitate the repayment to firm customers of $2,715,000 of principal plus interest on defaulted notes and warrants issued by an unaffiliated issuer. By doing so, the firm acted in a carrying, transferring and safekeeping capacity for customers, which required the firm to maintain a minimum net capital of at least $250,000. The firm’s net capital was below that required minimum, and as a result the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (FOCUSTM) reports it filed, and its books and records, were inaccurate. The firm also failed to timely file Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 17a-11 notices when notified by its designated examining authority that the broker-dealer’s net capital was, or had been, below its
minimum requirement.
 
When acting in the capacity as the firm’s FINOP, Kaiser, was responsible for supervision
and/or performance of the firm’s compliance under all financial responsibility rules
promulgated pursuant to provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Kaiser failed
to adequately perform his FINOP responsibilities in that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure the accuracy of the firm’s net capital calculations. In addition, as Poliak participated in the firm’s holding of customer funds in violation of Rule 15c3-3, Poliak caused the firm’s net capital and books and records violations.
 
Also, FINRA determined that the firm’s compensation committee did not document the basis upon which a research analyst’s compensation was established, thus failing to establish a written record of whether specific factors required by NASD Rule 2711 were properly considered, and whether research analyst compensation was tied to any investment banking activities. Moreover, FINRA found that a senior officer at the firm inaccurately represented in required attestations submitted to FINRA that the compensation committee documented the basis upon which each research analyst’s
compensation was established. The senior officer should have known that each attestation submitted contained false information. Furthermore, FINRA found that the firm sold securities for customer accounts that were not registered pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, nor exempt from registration; the sales constituted an unregistered distribution by the firm.
 
Kaiser’s and Poliak’s suspensions are in effect from November 7, 2011, through November 6, 2012. (FINRA Case #2009016158501)
 
This information is from FINRA’s website’s ‘Disciplinary Actions,’ December, 2011.
 
Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you or a family member have experienced losses through Albert James Poliak, Douglas Fulton Kaiser, or Dawson James Securities, Inc., 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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Dec/11

19

Timothy McGinn and David Smith Barred by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA

Timothy Michael McGinn (CRD #813935, Registered Principal, Schenectady, New York) and David Lee Smith (CRD #427284, Registered Principal, Saratoga Springs, New York)

were barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. The sanctions were based on findings that Smith misused investor funds when he sold approximately $89 million in income notes issued by four limited liability companies he controlled.

David Smith told the investors that the Income Note LLCs would place their funds in a broad array of public and private investments. Contrary to Smith’s representations, he diverted most of the invested funds for the benefit of business entities that he and McGinn owned or in which they had a financial interest. Smith also loaned approximately $590,000 of funds directly to himself. The findings also stated that Smith made misrepresentations and omissions of material facts relating to the Income Note LLCs when he recommended to investors that they participate in the private offerings and purchase the income notes.

Additionly, to falsely representing that the Income Note LLCs would place their funds in private and public investments, Smith stated that the member firm would charge an annual 2 percent commission or fee. In actuality, the proceeds of the investments were diverted to entities McGinn and Smith owned, which were illiquid and in poor financial condition with little or no revenues, and the firm charged recurring annual commissions or fees amounting to approximately 8 percent of the investors’ purchases. Smith failed to inform investors that the Income Note LLCs would invest in, and make loans to, entities in which he and McGinn maintained a financial interest, and that the majority of the funds would be invested in illiquid, non-public companies.

These findings also included that Smith directed the sales efforts by which customers purchased the Income Note LLCs. The notes were not registered with the SEC and were not eligible for exemption from registration, but the offerings falsely claimed to be exempt from the registration requirement pursuant to Rule 506 of the Securities Act of 1933, Regulation D.

Also, FINRA found that Smith sent letters to income note investors containing material misrepresentations and omissions concerning their investments. One letter informed certain Income Note LLCs holders that their annual interest rates of return would bereduced because of market conditions, and Smith falsely represented that the firm would suspend further collection of fees from the Income Note LLCs but it continued to collect them, totaling approximately $6.7 million. Another letter informed all Income Note LLC holders that they would be unable to redeem notes on a particular day because of conditions in financial credit markets and the resultant liquidity crises. Smith also falsely represented that the firm would forfeit all annual fees and commissions in order to improve the liquidity of the Income Note LLCs, but it continued to charge fees and commissions.

Present in both letters, Smith failed to disclose to the note holders that the poor financial condition of the Income Note LLCs was caused in part by his decision to lend or invest most of the investors’ funds in illiquid entities that he and McGinn owned and controlled, had few or no revenues, and were in financial distress. FINRA also found that the firm, through Smith, failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, and failed to establish, maintain and enforce WSPs reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable FINRA rules and securities laws related to suitability, disclosure and verification of investor accreditation status.

FINRA reports that for approximately five years, the firm’s principal source of revenues was from private placements, including the Income Note LLCs. The subscription contracts potential investors submitted in income note offerings were inadequate because they did not contain information about the investors’ liquid net worth, but the firm relied on them to review and approve individual investments; many investor documents were incomplete, and many were altered after they were submitted by the investors to make it appear that the investors had a higher net worth and qualified as accredited investors.

The firm did not have, and Smith did not implement, procedures for reviewing customer documents reasonably designed to allow the firm to identify any potential alterations and to take appropriate action, and did not have a procedure for spot-checking customer documents and contacting customers directly to ascertain if the documents were accurate.

Despite the fact that the PPM for the income notes and subscription agreements provided that only accredited investors would be eligible to invest, Smith approved and accepted investments from approximately 250 non-accredited investors.

FINRA found that McGinn and Smith provided false documents to FINRA in response to requests for information relating to loans from certain business entities they controlled.

McGinn and Smith submitted copies of promissory notes relating to the loans, dated to appear that they had been previously signed; each note contained a certification attesting that it had been executed and delivered on the date specified. The certifications were false, as McGinn, Smith and a registered representative actually prepared, dated and signed the notes after the FINRA request for documents.

 (FINRA Case #2009017984501)

This article was obtained from FINRA’s website’s Disciplinary Actions of December 2011.

 

Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you or a family member have experienced losses through Timothy Michael McGinn, David Lee Smith or Income Note LLC, 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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Nov/11

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.

2 Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions
 
FINRA found that the representatives recommended and effected the sale of these securities without having a reasonable basis to believe that the transactions were suitable given the customers’ financial circumstances and conditions, and their investment objectives. FINRA also found that the representative recommended customers use margin in their accounts, which was unsuitable given their risk tolerance and investment objectives, and he exercised discretion without prior written authorization in customers’ accounts.
 
Additionally, FINRA determined that the firm, acting through Locy, its chief operating officer (COO) and president, failed to reasonably supervise the registered representative and failed to follow up on “red flags” that should have alerted him to the need to investigate the representative’s sales practices and determine whether trading restrictions, heightened supervision or discipline were warranted.  FINRA found that despite numerous red flags, the firm took no steps to contact customers or place the representative on heightened supervision, although it later placed limits only on the representative’s use of margin. The firm eventually suspended his trading authority after additional large margin calls, and Locy failed to ensure that the representative was making accurate representations and suitable recommendations.
 
Also, FINRA found that Turbeville, the firm’s chief executive officer (CEO), and Locy delegated responsibility to Mercier, the firm’s chief compliance officer (CCO), to conduct due diligence on a company and were aware of red flags regarding its offering but did not take steps to investigate. The findings also stated that the firm, acting through Turbeville, Locy and Mercier, failed to establish, maintain and enforce supervisory procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of NASD Rule 2310 regarding suitability; under the firm’s written supervisory procedures (WSPs), Mercier was responsible for ensuring the offering complied with due diligence requirements but performed only a superficial review and failed to complete the steps required by the WSPs; Locy never evaluated the company’s financial situation and was unsure if a certified public accountant (CPA) audited the financials, and no one visited the company’s facility.
 
These findings also included that neither Turbeville nor Locy took any steps to ensure Mercier had completed the due diligence process.
FINRA found that Turbeville and Locy created the firm’s deficient supervisory system; the firm’s procedures were inadequate to prevent and detect unsuitable recommendations resulting from excessive trading, excessive use of margin and over-concentration; principals did not review trades or correspondence; and the firm’s new account application process was flawed because 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. FINRA also found that the firm’s procedures failed to identify specific reports that its compliance department was to review and did not provide guidance on the actions or analysis that should occur in response to the reports; Turbeville and Locy knew, or should have known, of the compliance department’s limited reviews, but neither of them took steps to address the inadequate system.
 
Mercier’s suspension is in effect from October 3, 2011, through January 2, 2012. Locy’s and Turbeville’s suspensions are in effect from October 17, 2011, through January 16, 2012. (FINRA Case #2009017275301)

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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Oct/11

11

Brookstone Securities, Inc. and Brokers Censured and Fined by FINRA in Two Separate Cases Involving Private Placements

Comments off · Posted by Securities Lawyer in FINRA

 

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.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top