Friday, May 31, 2013

DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES CENSURED AND FINED FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER PROSPECTUSES TO INVESTORS

Deutsche Bank Securities submitted a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered findings that the firm failed to deliver on time, or failed to ensure that its service provider delivered on time, prospectuses to customers who purchased mutual funds, when in many instances the firm's customers who should have received a prospectus within three business days of the transaction did not. FINRA also found that the firm failed to deliver preliminary IPO prospectuses to certain customers who indicated interest in initial public offerings (IPOs). Deutsche Bank Securities was censured and fined $125,000 after FINRA took into account the fact that the firm self-reported the failures to deliver preliminary IPO prospectuses, self-reported to FINRA that its Global Markets Division did not deliver preliminary IPO prospectuses to certain customers, and took remedial action to correct the non-delivery of the prospectuses.
A prospectus is a document that discloses important information about an investment. It typically provides investors with material information about mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and other investments. Such information generally includes a description of the company's business, financial statements, biographies of officers and directors, detailed information about their compensation, any litigation that is taking place, a list of material properties, and any other material information. In the case of an initial public offering (IPO), a prospectus is required to be delivered by underwriters or brokerage firms to potential investors.
Regarding the mutual fund prospectuses, FINRA's findings stated that Deutsche Bank Securities' clearing firm contracted with a third-party service for the delivery of mutual fund prospectuses for all the clearing firm's introducing brokers, including the Deutsche Bank Securities. On a daily basis, the clearing firm provided the service provider with electronic information pertaining to mutual fund transactions requiring delivery of a prospectus to the firm's customers - they also provided daily and monthly reports to Deutsche Bank Securities. The clearing firm also provided Deutsche Bank Securities with a daily report that identified late prospectus deliveries, including the number of days late and the reason for delay, but the report was never reviewed. FINRA's findings also stated that because of Deutsche Bank Securities' failure to deliver prospectuses on time to a number of customers who purchased mutual funds, these customers were not provided with important information about these products by settlement date. In addition, FIRNA's findings included that the firm failed to implement and maintain a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (WSPs) reasonably designed to ensure that mutual fund prospectuses were being delivered on a timely basis. Deutsche Bank Securities' WSPs did not require review of the reports provided by its clearing firm that identified late prospectus deliveries and did not require firm personnel to communicate with the service provider. Instead, Deutsche Bank Securities relied upon its clearing firm to ensure the timely delivery of mutual fund prospectuses.
Regarding the IPO prospectuses, FINRA found that Deutsche Bank Securities failed to deliver preliminary IPO prospectuses to customers interested in IPOs. The main cause was the failure of employees within the firm's Global Markets Division to utilize the electronic system designed to ensure delivery of preliminary prospectuses. Because of the Deutsche Bank Securities' failure to deliver preliminary IPO prospectuses to a number of customers interested in purchasing shares in IPOs, these customers were not provided with important disclosures about these products until after they had purchased the shares. FINRA also found that Deutsche Bank Securities was required to establish and maintain a supervisory system and WSPs reasonably designed to monitor and ensure the timely delivery of IPO prospectuses. The Deutsche Bank Securities' systems and procedures were not reasonably designed to ensure that preliminary IPO prospectuses were being delivered to every customer, and therefore failed to implement and maintain such a supervisory system and WSPs.
Have you suffered losses in your Deutsche Bank Securities brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Deutsche Bank Securities stockbrokers who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors 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.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

CAPITOL SECURITIES MANAGEMENT CENSURED AND FINED FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER PROSPECTUSES TO INVESTORS

Capitol Securities Management, a firm based in Glenn Allen, Virginia, consented to the Financial Industry Regulatory Industry's (FINRA) findings that the firm did not have written procedures covering the delivery of exchange-traded fund (ETF) or unit investment trust (UIT) prospectuses. FINRA stated that the firm entered into an agreement with a company for delivery of ETF and UIT prospectuses, but it remained the firm's responsibility to review each transaction and verify that a prospectus was properly delivered when required. Capitol Securities Management submitted a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent and paid $25,000 to put an end to FINRA's investigation.
A prospectus is a document that discloses important information about an investment. It typically provides investors with material information about mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and other investments. Such information generally includes a description of the company's business, financial statements, biographies of officers and directors, detailed information about their compensation, any litigation that is taking place, a list of material properties, and any other material information. In the case of an initial public offering (IPO), a prospectus is required to be delivered by underwriters or brokerage firms to potential investors.
ETFs are investment funds that are traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks. An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index and are attractive investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. By owning an ETF, investors benefit from the diversification of an index fund as well as the ability to purchase as little as one share. In addition, expense ratios for most ETFs are lower than those of the average mutual fund. When buying and selling ETFs, investors pay the same commission to their brokers that they would pay on any regular stock order.
UITs are one of three types of investment companies - the other two are mutual funds and closed-end funds - that offer a fixed, unmanaged portfolio, of stocks and bonds, as redeemable "units" to investors for a specific period of time. They are designed to provide capital appreciation and/or dividend income. Each unit typically costs $1,000 and can be resold in the secondary market. A UIT may be either a regulated investment corporation or a grantor trust. The former is a corporation in which the investors are joint owners, and the latter grants investors proportional ownership in the UIT's underlying securities.
In this case, FINRA found that the delivery company made available daily and monthly exception reports through its online report center to help Capitol Securities Management with its delivery obligations. The reports listed all prospectuses not delivered on a trade date and the reason each prospectus was not delivered. However, Capitol Securities Management failed to review the exception reports the company provided and failed to review or monitor the functions it delegated to the company. Therefore the firm failed to deliver the required prospectuses in connection with the ETF and UIT purchases.
Have you suffered losses in your Capitol Securities Management brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Capitol Securities Management stockbrokers who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors 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.

Monday, May 27, 2013

FORMER OBSIDIAN FINANCIAL GROUP STOCKBROKER MARK CHRISTOPHER HOTTON NAMED IN FINRA COMPLAINT FOR MISCONDUCT

Former Obsidian Financial Group registered representative Mark Christopher Hotton was named in a Financial Industry Regulatory Industry (FINRA) complaint alleging that while he was employed by Oppenheimer, he improperly used and converted $5,932,000 of customer funds, without his customers knowledge or consent, for his own use and benefit, and caused at least an additional $2,584,078 to be wired from the customers' Oppenheimer accounts to his outside business activities and individual affiliates. Mr. Hotton was allegedly employed by or accepted compensation from outside business entities, which was outside the scope of his relationship with Oppenheimer. Unfortunately, this is not the first set of complaints filed against Mr. Hotton for stock broker misconduct. Numerous customer complaints alleging similar misconduct that go as far back as 1997 were filed against Mr. Hutton while he was employed by American Capital Partners, Oppenheimer, Ladenburg Thalmann, and M.S. Farrell.
In its complaint, FINRA alleges that Mr. Hotton forged and falsified numerous documents and made numerous misrepresentations, verbal and written, to his customers, his firm, and others to further his fraudulent scheme. In addition, the complaint alleges that Hotton provided customers with fabricated statements for a non-existent account at an entity and false written statements about the value of their investments with him. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Hotton exercised control over customers' accounts; recommended and executed transactions that were excessive and unsuitable in light of customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation; loaned $250,000 to firm customers with notifying and receiving written authorization from the firm; he falsely testified during an on-the-record testimony about numerous topics in response to FINRA's questions; he provided FINRA with false statements and claims after authorities made a request for information and documents; and acted with intent to defraud or with reckless disregard for the customers' interests and for the purpose of generating commissions.
Regarding Hotton's U4, FINRA's complaint alleges that he submitted various U4 Forms but failed to disclose his engagement in a number of entities while employed by Oppenheimer; he willfully failed to make any disclosure on his U4 of several legal actions against him, or the settlement of those actions - Hotton failed to disclose that information even after the NASD instructed him to do so; he failed to timely amend his U4 to disclose the commencement of a federal action against him, or the temporary restraining order granted in that action; and when he finally amended his Form U4 to disclose the federal action, he falsely described the action as a business dispute between business partners.
Mr. Hotton also allegedly committed numerous acts of misconduct in clients' accounts and violated his customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA's complaint states that Hotton executed hundreds of unauthorized trades in customers' accounts without his customers' knowledge, consent, or authorization. FINRA claims that Hotton's customers neither gave Hotton prior written authorization to exercise discretionary powers in their accounts, nor did they give Hotton verbal discretionary power. One of Hotton's customers specifically stated that he was not interested in risky or speculative trading, but Hutton still recommended investments that were contrary to the customer's investment objectives and financial situation. Some of the risky investments recommended were leveraged on inverse exchange traded funds or ETFs, which Hotton did not completely understand. In particular, Hotton did not understand or explain to his clients that the long-term return of a leveraged or inverse ETF can substantially deviate from the underlying index. Therefore, Hotton failed to satisfy the reasonable basis suitability requirement in connection with his investment recommendations.
Have you suffered losses in your Obsidian Financial Group brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Obsidian Financial Group stockbrokers who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors 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.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

FORMER ALEXANDER CAPITAL STOCKBROKER MARK CHRISTOPHER HOTTON NAMED IN FINRA COMPLAINT FOR MISCONDUCT

Former Alexander Capital registered principal Mark Christopher Hotton was named in a Financial Industry Regulatory Industry (FINRA) complaint alleging that while he was employed by Oppenheimer, he improperly used and converted $5,932,000 of customer funds, without his customers knowledge or consent, for his own use and benefit, and caused at least an additional $2,584,078 to be wired from the customers' Oppenheimer accounts to his outside business activities and individual affiliates. Mr. Hotton was allegedly employed by or accepted compensation from outside business entities, which was outside the scope of his relationship with Oppenheimer. Unfortunately, this is not the first set of complaints filed against Mr. Hotton for stock broker misconduct. Numerous customer complaints alleging similar misconduct that go as far back as 1997 were filed against Mr. Hutton while he was employed by American Capital Partners, Oppenheimer, Ladenburg Thalmann, and M.S. Farrell.
In its complaint, FINRA alleges that Mr. Hotton forged and falsified numerous documents and made numerous misrepresentations, verbal and written, to his customers, his firm, and others to further his fraudulent scheme. In addition, the complaint alleges that Hotton provided customers with fabricated statements for a non-existent account at an entity and false written statements about the value of their investments with him. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Hotton exercised control over customers' accounts; recommended and executed transactions that were excessive and unsuitable in light of customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation; loaned $250,000 to firm customers with notifying and receiving written authorization from the firm; he falsely testified during an on-the-record testimony about numerous topics in response to FINRA's questions; he provided FINRA with false statements and claims after authorities made a request for information and documents; and acted with intent to defraud or with reckless disregard for the customers' interests and for the purpose of generating commissions.
Regarding Hotton's U4, FINRA's complaint alleges that he submitted various U4 Forms but failed to disclose his engagement in a number of entities while employed by Oppenheimer; he willfully failed to make any disclosure on his U4 of several legal actions against him, or the settlement of those actions - Hotton failed to disclose that information even after the NASD instructed him to do so; he failed to timely amend his U4 to disclose the commencement of a federal action against him, or the temporary restraining order granted in that action; and when he finally amended his Form U4 to disclose the federal action, he falsely described the action as a business dispute between business partners.
Mr. Hotton also allegedly committed numerous acts of misconduct in clients' accounts and violated his customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA's complaint states that Hotton executed hundreds of unauthorized trades in customers' accounts without his customers' knowledge, consent, or authorization. FINRA claims that Hotton's customers neither gave Hotton prior written authorization to exercise discretionary powers in their accounts, nor did they give Hotton verbal discretionary power. One of Hotton's customers specifically stated that he was not interested in risky or speculative trading, but Hutton still recommended investments that were contrary to the customer's investment objectives and financial situation. Some of the risky investments recommended were leveraged on inverse exchange traded funds or ETFs, which Hotton did not completely understand. In particular, Hotton did not understand or explain to his clients that the long-term return of a leveraged or inverse ETF can substantially deviate from the underlying index. Therefore, Hotton failed to satisfy the reasonable basis suitability requirement in connection with his investment recommendations.
Have you suffered losses in your Alexander Capital brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Alexander Capital stockbrokers who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors 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.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

FORMER AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS STOCKBROKER MARK CHRISTOPHER HOTTON NAMED IN STOCKBROKER MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS

Former American Capital Partners registered representative Mark Christopher Hotton was the subject of two filed complaints, which allege fraudulent activity and industry violations in connection with his sales practice while employed with the firm. One complaint alleged that Mr. Hotton transferred $365,000 of his client's cash without his client's authorization. Although American Capital Partners denied all the claims, it settled the case without hesitation attributing their decision to the cost of defending the case. Another complaint filed alleges that a client invested in two real estate development projects and an initial public offering (IPO) based on Mr. Hotton's misrepresentations about the investments. The case is currently pending resolution in New York. Unfortunately, these were not the first set complaints filed against Mr. Hotton for misconduct while acting as a registered representative. Numerous complaints alleging similar misconduct that go as far back as 1997 were filed against Mr. Hutton while he was employed by Oppenheimer, Ladenburg Thalmann, and M.S. Farrell.
In fact, Mr. Hotton was recently named in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) complaint alleging that he improperly used and converted $5,932,000 of customer funds, without his customers knowledge or consent, for his own use and benefit, and caused at least an additional $2,584,078 to be wired from his customers' Oppenheimer accounts to his outside business activities and individual affiliates. The complaint alleges that while Mr. Hotton was employed by Oppenheimer, he was either employed by or accepted compensation from outside business entities, which were outside the scope of his relationship with Oppenheimer. Also, the complaint alleges that Mr. Hotton submitted various U4 Forms but failed to disclose his engagement in a number of entities while employed by Oppenheimer. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Hotton forged and falsified numerous documents and made numerous misrepresentations, verbal and written, to his customers, his firm, and others to further his fraudulent scheme. In addition, the complaint alleges that Hotton provided customers with fabricated statements for a non-existent account at an entity and false written statements about the value of their investments with him. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Hotton exercised control over customers' accounts; recommended and executed transactions that were excessive and unsuitable in light of customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation; loaned $250,000 to firm customers with notifying and receiving written authorization from the firm; and acted with intent to defraud or with reckless disregard for the customers' interests and for the purpose of generating commissions.
FINRA also alleged that during Hotton's on-the-record testimony, he falsely testified about numerous topics in response to FINRA's questions. Hotton also allegedly provided FINRA with false statements and claims after authorities made a request for information and documents. Regarding Hotton's U4, the complaint alleges that he willfully failed to make any disclosure on his U4 of several legal actions against him, or the settlement of those actions - he failed to disclose that information even after the NASD instructed him to do so; he failed to timely amend his U4 to disclose the commencement of a federal action against him, or the temporary restraining order granted in that action; and when he finally amended his Form U4 to disclose the federal action, he falsely described the action as a business dispute between business partners.
Mr. Hotton also allegedly committed numerous acts of misconduct in clients' accounts and violated his customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA's complaint states that Hotton executed hundreds of unauthorized trades in customers' accounts without his customers' knowledge, consent, or authorization. FINRA claims that Hotton's customers neither gave Hotton prior written authorization to exercise discretionary powers in their accounts, nor did they give Hotton verbal discretionary power. One of Hotton's customers specifically stated that he was not interested in risky or speculative trading, but Hutton still recommended investments that were contrary to the customer's investment objectives and financial situation. Some of the risky investments recommended were leveraged on inverse exchange traded funds or ETFs, which Hotton did not completely understand. In particular, Hotton did not understand or explain to his clients that the long-term return of a leveraged or inverse ETF can substantially deviate from the underlying index. Therefore, Hotton failed to satisfy the reasonable basis suitability requirement in connection with his investment recommendations.
Have you suffered losses in your American Capital Partners brokerage account or anywhere else? Was Mr. Hutton your stockbroker at any firm? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation and account review. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against American Capital Partners stockbrokers, including Mr. Hotton, who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors 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.

Friday, May 24, 2013

FORMER OPPENHEIMER REGISTERED PRINCIPAL MARK CHRISTOPHER HOTTON NAMED IN FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING FRAUDULENT ACTS AND SUITABILITY OBLIGATION VIOLATIONS

Former Oppenheimer registered principal Mark Christopher Hotton was named in a Financial Industry Regulatory Industry (FINRA) complaint alleging that he improperly used and converted $5,932,000 of customer funds, without his customers knowledge or consent, for his own use and benefit, and caused at least an additional $2,584,078 to be wired from the customer accounts to his outside business activities and individual affiliates. The complaint alleges that while Mr. Hotton was employed by Oppenheimer, he was either employed by or accepted compensation from outside business entities, which were outside the scope of his relationship with Oppenheimer. Also, the complaint alleges that Mr. Hotton submitted various U4 Forms but failed to disclose his engagement in a number of entities while employed by Oppenheimer. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Hotton forged and falsified numerous documents and made numerous misrepresentations, verbal and written, to his customers, his firm, and others to further his fraudulent scheme. In addition, the complaint alleges that Hotton provided customers with fabricated statements for a non-existent account at an entity and false written statements about the value of their investments with him. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Hotton exercised control over customers' accounts; recommended and executed transactions that were excessive and unsuitable in light of customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation; loaned $250,000 to firm customers with notifying and receiving written authorization from the firm; and acted with intent to defraud or with reckless disregard for the customers' interests and for the purpose of generating commissions.
FINRA also alleged that during Hotton's on-the-record testimony, he falsely testified about numerous topics in response to FINRA's questions. Hotton also and allegedly provided FINRA with false statements and claims after authorities made a request for information and documents. Regarding Hotton's U4, the complaint alleges that he willfully failed to make any disclosure on his U4 of several legal actions against him, or the settlement of those actions - he failed to disclose that information even after the NASD instructed him to do so; he failed to timely amend his U4 to disclose the commencement of a federal action against him, or the temporary restraining order granted in that action; and when he finally amended his Form U4 to disclose the federal action, he falsely described the action as a business dispute between business partners.
Mr. Hotton also allegedly committed numerous acts of misconduct in clients' accounts and violated his customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA's complaint states that Hotton executed hundreds of unauthorized trades in customers' accounts without his customers' knowledge, consent, or authorization. FINRA claims that Hotton's customers neither gave Hotton prior written authorization to exercise discretionary powers in their accounts, nor did they give Hotton verbal discretionary power. One of Hotton's customers specifically stated that he was not interested in risky or speculative trading, but Hutton still recommended investments that were contrary to the customer's investment objectives and financial situation. Some of the risky investments recommended were leveraged on inverse exchange traded funds or ETFs, which Hotton did not completely understand. In particular, Hotton did not understand or explain to his clients that the long-term return of a leveraged or inverse ETF can substantially deviate from the underlying index. Therefore, Hotton failed to satisfy the reasonable basis suitability requirement in connection with his investment recommendations.
Have you suffered losses in your Oppenheimer brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Oppenheimer stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

FORMER PROVIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT WHOLESALERS CHARLES TUTTLE MASON AKA CHIP MASON AND DARREN DUANE GIBSON FINED AND SUSPENDED FOR SELLING UNREGISTERED INVESTMENTS

Former Provident Asset Management wholesalers Charles Tuttle Mason aka Chip Mason and Darren Duane Gibson consented to the entry of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) findings that while employed as wholesalers at Provident Asset Management, they actively promoted Shale Royalties, a series of private placement oil and gas offerings, through Provident Royalties, a non-registered entity, to retail broker-dealers through sales presentations and marketing materials. The findings stated that Mr. Gibson secured selling agreements from retail broker-dealers, who raised more than $300 million from investors. Mr. Gibson earned a total of $2,930,000 for his efforts. The findings also stated that Mr. Mason secured selling agreements from broker-dealers, who raised more than $132 million from investors. Mr. Gibson earned $1,500,000 for his efforts. In addition, FINRA's findings included that Mr. Mason and Mr. Gibson provided the retail brokers with sales and marketing materials and product training, which were used to encourage individual investors to purchase the offering.
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.
In this case, Mr. Mason and Mr. Gibson read most of the third-party due diligence reports pertaining to the Shale Royalties offerings. However, many of the reports raised concerns about the accounting of inter-offering transactions and the ability of the offerings to generate sufficient revenue from oil and gas investments. Mr. Mason and Mr. Gibson, though aware of the concerns raised in the due diligence reports, continued to actively market the offerings without having adequately investigated such concerns and determining whether the offerings were suitable for investors.
Have you suffered losses resulting from misconduct by a Provident Asset Management investment professional? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Provident Asset Management investment professionals who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

WRP INVESTMENTS INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

WRP Investments is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. WRP Investments is headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio and reportedly has over 370 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Most of the WRP Investments registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your WRP Investments brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against WRP Investments stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

WOODBURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Woodbury Financial Services is a subsidiary of the AIG Insurance Company. It is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Woodbury Financial Services is headquartered in Oakdale, Minnesota and reportedly has over 2300 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Woodbury Financial Services registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Woodbury Financial Services brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against Woodbury Financial Services stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Monday, May 20, 2013

WILLIAMS FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Williams Financial Group is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Williams Financial Group is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and reportedly has over 260 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Williams Financial Group registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Williams Financial Group brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Williams Financial Group stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

WELLS FARGO ADVISORS FINANCIAL NETWORK INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri and reportedly has over 1000 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

WALL STREET FINANCIAL INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Wall Street Financial is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Wall Street Financial is headquartered in Fairport, New York and reportedly has over 170 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Wall Street Financial registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Wall Street Financial brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Wall Street Financial stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Friday, May 17, 2013

WALNUT STREET SECURITIES INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Walnut Street Securities, Inc. is a subsidiary of the MetLife Broker-Dealer Group, which is owned by the Metropolitan Insurance Company. It is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Walnut Street Securities is headquartered in New York City and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Walnut Street Securities registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Walnut Street Securities brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Walnut Street Securities stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

WADDELL REED INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Waddell Reed is a subsidiary of Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. It is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Waddell Reed is headquartered in Overland, Kansas and reportedly has over 2000 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Most of the Waddell Reed registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Waddell Reed brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Waddell Reed stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

UNITED PLANNERS FINANCIAL SERVICES INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

United Planners Financial Services is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. United Planners Financial Services is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and reportedly has over 300 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the United Planners Financial Services registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your United Planners Financial Services brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against United Planners Financial Services stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

TRUSTMONT FINANCIAL INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Trustmont Financial Group, Inc. is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Trustmont Financial is headquartered in Greensburg, Pennsylvania and reportedly has over 170 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Most of the Trustmont Financial registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Trustmont Financial brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Trustmont Financial stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Monday, May 13, 2013

TRIAD ADVISORS INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Triad Advisors, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Ladenburg Thallmann Financial Services, Inc.. It is a mid-size independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Triad Advisors is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Triad Advisors registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Triad Advisors brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is accepting clients with valid claims against Triad Advisors stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL ADVISORS INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Transamerica Insurance Company. It is one of the largest independent broker-dealers whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Royal Alliance is headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida and reportedly has over 1300 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Transamerica Financial Advisors registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Transamerica Financial Advisors brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against Transamerica Financial Advisors stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

SYNERGY INVESTMENT GROUP INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Synergy Investment Group is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Synergy Investment Group is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina and reportedly has over 80 registered representatives across the state operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Synergy Investment Group registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Synergy Investment Group brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against Synergy Investment Group stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

SUMMIT BROKERAGE SERVICES INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. It is a small independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. Summit Brokerage Services is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida and reportedly has over 300 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the Summit Brokerage Services registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your Summit Brokerage Services brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against Summit Brokerage Services stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.

Friday, May 10, 2013

SII INVESTMENTS INVESTOR ALERT - LAX SUPERVISION OF INDEPENDENT BROKERS CAN CAUSE LOSSES

SII Investments, Inc. is a subsidiary of National Planning holdings, Inc. It is a mid-size independent broker-dealer whose business model is akin to a franchise operation. SII Investments is headquartered in Appleton, Wisconsin and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices. Its growth in recent years can largely be attributed to layoffs at the major wire houses due to the most recent financial market meltdown. Most of the SII Investments registered representatives' gross production of revenues is less than $300,000 per year. Its branch offices are largely comprised of small producers earning commissions at higher pay out rates than the major full-service brokerage firms, a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting investors' rights.
Independent broker-dealers are notorious for their lax supervisory practices and procedures. The business model of these franchise type operations is to open many offices nationwide for steady growth of fixed monthly revenues without the costs attendant to a full-service branch office with on-site manager, compliance officer and operation personnel. The registered representatives of these independent broker-dealers generally operate as separately incorporated businesses. They are not employees of the broker-dealer and therefore not controlled in the same manner as full-service brokerage firm representatives. The registered representatives control their structure and costs to maximize profits and often leave the protection of investors' rights and interests as their lowest priority.
The typical supervisory organization of independent broker-dealer operations is to have other independent contractors operate Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) to monitor the registered representatives from geographically remote offices and then report to the main franchisor's compliance office at national headquarters. The supervisors at the OSJs are not employees of the franchisor and often run their own brokerage, insurance and other businesses. They are not devoted full-time supervisors of the smaller branch offices. Consequently, OSJ managers cannot and do not supervise the day-to-day operations of the registered representatives of these Independent broker-dealers.
Generally, there is no immediate review of new accounts opened, securities transactions, business records, cash or securities receipts and deliveries, correspondence and business activities unrelated to the securities brokerage operation at these independent brokerage firms. The lax supervision leaves investors who have transferred their accounts to the smaller independent broker-dealer vulnerable to sales of securities that have not been reviewed or authorized by anyone other than the sales representative earning a commission. There may be no one onsite to detect forgeries of clients' signatures on documents, the placement of inaccurate information about a client's investment objectives and financial condition to document the suitability of a particular investment recommendation. Oftentimes there is no daily review of sales literature and client correspondence to protect against misrepresentations and misleading statements being made to investors. In fact, it is not unusual for there to be only one compliance audit visit per year at many of these offices. These Independent brokerage business operations are worrisome to the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), which has documented more instances of sales abuse and consequently investor losses at these firms.
Have you suffered losses in your SII Investments brokerage account? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against SII Investments stockbrokers who engaged in stock brokerage misconduct and caused investors 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.