CORNERSTONE CORE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST SHARES ARE DOWN 70%. WHAT SHOULD INVESTORS DO?

The Cornerstone Core Properties REIT Inc., once valued at $8 per share, is now worth $2.25, a decline of over seventy (70%) percent. This was confirmed by Cornerstone Core Properties' letter to its investors, "The estimated per-share value has been adversely affected by the recent global economic downturn, negatively impacting our small business tenant base, which has resulted in approximately $43 million of previously announced impairment charges recorded in the second and third quarters of 2011." Additionally, the sponsor of the REIT had some regulatory issues that precluded the sponsor from raising the necessary capital to properly fund the REIT. FINRA recently announced that it is paying close attention to the sale of non-traded REITs and, in particular, the ways in which broker/dealers marketed and sold the products to investors. Even though REITs can be risky and are often illiquid, in many cases, broker-dealers marketed these investments as safe and secure. Cornerstone Core Properties REIT suffered a sharp decline in tenant occupancy (tenant occupancy of the REIT's retail properties was 69% at the end of last year, compared with 92% at the end of 2008).

Many investors in the non-traded Cornerstone Core Properties REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.
At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. REITs typically pay a high commission - often as much as 10-15% (which often explains the stockbroker's motivation in recommending the REIT investment to the investor). Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments.

Due to the relatively high interest or dividend offered by non-traded REITs like Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, many retired investors were attracted to these products. Unfortunately, in addition to being risky investments, non-traded REITs are also illiquid (limiting investors' ability to access their own money for unforeseen expenses). Another problem with non-traded REITs is that broker-dealers are not required to frequently update the current price of the investment. This often leads investors to believe that their REIT investment is doing well even though the widespread real estate market collapse would indicate otherwise.
If you are a Cornerstone Core Properties REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

UNIVERSITIES NOT SPARED FROM PONZI SCHEME EPIDEMIC

A Texas based money manager has been charged with running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded the Houston Athletics Foundation, a University of Houston entity which funds athletic scholarships. David Salinas, who took his life after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a suit against him and his associate Brian Bjork, was charged with perpetrating a $39 million Ponzi scheme that involved over 100 investors, which included high-profile college coaches. A Ponzi scheme is an unsustainable fraud pyramid that inevitably ends in ruin. Schemers use money raised from latter investors or investors higher up the pyramid to pay an earlier investor's returns. Ponzi schemes invariably fall apart when markets deteriorate or when the schemer is unable to raise more cash. Around $2.2 million of the Foundations assets, having supposedly been invested in bonds, are still unaccounted for.

In Georgia, the SEC charged ex-University of Georgia football coach, Jim Donnan, for his involvement in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded close to 100 investors between August 2007 and October 2010. Mr. Donnan, a College Football Hall of Famer, and his business partner Gregory Crabtree, were charged with perpetrating an $80 million Ponzi scheme through GLC Limited. Investors were told that GLC was in the wholesale liquidation business or reselling damaged retail goods in bulk to discount retailers. Investors were offered short term investments ranging from 2 to 12 months and promised returns between 50 and 380%. It was later discovered that the only $12 million of investors' money was used to buy goods, but the goods ended up being dumped into warehouses in Ohio and West Virginia. The rest of the funds were used to pay returns to investors or were used by Mr. Donnan and Mr. Crabtree for other purposes.

Have you suffered investment losses in one of the above mentioned Texas Ponzi schemes? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY BELVEDERE ADVANTAGED (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Belvedere Advantaged Muni Fund was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by GEM Capital, LLC. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like GEM Capital converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

GEM Capital blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

PUERTO RICO INVESTORS BEWARE OF BANCO SANTANDER REVERSE CONVERTIBLES

Banco Santander, a large bank based in Spain, has recently agreed to pay $2 million to end a dispute between its brokerage group in Puerto Rico and retail clients for sales of structured products known as reverse convertibles. This comes as no surprise since many aggrieved Banco Santander investors in Puerto Rico have filed claims to recover losses due to the product's disastrous performance. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has responded by issuing several notices to members containing guidelines for reverse convertible sales, which identify the level of sophistication an investor should possess and outline the analyses brokerage firms should take prior to offering and selling the product to its clients. FINRA is also performing "sweeps" of large Wall Street firms to investigate how they advertise reverse convertibles, while the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether their risks are being disclosed properly.

Reverse convertibles, which are a type of structured product, are interest bearing notes in which principal repayment is linked to the performance of a reference asset, often a stock, a basket of stocks, or an index. The reference asset is generally unrelated to the issuer of the note. At maturity if the value of the reference asset has fallen below a certain level, the investor may receive less than a full return of principal. The diminished principal repayment could be in the form of shares of stock put to the investor or their cash equivalent. Reverse convertibles expose investors not only to the risks traditionally associated with fixed income products, such as issuer risk, but also to the risks of a decline in value in the underlying reference asset, which can lead to loss of principal. Reverse convertibles tend to have limited liquidity and complex pay-out structures that can make it difficult for registered representatives and their customers to accurately assess their risks, costs, and potential benefits.

Most investors are not capable of evaluating whether reverse convertibles are suitable investments. What investors should recognize is that reverse convertibles put principal at risk if the price of the underlying security rises above or falls below a predetermined amount. The issuer will either sell or buy the security, which may cause investors to lose a significant amount of principal. However, investors are attracted to reverse convertibles because of their yields; reverse convertibles have averaged 13% in certain years. This comes as no surprise since yields on CDs and other conservative investments are near all-time lows, and fixed income investors need to generate income to pay bills and keep up with increasing costs. Still, investors must realize that reverse convertibles are not the solution. Rather than chase yields and risk losing hard earned savings, investors need to stick to what is suitable for them to avoid financial calamity.

Have you suffered a loss in a reverse convertible? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY INLAND WESTERN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Inland American Real Estate Trust (Inland American REIT) to determine if the REIT committed securities law violations related to management fees, the timing and amount of distributions paid to investors, and transactions with affiliates. Now that the SEC is involved, many investors in the non-traded Inland Western REIT (now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc.) have inquired about their ability to recover their losses. There are a number of things investors must understand about the SEC, its investigations are incredibly slow and rarely do investors ever benefit from them. Investors need to take matters in their own hands. Many claims are now being filed by Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Inland Western REITs and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Inland Western REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that Inland Western REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Inland Western REITs and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are an Inland Western REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

INVESTOR ALERT - THE COST OF OWNING A VARIABLE ANNUITY IS HIGH FOR ALL INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

Without a doubt, variable annuities are costly to investors. An agent can collect at least 5% from the moment of sale and 0.5% or more every year for the life of the investment; variable annuities with common riders can take over 3% off annual returns. Surrender charges of as much as 9% may apply if an investor is in need of cash due to an unexpected emergency. On top of all this, insurance companies are offering Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefits (GLWB) without clearly telling investors the costs associated with taking early distributions. GLWBs allow percentage withdrawals based on the total amount without having to annuitize the investment. The problem with GLWBs is the immense cost of withdrawal, which is hidden away from investors in the terms of the agreement.

So do the costs of owning a variable annuity confer a significant benefit to investors? The answer is most certainly not! Insurance companies have the numbers all figured out. They employ a slew of experts to compute prices and draft terms and conditions that make it advantageous to them to own the market risk they are purportedly taking away from investors.

An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. Variable annuities are typically higher in risk when compared other types of annuities and depend on how the stock market is performing. Buyers have the option to allocate the cash invested into different types of assets such as mutual funds, indices, fixed income investments or bonds, and cash. Variable annuities do not guarantee principal protection, so investors can lose money if markets deteriorate.

Investors cannot be urged enough to read the fine print when investing in a variable annuity. Even then, the complexity of the product may confuse an investor who is not experienced or financially savvy. This is why investors are often led into believing that variable annuities are safe and suitable and that the research should be left up to their broker. Unfortunately, those brokers oftentimes misrepresent and mislead investors into purchasing unsuitable variable annuities.

Have you suffered a loss of principal in your variable annuity? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY ARAVALI FUND (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Aravali Fund was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by Aravali Partners, LLC and sold by Alex Brown Deutsche Bank to investors nationwide. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Aravali Partners converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Alex Brown Deutsche Bank blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

AXA ADVISORS FINED $100,000.00 FOR NOT FIRING BROKER WHO RAN A MISSOURI PONZI SCHEME

AXA Advisors has been fined $100,000.00 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for not investigating and firing a broker who was running a Ponzi scheme, which dates back to 2001. Kenneth Neely began to work with AXA Advisors in Clayton, Missouri in 2007 before FINRA permanently barred him from the financial industry in 2009. Mr. Neely's Ponzi scheme defrauded investors out of $600,000.00 who for the most part belonged to a church and were led to believe they were investing in a real estate investment trust. Be that as it may, AXA was aware of Mr. Neely's fraudulent activity in 2008 when AXA conducted a yearly audit of him, which revealed a spreadsheet with investor payout information. Mr. Neely falsely claimed that the figures were for a client who wanted to start and budget a business. Mr. Neely eventually pled guilty to mail fraud and converting and commingling funds. Mr. Neely was fired by AXA Advisors in 2009.

A Ponzi scheme is an unsustainable fraud pyramid that inevitably ends in ruin. Schemers use money raised from latter investors or investors higher up the pyramid to pay an earlier investor's returns. Ponzi schemes invariably fall apart when markets deteriorate or when the schemer is unable to raise more cash. According to FINRA, Mr. Neely used his investors' money to pay earlier investors while generating sham invoices, which represented ownership certificates.

Selling away is the inappropriate practice of an investment professional that sells or solicits securities or investments not held or approved by the brokerage firm with which the professional is associated with. Under NASD and FINRA rules, brokerage firms must approve investments offered by their investment professionals and supervise its sales. AXA Advisors can be held liable for Mr. Neely's activities because it either failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system, or because it failed to implement an existing reasonable supervisory system. Even if AXA Advisors did not know of Mr. Neely's activities, it can still be liable to investors for damages for not investigating into Mr. Neely's computer records, lies, and questionable history.

Have you suffered investment losses in Kenneth Neely's Ponzi scheme? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS: FINRA ALERTS EXCHANGE TRADED NOTE (ETN) INVESTORS

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the self-regulatory arm of the U.S. securities brokerage industry, has issued an Investor Alert regarding the features and risks of exchange-traded notes. FINRA and the Securities and Exchange Commission have raised concerns about disclosures and sales practices involving exchange-traded notes, as well as other complex structured products. FINRA enforcement chief Brad Bennett has said that FINRA will bring enforcement actions against firms for unsuitable recommendations of exchange-traded notes.

Earlier this year, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 12-03 to provide broker-dealers with guidance on supervising the sale of complex products that are difficult for retail investors and brokers to understand. The FINRA alert warns that exchange-traded notes often have little or no performance history, their indexes and investment strategies can be quite complex, their returns can be volatile, and the price computed by the issuer can vary significantly from the price in the secondary market. Firms are required to ensure that their marketing materials are fair and include accurate disclosures of all material risks; that registered representatives are properly trained to understand the risks of exchange-traded notes; and that supervisors are able to determine whether or not the sales meet suitability requirements.

Gerri Walsh, FINRA vice president for investor education, said: "ETNs are complex products and can carry a raft of risks. Investors considering ETNs should only invest if they are confident the ETN can help them meet their investment objectives and they fully understand and are comfortable with the risks." Exchange-traded notes present the following risks, among others:

(i) Exchange-traded notes are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer;

(ii) The value of an exchange-traded note is linked to the performance of a reference asset, which can result in a loss of principal to investors;

(iii) Exchange-traded notes are often illiquid because there is often no secondary market;

(iv) The price may vary significantly from closing and intraday indicative values;

(v) Some leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded notes are designed for short-term or day trading, and the performance over a longer term may deviate markedly from the underlying benchmark;

(vi) Some exchange-traded notes are callable at the issuer's discretion; and

(vii) The issuer may engage in trading activities such as shorting strategies that conflict with the interests of investors who hold the notes.

Before deciding whether to invest, investors and their advisers should, at a minimum, know:

(i) The identity, credit rating and financial outlook of the issuer

(ii) The index or benchmark linked to the ETN, and if it is an unfamiliar market or asset class, whether there is sufficient information to properly assess the risks

(iii) Whether the exchange-traded note is callable

(iv) Whether the exchange-traded note is leveraged

(v) Whether the exchange-traded note is inverse to the underlying benchmark, and, if so, how frequently it "resets" (product names that include "daily" and "short-term" may indicate that the product resets daily and is not intended to be held for a longer period)

(vi) The fees and costs of the exchange-traded note, including the investor fee charged in connection with redemptions, and

(vii) The tax consequences, which vary depending on the type of the exchange-traded note.

Exchange-traded notes are not issued by registered investment companies and are not subject to the same registration, disclosure and other regulatory requirements as most mutual funds or exchange traded funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY CORNERSTONE HEALTH CARE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded Cornerstone Health Care REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in the Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Cornerstone Health Care REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that the Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Cornerstone Health Care REIT and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are a Cornerstone Health Care REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

FINRA FINES WELLS FARGO $2 MILLION FOR REVERSE CONVERTIBLE SALES TO SENIORS

The Financial Regulatory Industry Authority (FINRA) has charge former Wells Fargo registered representative Alfred Chi Chen for recommending and selling reverse convertibles and making unauthorized trades in deceased customer accounts. The reverse convertible sales involved 21 customers and 172 accounts. 71% account holders were over 80 years old, and more than half of the accounts had between 50 and 90% of capital in reverse convertibles. Mr. Chen generated $1 million in commission from the sales, which contributed to investors' losses. As a result, FINRA fined Wells Fargo $2 million and ordered that customers receive restitution for unsuitable sales of reverse convertibles and other misconduct, which Wells Fargo ultimately consented to.

Reverse convertibles are alternative investments that are not suitable for all investors. Their complexity is hardly ever understood, and they are oftentimes misrepresented as fixed income products. Reverse convertibles are made of a note and a derivative. The note is a loan by the investor to the issuer that pays an income stream to the investor, while the derivative establishes the payment at maturity. The derivative can either be a put option, which would allow the issuer to sell the underlying derivative or security back to the investor, or it can be a call option, which would allow the issuer the right to buy the underlying security at a predetermined price.

Most investor are not capable of evaluating whether reverse convertibles are suitable investments. What investors should recognize is that reverse convertibles put principal at risk if the price of the underlying security rises above or falls below a predetermined amount. The issuer will either sell or buy the security, which may cause investors to lose a significant amount of principal. However, investors are attracted to reverse convertibles because of their yields; reverse convertibles have average 13% in certain years. This comes as no surprise since yields on CDs and other conservative investments are near all-time lows, and fixed income investors need to generate income to pay bills and keep up with increasing costs. Still, investors must realize that reverse convertibles are not the solution. Rather than chase yields and risk losing hard earned savings, investors need to stick to what is suitable for them in order to avoid financial calamity.

Have you suffered a loss in a reverse convertible? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce atpearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

NO MORE KBS REIT CLASS ACTION

On July 23^rd, KBS REIT investors' lead plaintiff George Stewart withdrew his class action suit against KBS REIT, alleging that KBS made misrepresentations about the REIT, including its investment objectives, the dividend payment policy and the value of the REIT's investments. No reason was given, but the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pointed out the onerous pleading requirements of securities class actions. Perhaps Mr. Stewart will proceed to take his case to arbitration, the more traveled and less bumpy road to resolve investors' disputes. While the pending class action lawsuit against KBS has been withdrawn, investors in KBS can still file FINRA arbitration claims to attempt to recover their losses. In any event, KBS REIT investors will not benefit from his decision and need to take matters in their own hands!

Brokerage firms have a fiduciary duty to their clients to perform adequate due diligence on investments before recommending them to their clients. Based on what is now known about KBS REIT, it appears that the firms that sold the product will be unable to demonstrate that they performed adequate due diligence. Rather, it appears that the firms that sold KBS REIT were more interested in the high commissions selling the investment created (and not whether the investment was appropriate for investors).

KBS REIT I raised $1.7 billion in equity in its initial offering, according to an investor presentation the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March. It has $3.4 billion in property assets, and holds loans and other debt of $2.3 billion. Investors in KBS REIT I were notified in March that the REIT's value would be cut to $5.16 per share, from $7.32, a drop of 29%. The REIT's offering price was $10 per share. It also said it was stopping distributions to investors. Investors have good reason to be upset with KBS REIT, and more reason to complain about the brokers who recommended the investment.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website,www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY STONE & YOUNGBERG MUNICIPAL ADVANTAGE (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Stone & Youngberg Municipal Advantage Fund was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by Stone & Youngberg, LLC. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Stone & Youngberg converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Stone & Youngberg blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to a
ny of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS--FINRA WARNS INVESTORS ABOUT FLOATING RATE BOND FUNDS

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) warns that floating rate bank loans come with significant risks, including potential credit, valuation and liquidity problems. Contrary to popular belief, bank loan funds are more correlated with the stocks than bonds. In good economic times floating rate loans may gain in value, though not nearly as much as stocks. But in bad economic times, funds of floating rate loans may perform worse than junk bond funds ("A Risky Reach for Yield," Bloomberg Businessweek).
The bank loans are typically made to buyout firms. These firms have a practice of "piling debt on to companies they own to extract payouts," which "may reduce the credit-worthiness of borrowers and make defaults more likely," according to the article.

As always, investors and their financial advisors need to carefully assess the risks and the investor's investment objective and risk tolerance before investing.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

INVESTORS NATIONWIDE SHOULD BE CAREFUL INVESTING IN A DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY

Since the stock market crash of 2008, investors have been more susceptible to recommendations by their brokers to buy annuities. This is because brokers represent annuities as a way of guaranteeing income for life, while protecting principal from a market decline. An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. An annuity can be either fixed or variable. Fixed annuities are invested in conservative investments, and the return to investors may vary, but a minimum rate of return is established. Variable annuities are higher in risk when compared to fixed annuities and depend on how the stock market is performing. Variable annuity buyers have the option to allocate the cash invested into different asset classes such as mutual funds, indices, fixed income investments or bonds, and cash.

Annuities can also be subcategorized as immediate or deferred. Immediate annuities offer a stream of cash payments from the moment of annuitization, or the annuity's inception. Deferred variable annuities allow an investor to place cash in different asset classes, which can grow tax deferred if market conditions are favorable. Investors in deferred variable annuities must agree to limit withdrawals to a certain percentage for a specified period of time or pay a penalty.

Investors should be concerned about the risks of owning deferred variable annuities. Apart from being extremely difficult to understand, deferred variable annuities require that the cash invested be locked up for a certain period of time. If investors want to access their cash, the will have to pay a hefty penalty. Also, terms and conditions favorable to insurance companies are hidden in the fine print. Investors are rarely informed of the high sales commissions, surrender costs, and other expenses associated with owning a deferred variable annuity. Furthermore, investors can lose their principal guarantee or guaranteed lifetime income if too much is withdrawn during the deferral period, or if the investor chooses not to annuitize. Last, the touted tax advantages of deferred variable annuities are washed when investors take distributions because they are taxed as ordinary income, not as capital gains.

Have you suffered a loss of principal in your deferred variable annuity? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

SEC FINES OPPENHEIMER $35 MILLION FOR MISREPRESENTING BOND FUNDS

The SEC fined Oppenheimer Funds more than $35 million to settle SEC charges the investment management company and its sales and distribution arm made misleading statements about The Oppenheimer Champion Fund and The Oppenheimer Core Fund. The Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund lost 78 percent in 2008, which is 52 percent more than the average junk bond fund. The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund lost 36 percent in 2008 compared with a 5 percent loss for the average intermediate term bond fund.

According to the SEC, Oppenheimer exposed investors in the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund (a high-yield bond fund) and the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (an intermediate-term, investment-grade fund) to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) by means of derivative instruments known as total return swaps (TRS), which allowed the funds to create exposure to commercial mortgages without purchasing actual bonds.

The TRS contracts also created large amounts of leverage in the funds. In the latter part of 2008, sharp CMBS market declines drove down the net asset values of both funds. Oppenheimer was forced to raise cash to meet TRS contract payment obligations by selling securities into an increasingly illiquid market.
Oppenheimer made misleading statements about the funds' losses and the prospects of a rebound, according to the SEC. For example, Oppenheimer told financial advisers and fund shareholders that the funds had only suffered paper losses, and that the portfolio holdings were intact and would continue paying interest as they waited for markets to recover. In fact, however, the funds had substantially reduced their portfolio holdings to raise cash, resulting in realized investment losses and lost future income from the bonds.

According to Julie Lutz, Associate Director of the SEC's Denver Regional Office, "These Oppenheimer funds had to sell bonds at the worst possible time to raise cash for TRS contract payments and cut their CMBS exposure to limit future losses. Yet, the message that Oppenheimer conveyed to investors was that the funds were maintaining their positions and the losses were recoverable."

Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, was quoted as saying: "Mutual fund providers have an obligation to clearly and accurately convey the strategies and risks of the products they sell. Candor, not wishful thinking, should drive communications with investors, particularly during times of market stress."

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

TEXAS PONZI SCHEMES: INVESTORS SUE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY AND PROVIDENT ROYALTIES

11 investors in Dallas, Texas are suing Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and one of its financial advisers, Delsa Thomas, for running a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is an unsustainable fraud pyramid that inevitably ends in ruin. Schemers use money raised from latter investors or investors higher up the pyramid to pay an earlier investor's returns. Ponzi schemes invariably fall apart when markets deteriorate or when the schemer is unable to raise more cash. The investors alleged that Ms. Thomas took advantage of their trust by suggesting that they invest in Tejas Eagle Financial LLC; Ms. Thomas established an investment range of $125,000.00 to $250,000.00, which was made up of her investors' retirement and savings money. Investors also contended that Ms. Thomas' recommendation was unsuitable and was bound to destroy whatever amount they had invested and that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney breached its duty of care by allowing her to give investment advice that was unsuitable. Damages are being sought under vicarious liability, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision.

On another note, a federal court in Texas has sentenced Joseph Blimine to 20 years for running two oil and gas Ponzi schemes that began in Michigan in 2003. Mr. Blimine and other fraudsters made over $28 million before starting Provident Royalties in 2006 for the purpose of carrying on with their Ponzi scheme in Texas; close to 7,700 investors were defrauded out of over $400 million. Mr. Blimine pled guilty to the criminal charges brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission following a lawsuit against Provident Royalties, Provident Asset Management, and 21 other entities that offered and sold the investment.

Due diligence requires a reasonable investigation of all material facts before entering into an agreement or transaction with another person or entity. It is a measure taken to prevent unnecessary harm to an innocent party. The measure would require an entity offering and selling a security to analyze the legitimacy, nature, and risks associated with the product. An investor in Provident Royalties can claim damages against the entity that sold the investment for not performing its due diligence prior to the offer and sale.

Have you suffered investment losses in the Delsa Thomas or Provident Royalties Ponzi scheme? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that the CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in the CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are a CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

WATCH OUT INVESTORS--FLOATING-RATE BOND FUNDS ARE A "RISKY YIELD PLAY"

According to Jonnelle Marte of the Wall Street Journal, floating rate funds are a "Risky Yield Play." They have significant risks and investors must be aware of the downside. The increased demand for floating rate bonds has the effect of driving down yields. For example, during the credit crunch triple-C-rated companies paid as much as 47 percent for loans, but today that is down to 14 percent. Thus most of the returns have already been made.

Not so obvious is the fact that higher demand also results in looser restrictions for borrowers. These so-called "covenant-lite" loans, which have more relaxed repayment terms that are good for high-risk borrowers but bad for investors, now comprise 20 percent of the market - near the peak of 25 percent in 2007, according to the article.

Investors should be skeptical of the credit quality of floating rate loans. If the economy worsens, investors could experience significant losses.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY BLUE RIVER ADVANTAGED (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Blue River Advantaged Muni Fund I was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by Blue River Asset Management. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Blue River converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Blue River blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

JPMORGAN PUSHED PROPRIETARY FUNDS ON INVESTORS

JPMorgan, one of the nation's largest mutual fund managers, reportedly pushed its proprietary products as other parts of the bank were shrinking. JPMorgan was motivated to put its financial interest ahead of its clients (mostly ordinary investors) by the slump after the financial crisis and the firm's need to make up for lost profits.

The primary benefit to JPMorgan of selling proprietary funds is the fees the firm collects for managing them. The aggressive sales push allowed JPMorgan to gather assets on which to earn fees, despite the industry trend of ordinary investors leaving stock funds in droves, and despite the overall poor performance of its funds. Approximately 42 percent of its funds failed to beat the average performance of funds that make similar investments over the last three years, according to Morningstar.

JPMorgan financial advisers say that they were encouraged to push the firm's proprietary products despite the availability of less expensive, better performing alternatives, and that the firm exaggerated the returns of at least one crucial offering (See "Former Brokers Say JPMorgan Favored Selling Banks' Own Funds Over Others," by Susanne Craig and Jessica Silver-Greenberg).

"I was selling JPMorgan funds that often had weak performance records, and I was doing it for no other reason than to enrich the firm," Geoffrey Tomes, who left JPMorgan last year and is now an adviser at an independent firm, was quoted as saying, adding: "I couldn't call myself objective."

"It said financial adviser on my business card, but that's not what JPMorgan actually let me be," Mathew Goldberg, a former JPMorgan broker was quoted as saying, adding: "I had to be a salesman even if what I was selling wasn't that great."

Many other firms have discontinued offering their own funds because of the conflicts of interest, according to the article, which names Morgan Stanley and Citigroup as having largely exited the business.

One of JPMorgan's core products, Chase Strategic Portfolio, contains a mix of both proprietary and non-proprietary mutual funds. JPMorgan receives an annual fee as high as 1.6 percent of the $20 billion of assets in the Chase Strategic Portfolio, compared with 1% typically charged by an independent investment advisor, and also earns a fee on the underlying JPMorgan funds.

Experts are concerned that JPMorgan is recommending proprietary funds for profit reasons rather than client needs. "There is a real concern about conflicts of interest," Andrew Metrick, a professor at the Yale School of Management, was quoted as saying.

Experts are also concerned that investors are being misled. Marketing materials for the Chase Strategic Portfolio emphasize hypothetical returns when the actual returns are significantly lower.

Advisers are reportedly pressured to recommend the firm's proprietary products by an "intense sales culture." The article relates how one branch supervisor sent a congratulatory note with the header "KABOOM" to an adviser who had persuaded a client to put $75,000 into the Chase Strategic Portfolio with the comment: "Nice to know someone is taking advantage of the best-selling day of the week!" JPMorgan also circulates a list of top-performing brokers.

"It was all about the money, not the client," said Warren Rockmacher, a former JPMorgan broker was quoted as saying, adding that if a customer did not invest in the Chase Strategic Portfolio, a manager would ask him why not.

In summary, pushing proprietary products is a way for the firm to make money at the client's expense. It is incompatible with the image of a "trusted adviser" that firms try to project in their advertising.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

BUYERS OF ANNUITIES IN FLORIDA SHOULD VERIFY THEIR AGENT'S INSURANCE LICENSE

Investors interested in purchasing an annuity in Florida should always verify their agent's state insurance and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority licenses prior to making the investment. Investors should also research the type of annuity they are purchasing so that they can fully understand the risks associated with, and terms of, the annuity. The Florida Department of Insurance is the regulatory body that oversees the sale of annuities in Florida. Prior to purchasing the annuity, investors can do a simple investigation by verifying the insurance company and its agent with the Department.

An annuity is a form of insurance that offers a series of payments for a period of time. Three options are usually provided to investors:

-Fixed Annuities: funds are invested in conservative investments. The return to investors may vary, but a minimum rate of return must be established. Buyers cannot establish their own asset allocation.

-Variable Annuities: are typically higher in risk and depend on how the stock market is performing. Buyers have the option to allocate the cash invested into different types of assets such as mutual funds, indices, fixed income investments or bonds, and cash. Variable annuities do not guarantee principal protection, so investors can lose money if markets deteriorate.

-Equity-Indexed Annuities: are hybrids of fixed and variable annuities. They are more risky that fixed annuities and less risky than variable annuities. Returns are based on market returns, but they also offer a minimum rate of return.

Annuities are not suitable for all investors. Insurance agents should make sure that they understand their client's goals prior to selling an annuity. Investors should also do their own investigation to make sure that they annuity they are interested in fits their needs and risk tolerance.

If an unlicensed insurance agent sold you a fixed, variable, or equity-indexed annuity, you may be able to rescind your contract and recover your lost principal. Call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY CORNERSTONE CORE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded Cornerstone Core Properties REIT have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that the Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Cornerstone Core Properties REIT and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of the REIT. Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are a Cornerstone Core Properties REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

REVERSE CONVERTIBLES POSE A LEGITIMATE RISK FOR INVESTORS NATIONWIDE

Several warnings have been issued over the years by sources such as the Wall Street Journal regarding the risk of investing in reverse convertibles. These risks have now become a reality for many investors who have allocations of the product in their portfolio.

The surge in demand for reverse convertibles began when Wall Street marketed a product with yields between 7 and 25% and very little downside risk. Sales began to soar while demand for fixed income products dropped due to the decline in conventional interest bearing product yields. Small investors purchased $8.5 billion in reverse convertible in 2007 alone. Some of the firms that have offered reverse convertibles include Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Wells Fargo, and ABM AMro Holding NV.

Reverse convertibles are alternative investments that are not suitable for all investors. Their complexity is hardly ever understood, and they are oftentimes misrepresented as fixed income products. Reverse convertibles are made of a note and a derivative. The note is a loan by the investor to the issuer that pays an income stream to the investor, while the derivative establishes the payment at maturity. The derivative can either be a put option, which would allow the issuer to sell the underlying derivative or security back to the investor, or it can be a call option, which would allow the issuer the right to buy the underlying security at a predetermined price. Also, investors may risk capital if they try to sell their reverse convertible prior to its maturity.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sent inquiries to brokerage firms regarding monitoring reverse convertible sales and marketing practices. Still, firms continue to hold out reverse convertibles as safe investments. Some firms even list reverse convertibles under CD alternatives. The NASD has suggested that only investors who are approved to trade options be allowed to purchase reverse convertible, but they pose a risk for even the most sophisticated investors.

Most investor are not capable of evaluating whether reverse convertibles are suitable investments. What investors should recognize though is that reverse convertibles put principal at risk if the price of the underlying security rises above or falls below a predetermined amount. The issuer will either sell or buy the security, which may cause investors to lose a significant amount of principal. However, investors are attracted to reverse convertibles because of their yields; reverse convertibles have average 13% in certain years. This comes as no surprise since yields on CDs and other conservative investments are near all-time lows, and fixed income investors need to generate income to pay bills and keep up with increasing costs. Still, investors must realize that reverse convertibles are not the solution. Rather than chase yields and risk losing hard earned savings, investors need to stick to what is suitable for them in order to avoid financial calamity.

Have you suffered a loss in a reverse convertible? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY ANCHOR CAPITAL (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The Anchor Capital Fund and Anchor Capital Fund II was a so-called municipal arbitrage bond fund created by Anchor Capital Group. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Anchor Capital converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Anchor Capital blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

UTAH LINCOLN FINANCIAL ADVISOR CORP. MANAGER BARRED FROM SECURITIES INDUSTRY FOR SELLING AWAY

Lincoln Financial Advisor Corp. has been ordered by the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to pay $4.43 million in damages and interest to 22 investors for not preventing a brokerage manager from selling away. Scott B. Gordon, now barred from the securities industry by FINRA, ran Healthright Corp. from his Lincoln Financial office in Salt Lake City, Utah for nearly one year until a Healthright investor discovered misstatements and omissions by Mr. Gordon. In its decision, the FINRA panel noted that Lincoln Financial was negligent by not supervising of Mr. Gordon's activities. In fact, a written request by Mr. Gordon to Lincoln Financial seeking permission to conduct outside business activity was completely ignored.

Selling away is the inappropriate practice of an investment professional that sells or solicits securities or investments not held or approved by the brokerage firm with which the professional is associated with. Under NASD and FINRA rules, brokerage firms must approve investments offered by their investment professionals and supervise its sales. Lincoln Financial can be held liable for Mr. Gordon's activities because it either failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system, or because it failed to implement an existing reasonable supervisory system. Even if Lincoln Financial did not know of Mr. Gordon's activities, it can still be liable to investors for damages for failing to prevent Mr. Gordon from using an outside business to raise investor capital.

Are you a Lincoln Financial Advisor Corp. client who invested in Healthright Inc. through Scott B. Gordon? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY INLAND WESTERN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST LOSSES?

Many investors in the non-traded Inland Western REIT (now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc.) have inquired about their ability to recover their losses after learning that their fund is no longer valued as much as they were previously led to believe. As a result, many claims are being filed by Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors for misrepresentation, unsuitable recommendations and/or overconcentrations of their investment funds in Inland Western REIT and other REIT investments to recover their REIT losses.

At first blush, one may think that the best claim is against the Inland Western REIT itself and its management but one needs to remember why they first invested. Undoubtedly, the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investments were recommended by your brokerage firm and financial advisor who have a fiduciary duty to not misrepresent or omit to state important facts, perform due diligence on any REIT and first make sure that the investment is suitable at all for any investor and then specifically ensure that the investment is appropriate in light of the investor's actual age, investment experience, investment objectives, tax and financial condition. If the brokerage firm and its advisor fail in fulfilling any one of these duties under common law and under the FINRA Code of Conduct, investors will have the right to recover their investment losses against them through a FINRA arbitration proceeding and/or court if no arbitration agreement has been executed.

The most common misrepresentation and misleading statement claims that the Inland Western REIT and other REIT investors have been making relate to the risk associated with the non-traded REITs. Many investors have complained that Inland Western REIT and other REITs were not adequately represented before purchase and that they did not know the real truth about the valuations, performance, prospects, liquidity, or distribution and redemption practices of management relating to their investment. Many elderly investors seeking income were overconcentrated in Inland Western REITs and other REITs because they needed income. Sadly they learned too late that there were no guarantees that distributions would be made. Some REIT investors have just learned that they would no longer be receiving distributions or that the distributions they actually received were derived from loans and not the true cash flow of  the REIT.  Brokerage firms and their financial advisors were eager to push REIT investments on their clients for the high commissions compared to other products. Unfortunately, many investors are locked in and unable to sell their REIT investments without suffering without selling into deeply discounted secondary market for some other REIT investments. If you are an Inland Western REIT investor with the same complaints, we believe we can help you recover your REIT losses!

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

FLORIDA TD BANK AIDED AND ABETTED ROTHSTEIN IN PONZI SCHEME

A jury has awarded Texas-based Coquina Investments $67 million against TD bank for its involvement in Scott Rothstein's $1.2 Billion Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein, the once-high flying South Florida attorney, pleaded guilty in 2010 for defrauding investors out of $1.2 Billion from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Rothstein told investors that they were purchasing interests in settlements involving sexual and employment discrimination, which was later discovered to be a sham. Coquina alleged that TD Bank officers assisted Mr. Rothstein by meeting with victims and telling them that the business was legitimate and that the scam could not have worked without TD Bank's assistance.

A Ponzi scheme is an unsustainable fraud pyramid that inevitably ends in ruin. Schemers use money raised from latter investors or investors higher up the pyramid to pay an earlier investor's returns. Ponzi schemes invariably fall apart when markets deteriorate or when the schemer is unable to raise more cash. In Mr. Rothstein's case, earlier investors were issued returns with money accumulated from new investors. TD bank provided Mr. Rothstein with documents to disguise the scheme and bring in new investors, keep investors involved, and get investors to reinvest.

An investor can claim damages against an entity charged with aiding and abetting a crime. An agent of the charged entity does not have to be present when the crime was being committed, but he or she knows of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in the crime's completion through advice, actions, or financial support. TD Bank may be liable to investors for aiding and abetting due to its involvement in the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme.

Have you suffered investment losses due to TD Bank's involvement in Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.

CAN I RECOVER MY MAT (MUNICIPAL ARBITRAGE) FUND LOSSES?

The MAT funds were so-called municipal arbitrage bond funds created by Citigroup Alternative Investments and marketed by Smith Barney Financial Advisors to their best customers. It was called an "arbitrage" fund and many investors were misled into believing that it was relatively risk free, a safe or conservative investment fund. But it was nothing of the sort. It was a highly leveraged and speculative structured credit product that many believe to have been misrepresented and mismanaged.

The so-called municipal bond "arbitrage" strategy was a very complex investment strategy involving multiple investments in the tax exempt and taxable fixed income markets. The fund managers invested in long tax exempt municipal bonds and, in effect, shorted the equivalent of taxable corporate bonds utilizing libor swap contracts and swaptions. The key to the success of the strategy was "market timing" and the "continued correlation" of the tax exempt municipal bond yields and the libor swap contract yields. It was originally used by many banks as a short term trading strategy. But many firms like Citigroup converted it to a flawed long term buy and hold strategy to maximize their own sales commissions and management fees.

In August 2007, the handwriting was on the wall for the "muni-arbitrage" funds. It was time to sell not buy. It was not the time to launch new funds or increase the leverage of the funds. The "continued correlation" of the tax-exempt and taxable fixed income market yields had collapsed. The lack of correlation and the high leverage was a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless the "muni-arbitrage" fund managers proceeded with the investment strategy full steam in derogation of their fiduciary duties to investors.

Smith Barney blamed the unforeseen and unprecedented market conditions as the reason for the collapse of the so-called "muni-arbitrage" funds in 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth, the funds were rocked in August 2007 and fund managers were put on clear notice of the dangerous market conditions and risk of loss. The real cause of the collapse was the fund managers' reckless disregard of the key factors of the strategy, "correlation" and "market timing," in relation to market conditions. As a result, many investors have commenced arbitration proceedings and recovered their losses due to misrepresentations and mismanagement of the so-called muni-arbitrage funds.

The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at pearce@rwpearce.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.