News & Resources
On March 19, 2018, the SEC announced its highest-ever Dodd-Frank whistleblower awards, with two whistleblowers sharing a nearly $50 million award and a third whistleblower receiving more than $33 million. The previous high was a $30 million award in 2014.
The SEC has awarded more than $262 million to 53 whistleblowers since issuing its first award in 2012. All payments are made out of an investor protection fund established by Congress that is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities law violators. No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.
Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action.
Whistleblower awards can range from 10 percent to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million. As with this case, whistleblowers can report jointly under the program and share an award.
By law, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity.
If you believe you have information evidencing violations of the federal securities laws, please contact David A. Weintraub, P.A., 800.718.1422.
On March 8, 2018, the SEC announced that it had settled charges against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. for its failure to perform required gatekeeping functions in the unregistered sales of securities on behalf of a China-based issuer and its affiliates.
The SEC’s order found that Merrill Lynch sold almost three million shares of Longtop Financial Technological Limited’s securities into the market despite red flags indicating that the sales could be part of an unlawful unregistered distribution. Ultimately, the distribution generated almost $38 million in proceeds for the overseas issuer and its affiliates.
It was determined that Merrill Lynch violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. In settlement, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the firm agreed to be censured and consented to the order requiring it to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the registration provisions of the Securities Act. The order also requires Merrill Lynch to pay a penalty of $1.25 million and more than $154,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest from commissions and fees earned on the improper sales. The SEC has revoked the registration of Longtop’s securities.
In court papers filed February 23, 2018, the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth alleged Scottrade violated Massachusetts’ securities laws by failing to comply with the impartial conduct standards of the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule.
According to the complaint, the discount broker-dealer knowingly violated the fiduciary rule by running sales contests targeting retail investors’ assets in qualified retirement accounts. The contests also violated the internal compliance policies the company put in place after the impartial conduct standard went into affect in June of 2017, the complaint says.
Broker-dealer Scottrade has been charged with violating the impartial conduct standards of the DOL fiduciary rule. Under the fiduciary rule’s impartial conduct standards, any recommendation to buy a security with assets in IRAs or 401(k) plans must be made in investors’ best interests.
Scottrade ran two sales contests; one launched days before implementation of the impartial conduct standards, and one launched in September of 2017. Those contests, which were common in what the claim says was Scottrade’s “aggressive sales practices” prior to the implementation of the impartial conduct standards, incentivized brokers to bring in new assets from customers, including through rollovers from qualified retirement accounts.
In the first contest, Scottrade offered $285,000 in cash prizes to brokers that satisfied high cold-calling penetration benchmarks. In the second, brokers were awarded weekly cash prizes of $500 and $2,500 for recommending investors move to the firm’s advisory program.
Under the fiduciary standard established by the impartial conduct standards, any compensation arrangement that creates a potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to investors. Massachusetts’ complaint says Scottrade failed to inform clients of the conflicts arising from the incentives in the sales contests.
On February 5, 2018, two FINRA rule rules took effect that purport to address the financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults, putting in place a uniform, national standard to protect senior investors. Firms are now required to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of, and contact information for, a trusted contact person for a customer’s account. In addition, the rule permits FINRA member firms to place a temporary hold on a disbursement of funds or securities when there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation, and to notify the trusted contact of the temporary hold.
The trusted contact person is intended to be a resource for firms in handling customer accounts, protecting assets and responding to possible financial exploitation of vulnerable investors. The new rule allowing firms to place a temporary hold provides them and their associated persons with a safe harbor from certain FINRA rules. This provision will allow firms to investigate the matter and reach out to the customer, the trusted contact and, as appropriate, law enforcement or adult protective services, before disbursing funds when there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation. It is a critical measure because of the difficulty investors face in trying to recover funds that they have inadvertently sent to fraudsters and scam artists.
The rule changes were approved by the SEC in February 2017. FINRA set February 5, 2018 as the effective date to provide member firms substantial time to prepare and develop policies and procedures.
On February 2, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a purported hedge fund manager in New York City with a brazen offering and investment adviser fraud thereby putting an end to an ongoing scheme.
The SEC alleged that, since at least 2014, Nicholas Joseph Genovese and his hedge fund Willow Creek Investments LP raised more than $5.3 million from at least six investors by affirmatively misrepresenting his prior money-management, securities industry experience, and size of operations. In particular, the SEC charged that Genovese: falsely stated that he managed $4 billion of the Genovese Drug Store family’s assets; falsely stated that his hedge fund’s investment adviser had $30-39 billion of assets under management, when, in reality, it appears to have had less than $10 million in assets under management; falsely stated that his advisory firm had between 42 and 60 employees, when, in reality, it had fewer than 10 employees; and falsely stated that his hedge fund had investment gains of 30-40 percent per year, when, in reality, it sustained losses. In addition, in furtherance of his scheme, Genovese lied about his education and prior work experience, and concealed his criminal past from investors.
The SEC also alleged that Genovese and his advisory firm Willow Creek Advisors LLC misappropriated investor funds to fund securities trading in Genovese’s personal brokerage account, which sustained over $8 million of trading losses between 2015 and 2017, and Genovese’s lifestyle by paying approximately $263,000 for, among other things, ATM cash withdrawals, food, hotel and transportation charges, including being chauffeured in a Bentley.
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Genovese’s fraud appears to be ongoing as evidenced by recent money coming into his account as well as a recent refusal of an investor’s redemption request.
The SEC’s complaint charged Genovese and his hedge fund with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and charges Genovese and his advisory firm with violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC is seeking a temporary restraining order to freeze their assets and prohibit them from committing further violations of the federal securities laws. The SEC seeks a final judgment ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and for Genovese and his investment advisory firm to pay financial penalties.
Alleged Perpetrator of Ski Slope Investment Scheme Agrees to Pay Back Investor Money, Surrender Properties
On February 2, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the Miami-based businessman behind an alleged scheme involving investments in a Vermont-based ski resort has agreed to pay back more than $81 million of investor money that he used illegally.
According to an SEC complaint filed in 2016, Ariel Quiros allegedly misused more than $50 million in investor funds to purchase a different ski resort and to fund personal expenses such as income taxes and two luxury New York City condominium purchases. Investors were told their money would specifically be used for construction projects at the Jay Peak Resort and a nearby proposed biomedical research facility.
Companies owned by Quiros also allegedly failed to contribute approximately $30 million in investor funds toward Jay Peak construction, with two projects going uncompleted. This jeopardized investors’ investments as well as their participation in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program under which Quiros and his businesses solicited the money.
In a settlement subject to court approval, Quiros agreed to be held liable for more than $81 million in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus a $1 million penalty, and he must forfeit approximately $417,000 in cash that was frozen after the SEC filed the case. Quiros also agreed to surrender ownership of the two condos and ski resort he purchased with investor funds and give up his stake in more than a dozen other properties, including the Jay Peak Resort. Under the proposed settlement, the properties would be turned over to the court-appointed receiver in the case for the purpose of selling them for the benefit of defrauded investors.
The SEC also announced that a business associate of Quiros, William Stenger of Newport, Vermont, agreed to settle the charges against him in the SEC’s complaint. While Stenger was not alleged to have personally profited from the fraud, he agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty and be barred along with Quiros from participating in any future EB-5 offerings. Quiros and Stenger agreed to their settlements without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint.
FINRA Fines J.P. Morgan Securities LLC $2.8 Million for Customer Protection Rule Violations and Supervisory Failures
On December 27, 2017, FINRA announced that it fined J.P. Morgan Securities $2.8 million for violating the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Customer Protection Rule and for related supervisory failures. The SEC rule creates requirements to protect customers’ funds and securities.
To ensure that customers could recover their assets in the event of the broker-dealer’s insolvency, the Customer Protection Rule requires a broker-dealer, which maintains custody of customer securities, to obtain and maintain physical possession or control over certain of those securities. These securities must be segregated in a “control location” and be free of liens or any other encumbrance that could prevent customers from taking possession of their securities. A firm cannot use segregated securities for its own purposes.
FINRA found that from March 2008 to June 2016, J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. did not have reasonable processes in place to ensure that its possession or control systems were operating properly. Shares that should have been segregated were available for the firm’s use, due to systemic coding and design flaws, recurring and unresolved deficits and unreasonable supervision. By failing to move and maintain securities in good control locations, the firm created deficits in foreign and domestic securities valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, J.P. Morgan failed to move Italian securities to a good control location for nearly two years, and on one sample day, created a deficit in 81 Italian securities worth approximately $146 million.
In determining the appropriate monetary sanction, FINRA considered J.P. Morgan’s cooperation in undertaking a plan to address the violations and that it over-reserved cash deposits in an effort to protect customers from its failed segregation of securities. In settling this matter, J.P. Morgan neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.
On December 21, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges and an asset freeze against a group of unregistered funds and their owner who allegedly bilked thousands of retail investors, many of them seniors, in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Robert H. Shapiro and a group of unregistered investment companies called the Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC, formerly headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, defrauded more than 8,400 investors in unregistered Woodbridge funds.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Woodbridge advertised its primary business as issuing loans to supposed third-party commercial property owners paying Woodbridge 11-15 percent annual interest for “hard money,” short-term financing. In return, Woodbridge promised to pay investors 5-10 percent interest annually. Woodbridge and Shapiro allegedly sought to avoid investors cashing out at the end of their terms and boasted in marketing materials that “clients keep coming back to [Woodbridge] because time and experience have proven results. Over 90% national renewal rate!” While Woodbridge claimed it made high-interest loans to third parties, the SEC’s complaint demonstrates that the vast majority of the borrowers were Shapiro-owned companies that had no income and never made interest payments on the loans.
The SEC’s complaint states that Shapiro and Woodbridge used investors’ money to pay other investors, and paid $64.5 million in commissions to sales agents who pitched the investments as “low risk” and “conservative.” Shapiro, of Sherman Oaks, California, is alleged to have diverted at least $21 million for his own benefit, including to charter planes, pay country club fees, and buy luxury vehicles and jewelry. According to the complaint, the scheme collapsed in typical Ponzi fashion in early December as Woodbridge stopped paying investors and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Shapiro, Woodbridge, and certain affiliated companies are charged with fraud and violations of the securities and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking return of allegedly ill-gotten gains with interest and financial penalties. This law firm is accepting Woodbridge cases on a contingency fee basis. Financial Advisors who recommended Woodbridge may have failed to exercise due diligence, and may have errors and omissions insurance that would cover Woodbridge losses.
On December 20, 2017, a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent was issued in which FSC Securities Coporation was censured, fined $100,000, and required to provide FINRA with a plan to remediate eligible customers who qualified for, but did not receive, the applicable mutual fund sales-charge waiver. As part of this settlement, the firm agreed to pay restitution to eligible customers, which is estimated to total $414,261 (the amount eligible customers were overcharged, inclusive of interest). Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it disadvantaged certain retirement plan and charitable organization customers that were eligible to purchase Class A shares in certain mutual funds without a front-end sales charge. The findings stated that these eligible customers were instead sold Class A shares with a front-end sales charge, or Class B or C shares with back-end sales charges and higher ongoing fees and expenses. These sales disadvantaged eligible customers by causing the customers to pay higher fees than they were actually required to pay.
The findings also stated that the firm failed to reasonably supervise the application of sales-charge waivers to eligible mutual fund sales. The firm relied on its financial advisors to determine the applicability of sales-charge waivers, but failed to maintain adequate written policies or procedures to assist financial advisors in making this determination. In addition, the firm failed to adequately notify and train its financial advisors regarding the availability of mutual fund sales-charge waivers for eligible customers. The firm also failed to adopt adequate controls to detect instances in which they did not provide sales-charge waivers to eligible customers in connection with their mutual fund purchases. As a result of the firm’s failure to apply available sales-charge waivers, the firm estimates that eligible customers were overcharged by approximately $380,520 for mutual fund purchases made since January 1, 2011. If you believe that you have suffered losses as a result of FSC Securities Corporation’s misconduct, you may contact David A. Weintraub, P.A., 7805 SW 6th Court, Plantation, FL 33324. By phone: 954.693.7577 or 800.718.1422.
On December 6, 2017, a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent was issued in which Next Financial Group, Inc. was censured, fined $750,000, and required to retain an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the adequacy of its policies, systems and procedures (written and otherwise) and training. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that it failed to establish, maintain, and implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to detect and address excessively traded accounts. The findings stated that the supervisory failings resulted from an inadequate corrective action taken by the firm in response to prior FINRA disciplinary actions that included a failure to use exception reports or any other reasonably designed system to detect excessive trading. In addition, the firm failed to identify excessive trading due to lack of clarity regarding supervisory responsibilities. Due to flaws in its supervisory system, the firm did not reasonably supervise a registered representative’s excessive trading activity. If the firm had instituted reasonably designed procedures to ensure branch audits were completed and findings of excessive trading acted upon, it could have prevented this activity.
The findings also stated that the firm failed to implement a supervisory system and procedures reasonably designed to ensure appropriate suitability determinations in its variable annuity sales, including L-share contracts. The firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce systematic surveillance procedures to identify possible inappropriate rates of variable annuity exchanges. The firm also failed to enforce its existing procedures relating to the suitability review of variable annuity transactions. In addition, the firm did not establish, maintain, and enforce a reasonably designed supervisory system and WSPs related to the sale of multi-share class variable annuities. The firm’s WSPs failed to provide representatives and principals with guidance or suitability considerations for sales of different variable annuity share classes. Moreover, the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce WSPs or provide sufficient guidance to its representatives and principals on the sale of long-term income riders, such as long-term income riders with L-share contracts. The findings also included that the firm lacked a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that information included on consolidated reports provided to customers was accurate. The firm’s supervisory system was inadequate and it failed to enforce its own procedures.
FINRA also found that the firm failed to have supervisory procedures reasonably designed to detect and monitor for misleading communications on its website. As a result, the firm omitted material facts from its website that caused its communications with the public to be misleading. FINRA also found that the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a system and WSPs reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA rule 2310(c) related to maintaining records of all non-cash compensation received by it or its associated persons. As a result, the firm failed to track and verify non-cash compensation received by its representatives that came in the form of direct sponsorship payments by product issuers to vendors/merchants. Emails of representatives reflected multiple occurrences of product issuers paying vendors/merchants for branch client events directly without the firm’s knowledge and approval of the non-cash compensation. If you believe that you have suffered losses as a result of Next Financial Group’s misconduct, you may contact David A. Weintraub, P.A., 7805 SW 6th Court, Plantation, FL 33324. By phone: 954.693.7577 or 800.718.1422.