News and Articles

Category Archives: Latest News

FINRA Disciplinary Action Against VSR Financial Services, Inc. and Donald Joseph Beary

Posted byDavid Weintraub

In July 2013, FINRA reported that VSR Financial Services, Inc. and Donald Joseph Beary submitted a Letter of Acceptance,Waiver and Consent in which the firm agreed to be censured and fined $550,000. Beary was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for 45 days. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Beary consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce a reasonable supervisory system regarding the sale of non-conventional investments. The findings stated that the firm’s WSPs provided that no more than 40 percent to 50 percent of a client’s exclusive net worth could be invested cumulatively in alternative investments unless there was a substantial reason to exceed the guidelines and that justification was well documented. Supplemental to these procedures, the firm, through Beary, created additional procedures that applied a discount to certain non-conventional instruments, reducing the percentage of a customer’s liquid net worth invested. The findings also stated that as the direct participation principal, Beary had responsibility for the implementation and supervision of the discount program. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) identified as a deficiency, in a letter to the firm, that it did not have adequate written procedures relating to the discount program.  The SEC made the same finding two years later regarding the lack of WSPs relating to the discount program. Despite these warnings from the SEC, Beary did not take reasonable steps to implement WSPs or to otherwise discontinue the use of the discount program.

The findings also included that in addition to the 40 percent to 50 percent concentration limit stated in the firm’s WSPs, the firm’s new account form asked each client to specify the percentage of liquid net worth that the client would be comfortable investing in various risk categories. Most alternative investment program sponsors identified their products involving, at a minimum, a high degree of risk. The firm also assigned a risk category to each alternative investment it sold. Rather than assign a risk category based upon the risk level identified by the sponsor in the alternative investment offering documents, the firm routinely assigned lower risk categories. In several instances, the firm lowered its internal risk rating subsequent to the firm’s acceptance of the product. In spite of the firm’s efforts to increase sales of alternative investments through the use of discounts and risk rating reductions, customer investments still exceeded the 40 percent concentration guideline, but the firm did not document the existence of a substantial reason to exceed the concentration guidelines as required by its WSPs.

FINRA found that the firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce a reasonable supervisory system regarding the use of consolidated reports. The firm’s WSPs regarding consolidated statements were limited to a few memoranda issued to registered representatives prior to the issuance of FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-19. In practice, for six years, the firm’s registered representatives used a number of consolidated reporting systems. The firm did not require pre-approval of the consolidated reports to determine whether accurate pricing and disclosures were being used. The firm did not have a system for prompt review of the consolidated reports after the reports were sent to Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions 3 customers. Given the fact that the firm allowed its registered representatives to enter valuations manually, the firm’s lack of supervision of the consolidated reports was unreasonable. FINRA also found that the firm, acting through a registered representative, recommended and effected the sale of high-risk private placements to customers. While these products may have been suitable for certain customers, they were not suitable for these customers given their financial circumstances and condition. The firm earned approximately $35,950 in commissions on the transactions. The firm, through another registered representative, made recommendations to customers that were not suitable given their moderate risk tolerance and specifications, and the firm earned commissions on the transactions of approximately $483,077.38. In addition, FINRA determined that the firm failed to reasonably supervise its representatives with respect to the unsuitable transactions. One of several firm principals reviewed and approved the transactions of one of these representatives, and each of the principals failed to detect or investigate “red flags” regarding the transactions. This representative falsified the account documentation for customers, but the firm did not detect or investigate any of the representatives’ falsification of documents or other red flags. Detection and investigation of any of these red flags might have prevented the representative’s unsuitable recommendations and the resulting loss of the customers’ funds. Moreover, FINRA found that the firm allowed its registered representatives to send consolidated statements to their customers but never reviewed the consolidated statements a representative sent to some customers to determine whether he was following the firm’s procedures regarding pricing. Because of the inaccurate pricing the representative used, and the firm’s lack of supervision, these customers received statements with erroneous pricing information. It was unclear whether the customers initiated FINRA arbitrations, or any other type of securities arbitration.

SEC Obtains Freeze on Proceeds from Unlawful Distribution of Biozoom Securities

Posted byDavid Weintraub

On July 3, 2013, the SEC announced charges against eight Argentine citizens who unlawfully sold millions of shares of Biozoom, Inc. in unregistered transactions. The SEC also obtained an emergency order to freeze assets in the U.S. brokerage accounts of the eight defendants and two other Argentine citizens who had Biozoom shares but had not yet sold them. The action follows last week’s suspension of trading in Biozoom due to concerns that some shareholders may be unlawfully distributing its securities.

Biozoom, formerly Entertainment Art, Inc., announced in April that it was changing its name and moving from producing leather bags to developing biomedical technology. The SEC’s complaint alleged that from March to June 2013, the ten defendants received more than 20 million shares of Entertainment Art, which was one-third of the company’s total outstanding shares. In a one-month period beginning in mid-May, eight of them sold more than 14 million shares. The sales yielded almost $34 million, of which almost $17 million was wired to overseas bank accounts. Their U.S. brokerage accounts, which include approximately $16 million in cash, are subject to the asset freeze.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, charged the eight defendants — Magdalena Tavella, Andres Horacio Ficicchia, Gonzalo Garcia Blaya, Lucia Mariana Hernando, Cecilia De Lorenzo, Adriana Rosa Bagattin, Daniela Patricia Goldman and Mariano Pablo Ferrari — along with two others, Mariano Graciarena and Fernando Loureyro, who received shares but have yet to sell them.

According to the SEC’s complaint, when the defendants deposited the Biozoom stock into their U.S. brokerage accounts, they claimed to have acquired the bulk of the shares in March 2013 from Entertainment Art shareholders who purchased them in private placements that began in 2007. Each of the defendants provided stock purchase agreements between them and the former shareholders purportedly signed by the defendants and those shareholders. The SEC alleged that the documents were false because the Entertainment Art investors had sold all of their stock in the company in 2009, almost four years earlier. The defendants’ shares of Biozoom were deposited into their accounts as shares that purportedly could be freely traded and the defendants sold them even though no registration statement was filed with the SEC for any of the sales transactions, in violation of U.S. law.

In addition to the temporary restraining order and asset freeze granted by the court, the SEC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, return of the selling defendants’ allegedly ill-gotten sale proceeds, and civil penalties. The SEC is also seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against the non-selling defendants, Graciarena and Loureyro, because of the likelihood that both defendants will offer or sell their Biozoom shares to the public in violation of the registration requirements of U.S. securities law.

SEC Announces Enforcement Initiatives to Combat Financial Reporting and Microcap Fraud and Enhance Risk Analysis

Posted byDavid Weintraub

On July 2, 2013, the SEC announced three  initiatives that will build on its Division of Enforcement’s ongoing efforts to concentrate resources on high-risk areas of the market and bring cutting-edge technology and analytical capacity to bear in its investigations. The initiatives are:

Financial Reporting and Audit Task

The Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force will concentrate on expanding and strengthening the Division’s efforts to identify securities-law violations relating to the preparation of financial statements, issuer reporting and disclosure, and audit failures. The principal goal of the Task Force will be fraud detection and increased prosecution of violations involving false or misleading financial statements and disclosures. The Task Force will focus on identifying and exploring areas susceptible to fraudulent financial reporting, including on-going review of financial statement restatements and revisions, analysis of performance trends by industry, and use of technology-based tools such as the Accounting Quality Model. It will include Enforcement attorneys and accountants from across the country, working in close consultation with the Division’s Office of the Chief Accountant, the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant, the Division of Corporation Finance, and the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis.

Microcap Fraud Task Force

The Microcap Fraud Task Force will investigate fraud in the issuance, marketing, and trading of microcap securities. These abuses frequently involve serial violators and organized syndicates that employ new media, especially websites and social media, to conduct fraudulent promotional campaigns and engage in manipulative trading strategies to amass ill-gotten gains, largely at the expense of less sophisticated investors. The principal goal of the Task Force will be to develop and implement long-term strategies for detecting and combating fraud in the microcap market, especially by targeting “gatekeepers,” such as attorneys, auditors, broker-dealers, and transfer agents, and other significant participants, such as stock promoters and purveyors of shell companies.

The Microcap Fraud Task Force will build on the extensive and successful work of the Microcap Fraud Working Group – created in 2010 to bring together enforcement and examination staff with common interests in detecting and preventing microcap fraud – in amassing data, developing new approaches to investigations in this sector of the market, and forging relationships with criminal law enforcement authorities. The Task Force will not replace the Working Group but will differ from it in that it will consist of staff dedicated exclusively to investigation of participants in the microcap securities market.

Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics

The Center for Risk and Quantitative Analytics (CRQA) will support and coordinate the Division’s risk identification, risk assessment and data analytic activities by identifying risks and threats that could harm investors, and assist staff nationwide in conducting risk-based investigations and developing methods of monitoring for signs of possible wrongdoing. It will work in close association with other Commission offices and divisions, especially the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and provide guidance to the Enforcement Division’s leadership on how to allocate resources strategically in light of identified risks. As a central point of contact for risk-based initiatives nationwide, CRQA will serve as both an analytical hub and source of information about characteristics and patterns indicative of possible fraud or other illegality.

FINRA Disciplinary Action Against JHS Capital Advisors, LLC

Posted byDavid Weintraub

In July 2013, FINRA reported that JHS Capital Advisors, LLC submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which the firm agreed to be censured and fined $75,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that, in connection with terminating its relationship with one clearing firm, it transferred accounts from the clearing firm to another clearing firm. The first clearing firm charged a fee of $50 to transfer a non-qualified account and $90 to transfer a qualified account to the second clearing firm.

The findings stated that in connection with this transfer of accounts, the firm sent letter(s) to customers, advising them that it would liquidate the securities in their accounts, send the account proceeds to them, and close their accounts, if they did not transfer their accounts to another firm within a certain period, typically 30 days. In accounts from which the firm did not receive a response to the letter(s), it liquidated the securities in the accounts, sent the account proceeds to the customers, and closed the accounts. The firm did not have the requisite oral or written authority to execute such sales in non-discretionary accounts.

In total, in connection with liquidating the accounts, JHS exercised discretion in 882 transactions in 843 non-discretionary accounts, including at least 33 qualified accounts.  It was unclear whether the customers initiated FINRA arbitrations, or any other type of securities arbitration.

FINRA Disciplinary Action Against Robert Ronald Liggero

Posted byDavid Weintraub

In June 2013, FINRA reported that it had fined and suspended for twenty days Florida Registered Representative Robert Ronald Liggero.

During his association with Bull & Bear Brokerage Services, Inc., Mr. Liggero signed the names of two customers on documents related to the opening of IRA accounts without the customers’ knowledge or consent.  By signing their names on documents, he violated NASD Conduct Rule 2110.  Mr. Liggero consented to a 20 day suspension and a $5,000.00 fine.

In settling this matter Robert Ronald Liggero neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.  It was unclear whether the customer initiated a FINRA arbitration, or any other type of securities arbitration.

FINRA Disciplinary Action Against Frederico Goldin

Posted byDavid Weintraub

In June 2013, FINRA reported that it had fined and suspended for one month Florida Registered Representative Frederico Goldin.

During his association with ITA Financial Services, LLC, Mr. Goldin borrowed a total of $28,688.47 from customers.  When the loans were made, ITA did not have written procedures that allowed its representatives to borrow money from customers.  As a result of the foregoing, FINRA Rules 3240 and 2010 were violated.

In settling this matter Frederico Goldin neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.  Because the loans were repaid, it is unlikely that the customers initiated a FINRA arbitration, or any other type of securities arbitration.

FINRA Disciplinary Action Against Sheila J. Justin

Posted byDavid Weintraub

In June 2013,  FINRA reported that it had fined and suspended for five months New York Registered Representative Sheila J. Justin.

During her association with Hazard & Siegel, Inc., Ms. Justin was listed as the broker of record on several accounts and variable annuity transactions, but allowed another individual to service the accounts and effect the transactions.  The findings state that she knew that the individual signed her name on at least 332 variable annuity applications, thus rendering these records and related books and records of her member firm inaccurate.  This conduct constitutes violations of FINRA’s rule prohibiting unethical conduct and recordkeeping.

In settling this matter, Sheila J. Justin neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.  It is unclear whether any of the 332 customers initiated FINRA arbitration proceedings, or any other type of securities arbitration.

FINRA Fines StateTrust Investments $1 Million and Orders $353,000 in Restitution for Charging Unfair Prices in Bond Transactions

Posted byDavid Weintraub

On June 26, 2013, FINRA announced that it had fined StateTrust Investments, Inc. $1.045 million and sanctioned the firm’s head trader, Jose Luis Turnes, for charging excessive markups and markdowns in corporate bond transactions and, 85, in particular, that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the customers. FINRA also ordered StateTrust to pay more than $353,000 in restitution, plus interest, to customers who received unfair prices. In addition, Turnes was suspended for six months and fined $75,000. In a related April 2012 action, Jeffrey Cimbal, StateTrust’s Chief Compliance Officer, was fined $20,000 and suspended for five months in a principal capacity for failing to supervise Turnes.

FINRA found that StateTrust charged excessive markups/markdowns to customers in a total of 563 transactions. In 227 instances, the markups or markdowns exceeded 5 percent. In 85 of those instances, StateTrust, acting through Turnes, charged excessive markups and markdowns, ranging from 8 percent to over 23 percent away from the prevailing market price, which operated as a fraud or deceit upon the customers. In each of the 85 instances, StateTrust either bought bonds from its bank or insurance affiliate and then sold the bonds to customers at a price that was 8 percent or more away from the prevailing market; or bought bonds from customers at prices that were 8 percent or more below the prevailing market, and then sold them to its bank or insurance affiliate at a slight markup. During that period, Turnes was also the chairman and largest indirect shareholder of the bank and its insurance affiliates.

StateTrust, Turnes and Cimbal neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings. FINRA’s investigations were conducted by the Departments of Market Regulation, Member Regulation and Enforcement.

SEC Charges China-Based Company and CEO in Latest Cross-Border Working Group Case

Posted byDavid Weintraub

On June 20, 2013, the SEC charged a China-based company and the CEO with fraudulently misleading investors about its financial condition by touting cash balances that were millions of dollars higher than actual amounts.

The case is the latest from the SEC’s Cross-Border Working Group that focuses on companies with substantial foreign operations that are publicly traded in the U.S. The Working Group has enabled the SEC to file fraud cases against more than 65 foreign issuers or executives and deregister the securities of more than 50 companies.

The SEC alleged that China MediaExpress, which purports to operate a television advertising network on inter-city and airport express buses in the People’s Republic of China, began falsely reporting significant increases in its business operations, financial condition, and profits almost immediately upon becoming a publicly-traded company through a reverse merger. In addition to grossly overstating its cash balances, China MediaExpress also falsely stated in public filings and press releases that two multi-national corporations were its advertising clients when, in fact, they were not. The company’s chairman and CEO Zheng Cheng signed the public filings and attested to their accuracy. After suspicions of fraud were raised by the company’s external auditor and an internal investigation ensued, Zheng attempted to pay off a senior accountant assigned to the case.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in Washington D.C., China MediaExpress became a publicly-traded company in October 2009 and began materially overstating its cash balances in press releases and SEC filings. For example, its 2009 annual report filed on March 31, 2010, reported $57 million in cash on hand when it actually had a cash balance of merely $141,000. Later that year on November 9, 2010, China MediaExpress issued a press release boasting a cash balance of $170 million at the end of the third quarter of its fiscal year. The actual cash balance was just $10 million.

The SEC’s complaint stated that after China Media materially misrepresented its financial condition, its stock price tripled to more than $20 per share. At the same time, China Media received $53 million from a hedge fund pursuant to a sale of the company’s preferred and common stock to that fund. Zheng was financially incentivized to misrepresent China MediaExpress’ financial condition, as he had agreements to receive stock if the company met certain net income targets. For instance, when China Media met net income targets for fiscal year 2009, Zheng personally received 600,000 shares of China MediaExpress stock that were worth approximately $6 million at the time.

The SEC’s complaint charged Zheng and China MediaExpress with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint charged China MediaExpress with violations of the reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions, and charged Zheng with violating the SEC’s rules prohibiting lying to auditors and making false certifications required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The complaint seeks financial penalties, permanent injunctions, disgorgement, and an officer and director bar against Zheng.

SEC Charges San Diego-Based Promoter in Penny Stock Scheme

Posted byDavid Weintraub

On June 18, 2013, the SEC charged a penny stock promoter for fraudulently arranging the purchase of $2.5 million worth of shares in a penny stock company in an attempt to generate the false appearance of market interest and induce other investors to purchase the stock.

The SEC alleged that David F. Bahr of Rancho Santa Fe, California, artificially increased the trading price and volume of iTrackr Systems stock when he conspired with a purported businessman with access to a network of corrupt brokers. What Bahr didn’t know was that the purported businessman was actually an undercover FBI agent. During a test run of their arrangement, Bahr paid a $3,000 kickback in exchange for the initial purchase of $14,000 worth of iTrackr shares.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California filed criminal charges against Bahr.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Diego, Bahr set out to give the markets a false impression of supply and demand in iTrackr stock where none actually existed. He coordinated the purchase of iTrackr shares so the stock price could remain high enough for him to effectively promote it at a later date and artificially inflate the price even higher. Bahr arranged for the dissemination of promotional material that overstated the likelihood of iTrackr’s success and future profits.

The SEC’s complaint alleged that Bahr connected with the undercover agent in November 2012 and was told that that he represented a group of registered representatives who had trading discretion over certain client accounts. In exchange for a 30 percent kickback, the brokers could arrange to purchase iTrackr stock through their customers’ accounts and hold the shares for up to a year in order to avoid sales that might decrease iTrackr’s stock price. Bahr agreed to pay the kickback and sought the purchase of 10 million iTrackr shares at an average of 25 cents per share for a total of $2.5 million. Bahr agreed not to disclose the kickback to any iTrackr investors.

According to the complaint, Bahr agreed to a test run involving the purchase of modest amounts of iTrackr stock on the open market, and Bahr would then pay a small commission. During the first week of December 2012, a total of 135,000 iTrackr shares were purchased, which represented approximately 32 percent of iTrackr’s trading volume during that time.  Bahr was then informed that the test purchases totaled approximately $14,000, and he owed a $4,000 commission. Bahr paid $3,000 through a wire transfer, and he asked another person to pay the remaining $1,000.

The SEC’s complaint alleged that Bahr violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint is seeking financial penalties, a penny stock bar, and a permanent injunction against Bahr.