Month: November 2017

Lisa Lewis scam

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently imposed a cease and desist order against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith in which the Commission found that Merrill Lynch failed to adequately disclose certain fixed costs in a proprietary volatility index linked to structured notes known as Strategic Return Notes (“SRN”) of Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”). Merrill Lynch offered and sold approximately $150 million of these volatility notes to approximately 4,000 retail investor accounts in 2010 and 2011. The SEC found that the disclosures made it appear as if the volatility product had relatively low fixed costs. The offering materials emphasized that investors would be subject to a 2% sales commission and a 0.75% annual fee. The offering materials failed to adequately disclose a third fixed, regularly occurring cost included in its proprietary volatility index known as the “Execution Factor”. As a result, the disclosures in the offering materials of the fixed costs associated with the Strategic Return Notes were materially misleading.

The SEC found that as an issuer of securities, BAC had a duty to disclose all material information necessary to make statements contained in the retail pricing supplements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. BAC delegated to Merrill Lynch principal responsibility for drafting and reviewing the retail pricing supplements. The SEC found that Merrill Lynch violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act which prohibits obtaining money or property by means of material misstatements and omissions in the offer or sale of securities.
The SEC deemed it appropriate to impose sanctions against Merrill Lynch, including a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $10 million.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. If you have lost money as a result of investing in Strategic Return Notes at Merrill Lynch, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

FINRA Sanctions Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC $1 Million for Supervisory Failures

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it fined Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC $500,000 and ordered the firm to pay nearly $530,000 in restitution for failing to detect or prevent the theft of more than $1 million from nine of its customers, eight of whom were senior citizens. Lisa Lewis posed as a Fidelity broker, obtained her victims’ personal information, and systematically stole customer assets through numerous transfers and debit-card transactions.

FINRA found that from August 2006 until her fraud was discovered in May 2013, Lewis was running a conversion scheme by targeting former customers from another brokerage firm from which she had been fired. Lewis told the victims she was a Fidelity broker and urged them to establish accounts at the firm and also established joint accounts with her victims in which she was listed as an owner. She eventually established more than 50 accounts and converted assets from a number of these accounts for her own personal benefit. In June 2014, Lewis pleaded guilty to wire fraud, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $2 million in restitution to her victims.

FINRA found that Fidelity failed to detect or adequately follow up on multiple “red flags” related to Lewis’s scheme. FINRA also found that Fidelity failed to detect Lewis’ consistent pattern of money movements and overlooked red flags in telephone calls handled by its customer-service call center in which there were indications that Lewis was impersonating or taking advantage of her senior investor victims. FINRA also found that Fidelity’s inadequate supervisory systems and procedures contributed to the failure to detect and prevent Lewis’s fraudulent activities. Though Fidelity maintained a report designed to identify common email addresses shared across multiple accounts, it failed to implement procedures regarding the report’s use and dedicate adequate resources to the review and investigation of the reports. As a result, there was a backlog in reviewing thousands of reports, including a report in March 2012 showing that Lewis’ email address was associated with dozens of otherwise unrelated accounts. The report was not reviewed by anyone at Fidelity until April 2013, more than a year after it was generated.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. If you have lost money as a result of your broker’s conduct, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

FINRA Sanctions Barclays Capital, Inc. $13.75 Million for Unsuitable Mutual Fund Transactions and Supervisory Failures

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently announced that it has ordered Barclays Capital, Inc. (CRD # 19714) to pay more than $10 million in restitution, including interest, to affected customers for mutual fund-related suitability violations. These suitability violations relate to a variety of mutual fund transactions, including mutual fund switches. Additionally, FINRA alleged that the firm failed to provide applicable breakpoint discounts to certain customers. Barclays was also censured and fined $3.75 million.

According to FINRA rules, broker-dealers are obligated to ensure that any recommendations to switch mutual funds are evaluated with regard to the net investment advantage to the investor. FINRA advises that “switching among certain fund types may be difficult to justify if the financial gain or investment objective to be achieved by the switch is undermined by the transaction fees associated with the switch.” A “mutual fund switch” involves one or more mutual fund redemption transactions coupled with one or more related mutual fund purchase transactions.

FINRA found that from January 2010 through June 2015, Barclays’ supervisory systems were not sufficient to prevent unsuitable switching or to meet certain other firm obligations regarding the sale of mutual funds to retail brokerage customers. In particular, the firm incorrectly defined a mutual fund switch in its supervisory procedures to require three separate transactions within a certain time frame. Based on this incorrect definition, Barclays failed to act on thousands of automated alerts for potentially unsuitable transactions, excluded transactions from review for suitability and failed to ensure that disclosure letters were sent to customers regarding the transaction costs. As a result, during the five-year period, there were more than 6,100 unsuitable mutual fund switches resulting in customer harm of approximately $8.63 million.

Additionally, FINRA found that the firm failed to provide adequate guidance to supervisors to ensure that mutual fund transactions for its retail brokerage customers were suitable based upon customer investment objectives, risk tolerance and account holdings. During a six-month look back review, 1,723, or 39 percent of mutual fund transactions were found to be unsuitable, with 343 customers experiencing financial harm totaling more than $800,000, including realized losses.

In addition, FINRA alleged that during the same five-year period, Barclays’ supervisory system failed to ensure that purchases were properly aggregated so that eligible customers could be provided with breakpoint discounts. A six-month look back review by FINRA found that the firm failed to provide eligible customers discounts in Class A share mutual fund transactions.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. If you have lost money as a result of your broker’s recommendations, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

FINRA Bars Brokers George Johnson and Joseph Mahalick and Suspends Broker Christopher Wynne

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently announced that it has barred broker George Johnson (CRD # 2245802) from the securities industry for engaging in a manipulative trading scheme to artificially inflate the market price and trading volume for the common stock of IceWEB, Inc. (OTCBB: IWEB). FINRA also sanctioned Christopher Wynne (CRD # 7654), Johnson’s supervisor, suspending him for two years in all capacities, barring him in a principal capacity, and fining him $25,000. Joseph Mahalick (CRD # 5563167), another broker who worked with Johnson and Wynne, was suspended for six months and fined $20,000 for falsifying firm records and has been barred from the securities industry in a separate action. Johnson, Wynne and Mahalick all worked for Meyers Associates L.P. in that firm’s Chicago branch office during the time period of the misconduct.

FINRA found that Johnson manipulated the market for IWEB by recommending that certain of his customers buy at increasingly higher and artificially inflated prices while also recommending his other customers sell their shares, frequently matching trades between the customers. FINRA found that among Johnson’s motives for manipulating the stock was the fact that he wanted to obtain business from the issuer for which he would anticipate receiving compensation in connection with a future private offering. Johnson coordinated a campaign with a stock promoter to attempt to increase the stock’s share price to a level that would allow for the exercise of certain warrants.

Brad Bennett, FINRA’s Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “Any broker engaging in manipulative activity poses a threat to market integrity and has no place in the securities industry. The branch office manager, who was the first line of defense in supervising George Johnson’s activities, completely failed to supervise his transactions to ensure compliance with securities laws and FINRA rules.” FINRA also found that Johnson and Wynne sent customers sales materials that omitted information concerning material conflicts of interest and material risks concerning IWEB’s business, and contained misleading, exaggerated and unwarranted information. Moreover, Johnson disclosed confidential information to potential purchasers concerning another offering.

In addition to the IWEB scheme, FINRA found that Johnson committed fraud by recommending that certain of his customers purchase shares of another penny stock without disclosing to them that he was liquidating his own personal positions of the security from his own brokerage accounts. Furthermore, FINRA’s investigation found that to cover up Johnson’s violations of state securities registration requirements, Johnson, Mahalick and Wynne agreed to the practice of entering false information on more than 100 order memoranda, indicating that Wynne or Mahalick was responsible for the account or transactions, instead of Johnson.

George Johnson was registered with the securities industry for twenty three (23) years, and was registered with the following firm(s):

Newport Coast Securities, Inc.
CRD # 16944
Chicago, IL
4/2013 – 2/2016

Meyers Associates L.P.
CRD # 34171
Chicago, IL
11/2011 – 5/2013

Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.
CRD # 48
Chicago, IL
7/2010-12/2011

Jesup & LaMont Securities Corp.
CRD # 39056
Chicago, IL
11/2009-7/2010

Garden State Securities, Inc.
CRD #10083
Chicago, IL
5/2005 – 11/2009

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
CRD #793
St. Louis, MO
3/2001-5/2005

Auerbach, Pollak & Richardson, Inc.
CRD # 29824
Stamford, CT
12/2000-3/2001

American Fronteer Financial Corp.
CRD # 1398
Denver, CO
10/1998 – 12/2000

H.J. Meyers & Co., Inc.
CRD# 15609
Rochester, NY
7/1992-10/1998

Christopher Wynne was registered with the securities industry for sixteen (16) years, and was registered with the following firm(s):

Newport Coast Securities, Inc.
CRD # 16944
Chicago, IL
4/2013-2/2016

Meyers Associates, L.P.
CRD # 34171
Chicago, IL
11/2011-5/2013

Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.
CRD 48
Chicago, IL
7/2010-12/2011

Jesup & LaMont Securities Corp.
CRD 39056
Chicago, IL
11/2009-7/2010

Garden State Securities, Inc.
CRD 10083
Chicago, IL
5/2005–11/2009

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
CRD 793
St. Louis, MO
3/2001-5/2005

Auerbach, Pollak & Richardson, Inc.
CRD 29824
Stamford, CT
12/2000-3/2001

American Fronteer Financial Corp.
CRD 1398
Denver, CO
11/1999-12/2000

Joseph Mahalick was registered with the securities industry for seven (7) years, and was registered with the following firm(s):

Newport Coast Securities, Inc.
CRD 16944
Chicago, IL
4/2013-10/2015

Meyers Associates, L.P.
CRD 34171
Chicago, IL
11/2011 – 5/2013

Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.
CRD 48
Chicago, IL
7/2010-12/2011

Jesup & LaMont Securities Corp.
CRD 39056
Chicago, IL
11/2009-7/2010

Garden State Securities, Inc.
CRD 10083
Chicago, IL
9/2008-11/2009

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s misconduct, contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. If you have lost money as a result of your broker’s recommendations, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

FINRA Sanctions MetLife Securities, Inc. $25 Million for Negligent Misrepresentations and Omissions in Connection With Variable Annuity Replacements

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced recently that it has fined MetLife Securities, Inc. (MSI) $20 million and ordered it to pay $5 million to customers for making negligent material misrepresentations and omissions on variable annuity replacement applications for tens of thousands of customers. FINRA alleged that each misrepresentation and omission propounded by MSI made the replacement appear more beneficial to the customer, even though the recommended variable annuities were typically more expensive than customers’ existing variable annuity. According to FINRA, MSI’s variable annuity replacement business constituted a substantial portion of its business, generating at least $152 million in gross dealer commission for the firm over a six-year period.

FINRA advises that replacing one variable annuity with another involves a comparison of the complex features of each security. Accordingly, variable annuity replacements are subject to regulatory requirements to ensure a firm and its registered representatives compare costs and guarantees that are complete and accurate.

FINRA found that from 2009 through 2014, MSI misrepresented or omitted at least one material fact relating to the costs and guarantees of customers’ existing variable annuity contracts in 72 percent of the 35,500 variable annuity replacement applications the firm approved, based on a sample of randomly selected transactions. Examples from FINRA’s review found that:

• MSI represented to customers that their existing variable annuity was more expensive than the recommended variable annuity, when in fact, the existing variable annuity was less expensive;
• MSI failed to disclose to customers that the proposed variable annuity replacement would reduce or eliminate important features in their existing variable annuity, such as accrued death benefits, guaranteed income benefits, and a guaranteed fixed interest account rider; and,
• MSI understated the value of customers’ existing death benefits in disclosures.

According to Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, “Variable annuities are complex and expensive products that are routinely pitched to vulnerable investors as a key component of their retirement planning. Firms engaging in this business must ensure that the information on the costs and benefits of these products provided to customers is accurate, and that their registered representatives are sufficiently trained to understand and explain the risks and complex features of what they are selling. These obligations take on even greater importance when a significant part of a firm’s marketing effort involves switching customers out of existing annuities.”

FINRA also found that MSI failed to ensure that its registered representatives obtained and assessed accurate information concerning the recommended VA replacements, and did not adequately train its registered representatives to compare the relative costs and guarantees involved in replacing one variable annuity with another. According to FINRA MSI’s principals did not consider the relative costs and guarantees of the proposed transactions. FINRA alleged that MSI principals ultimately approved 99.79 percent of variable annuity replacement applications submitted to them for review, even though nearly three quarters of those applications contained materially inaccurate information.

FINRA further found that MSI failed to supervise sales of the GMIB rider, the firm’s bestselling feature for its variable annuities. The rider was marketed to customers (many of whom were already holding MetLife annuities) as a means of providing a guaranteed future income stream. The GMIB rider is complex and expensive—annual fees during the relevant period ranged from 1 percent to 1.5 percent of the variable annuities notional income base value. FINRA found that a frequently cited reason for MSI’s recommendation of variable annuity replacements was to allow a customer to purchase the GMIB rider on the new variable annuity contract. Nevertheless, MSI failed to provide registered representatives and principals with reasonable guidance or training about the cost and features of the rider.

In addition, FINRA found that since at least 2009, MSI customers have received misleading quarterly account statements that understate the total charges and fees incurred on certain variable annuity contracts. Typically, the quarterly account statements misrepresented that the total fees and charges were $0.00 when, in fact, the customer has paid a substantial amount in fees and charges.

If you have suffered investment losses as a result of investing with MetLife Securities, contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. If you have lost money as a result of your broker’s or brokerage firm’s recommendations, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

Fraud Charges Filed Against Owners of Jay Peak Ski Resort Relating to Millions of Dollars Solicited under the EB-5 Immigrant Investors Program

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Vermont-based ski resort and related businesses allegedly misusing millions of dollars raised through investments solicited under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief against Ariel Quiros, William Stenger, Jay Peak, Inc., Q Resorts, Inc., Jay Peak Hotel Suites L.P., Jay Peak Hotel Suites Phase II L.P., Jay Peak Hotel Suites Phase II L.P., Jay Peak Management, Inc., Jay Peak Penthouse Suites L.P., Jay Peak GP Services, Inc., Jay Peak Golf and Mountain Suites L.P., Jay Peak GP Services Golf, Inc., Jay Peak Lodge and Townhouses, L.P., Jay Peak GP Services Lodge, Inc., Jay Peak Hotel Suites Stateside L.P., Jay Peak GP Services Stateside, Inc., Jay Peak Biomedical Research Park L.P., and AnC Bio Vermont GP Services, LLC. The SEC’s case was unsealed in federal court in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, and the court has appointed a receiver over the companies to prevent any further spending of investor assets.

The SEC alleges that Ariel Quiros of Miami, Florida, William Stenger of Newport, Vermont, and their companies made false statements and omitted key information while raising more than $350 million from investors to construct ski resort facilities and a biomedical research facility in Vermont. According to the SEC complaint, investors were told they were investing in one of several projects connected to Jay Peak Inc., a ski resort operated by Quiros and Stenger, and their money would only be used to finance that specific project. The SEC complaint alleges that instead, in Ponzi-like fashion, money from investors in later projects was misappropriated to fund deficits in earlier projects. The SEC complaint alleges that more than $200 million was used for other-than-stated purposes, including $50 million spent on Quiros’s personal expenses and in other ways never disclosed to investors.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Quiros improperly tapped investor funds for such things as the purchase of a luxury condominium, payment of his income taxes and other taxes unrelated to the investments, and acquisition of an unrelated ski resort. The SEC’s complaint charges Quiros, Stenger, Jay Peak, and a company owned by Quiros called Q Resorts Inc., as well as, seven limited partnerships and their general partner companies with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Four other companies are named as relief defendants in the SEC’s complaint for the purpose of recovering investor funds transferred into their accounts.

If you have suffered investment losses contact the Hanley Law to discuss your legal options. The Hanley Law is dedicated to helping investors nationwide. You may be entitled to recover your investment losses. Contact our office toll free at (239) 649-0050 for a complimentary initial consultation.

FINRA Lawyers can help protect investments

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

When someone has made financial investments in the form of securities, it is possible that their investments won’t result in the profit they anticipate. This can happen for a number of reasons, including changes in the industry you’ve invested in, but it can also be the result of broker misconduct. If you feel that your investments failed as the result of actions made by your broker, it’s important to find reliable a FINRA lawyer to help you with your case. There may have been misconduct on the part of your broker or brokerage firm which caused your investments to fail, and it’s important to explore all of these possibilities when determining the cause of your financial losses. FINRA is the regulatory organization which oversees the financial industry, including securities investments. A security is an investment which is made by individuals or businesses with the anticipation of a return in profit. Because these types of investments can be a good way to ensure a comfortable future for yourself and your family, investing has become a more common practice. FINRA exists to protect the market’s integrity and provide investors quick and effective regulation should they run into trouble. FINRA isn’t part of the government, but are authorized by congress to protect American investors in Florida and nationwide. Of course every investor assumes they are trading in a fair financial market, and FINRA’s regulatory efforts make this true the majority of the time.

However, there are predatory practices employed by brokers which can lead to losses on your end. If you find yourself in this situation, it’s likely that you have already agreed to solve any disputes through arbitration. When entering into arbitration for financial disputes there are many guidelines and procedures which have strict deadlines and must be followed accordingly. Failure to properly fill out paperwork, provide documentation, respond to motions, etc. can all invalidate your claim, resulting in potentially huge losses on your end. A qualified FINRA lawyer in Florida will help you navigate the many facets of securities arbitration and make sure that your claim is not only handled according to all of FINRA’s procedures, but handled in a way which ensures the best possible outcome for investors.

The Hanley Law are experienced FINRA lawyers who help investors in Naples, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, greater Florida and nationwide settle their FINRA related disputes or arbitration. To have your case evaluated for free by experienced FINRA lawyers, contact The Hanley Law.

Futures Fraud and How To Avoid It

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

What is Futures Trading?

Futures trading is a formal agreement between parties to buy or sell a particular commodity at a certain price and at a specific point in time. The trading can be done with a number of different commodities: precious metals (i.e., silver or gold), petroleum products (i.e., crude oil and unleaded gas), foreign currency (i.e., Euros, Yen, or Deutschmarks), and agricultural products (i.e., corn, soybeans, or cattle). This type of trading is considered high-risk trading and is best suited for experienced investors who are willing to potentially risk losing their entire investment. For this reason, it’s always best to confer with a knowledgeable investor and do research before agreeing to any trading activity and exposing yourself to potential futures fraud.

What is Futures Fraud?

Futures fraud occurs when the party selling the commodity (e.g., commodity broker, financial advisor, or other third-party) engages in illegal activities or practices while trading futures to investors. Illegal activities often involved in futures fraud can include trading without the investor’s consent, false statements about the risk or value of the investment, withholding information from the investor on purpose (nondisclosure), trading on the investor account for commissions without regard for the investor, and using the investor’s assets for anything other than the stated purpose.

What Are Some Warning Signs of Futures Fraud?

The following are some common warning signs of potential futures fraud:

  • Investment opportunities that seem too good to be true and get-rich-quick schemes.
  • Promises or guarantees of large profits.
  • Assurances of little or no financial risk in the venture.
  • Claims of currency being traded in an “Interbank Market,” which can refer to a collection of transactions between banks and investment banks.
  • Unsolicited telephone calls about investment opportunities.
  • Requests for urgent transfers of cash to a recipient.

 

Do You Need A Futures Fraud Lawyer?

If you believe that you are the victim of futures fraud, reach out to Hanley Law and we can examine your case and determine the best course of action. Hanley Law has the experience required to help you receive the best possible outcome.

What is Securities Arbitration?

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

Securities Arbitration is the process, which takes place following a dispute with a broker or dealer. Prior to arbitration, the investor has determined that the broker engaged in some form of wrongdoing, or otherwise negligent action that resulted in a loss. Depending on the amount of the claim, the investor may or may not have to appear before an arbitrator or group of arbitrators. Arbitration is an alternative to settling in court and is often the preferred method of dispute resolution because it is typically faster and less expensive.

While typically a contract between a firm and investor is what provides ground for arbitration, the absence of a contractual agreement does not mean that the dispute cannot be settled through arbitration. If the broker or firm is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, they are bound to FINRAs procedural guidelines, which include the duty to participate in arbitration when a conflict arises.

Arbitration is NOT an investor complaint. If you want to make FINRA aware of any suspicious activity then you should file an investor complaint. Arbitration is similar to a court case, with formal proceedings but for the reasons stated above is a simpler and quicker alternative to litigation. If a claim is under $50,000 then the dispute can be settled through what is known as “Simplified Arbitration”. In this scenario, parties provide case materials, which are reviewed by an arbitrator; this does not require parties to appear in person. For cases involving larger sums, arbitration takes place in-person and is reviewed by a panel of up to 3 arbitrators.

To initiate an arbitration, the investor must submit what is known as a “Statement of Claim”. The statement of claim must be articulate and while there is no standardized format, following the format of a suit in court is effective. The statement of claim should include all the pertinent information that the arbitrator(s) need to make an intelligent decision. This included the nature of the dispute, any background information, dates, types of securities at hand, names of the parties involved, the kind of transactions that took place and the damages sought.

Following the statement of claim, the respondents must answer to the allegations. This must also be detailed and simple denial will not suffice. At this point in time the respondent can file a counter-claim against the investor or a 3rd party involved. Once the submission of facts from either side is received by FINRA, a hearing location is chosen. Before the hearing is a discover period, where documentation is provided and exchanged amongst parties involved and FINRA officials. This stage is a window of opportunity for the assertive attorney as it is the opportunity to obtain any and all relevant information from the other party prior to the hearing. Often, the persistence of a dedicated attorney during the prehearing discovery phase can result in a favorable verdict for their client.

The hearing itself is scheduled in advance and follows a similar format to a case in court. Witnesses are interviewed, cross-examined and evidence is produced. A series of questions are asked and there are multiple stages before the process is concluded. The arbitrators will determine what awards are served usually within 30 days of the last hearing. The award will include the basic facts of the dispute but does not have to provide justification or rationale behind the actual dollar amount awarded. The opportunity to appeal a decision exists on the state and federal level but it is rarely ever successful.

The Hanley Law is a Naples, Florida based firm who have an extensive track record of successfully securing awards for their clients. The arbitration process is complex and difficult to navigate without the guidance and advocacy that skilled attorneys can provide. Hanley Law offers a free case evaluation to determine the best course of action for you.

Florida FINRA Litigation

Posted by finralawyer on with 0 Comment

FINRA is the financial institution which regulates securities and the financial market. FINRA attorneys focus their practice on niche areas of FINRA law, whether they are defending brokers against regulatory inquiries, working on arbitration claims involving both investors & brokers, or defending investors against predatory broker practices. Most, if not every, brokerage firm requires potential investors to agree to resolve any disputes through FINRA arbitration. This is usually outlined in the opening documents, and states specifically that any issues will be settled through FINRA dispute resolution. Legal professionals with experience representing both investors & brokers before FINRA arbitrators should be familiar with all procedures, the forum & arbitrators. With their experience and knowledge, the first step to take if you have an issue with an investment should be to contact an accomplished FINRA attorney. They know how to properly prosecute cases on the behalf of both brokers and investors.

If you are an investor, they are many ways that you might feel you’ve been wronged by a broker or financial institution. You might believe that an investment made was unsuitable to your investment portfolio, or that an investment was made based on misleading or even fraudulent statements made by your broker. You might feel that your portfolio was over-concentrated in one industry or area, which resulted in your investments not being profitable or worthwhile. Even more concerning, you might feel your account was subjected to unauthorized trading, or churning (excessive trading to increase broker commissions). However you might feel that your investments have been mishandled, it’s important to consult with an attorney experienced in FINRA litigation to evaluate your case and determine any legal discourse necessary.

Most investment issues are resolved through securities arbitration, and as stated earlier, many brokers outline this requirement in their opening documents. Securities arbitration has become the most popular means of resolving broker-dealer conflicts in Florida and nationwide, largely due to a Supreme Court decision in 1987, and has long been used as it provides a quick and inexpensive alternative to arbitrating through the courts. After beginning the arbitration process, there are many different factors which need to be determined and decided upon by all involved parties, including arbitrator panel composition, hearing locations, and other details related to the arbitration process. While cases typically take between 1 year and 14 months to resolve, the process can be delayed or expedited depending on the complexity of the issue or the discovery timeline.

In Orlando and Florida, there are strict deadlines and regulations related to securities arbitration that can elude an inexperienced individual. If you are concerned about your investments it’s important to consult an experienced attorney who understands all FINRA litigation and arbitration requirements as they relate to Florida. Contact the Hanley Law to have your case evaluated for free and determine the legal validity and potential outcomes of your unique situation.