SIGMA FINANCIAL CORP. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Sigma Financial Corp. CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Sigma Financial is a mid-size independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Sigma Financial is headquartered in New York City and reportedly has over 600 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.

Sigma Financial, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.

Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Sigma Financial was Mandatory

Sigma Financial and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."

Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.

It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.

Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.

All of this begs the question: Did Sigma Financial perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Sigma Financial perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Sigma Financial to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.

Sigma Financial was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis

Sigma Financial was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.

For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!

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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

SAMMONS SECURITIES COMPANY LLC - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Sammons Securities Company LLC ("Sammons Securities"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Sammons Securities is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Sammons Securities is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Sammons Securities, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Sammons Securities was Mandatory
Sammons Securities and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Sammons Securities perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Sammons Securities perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Sammons Securities to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Sammons Securities was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Sammons Securities was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

ROYAL SECURITIES COMPANY- CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Royal Securities Company ("Royal Securities"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Royal Securities is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Royal Securities is headquartered in Grandville, Michigan and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Royal Securities, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Royal Securities was Mandatory
Royal Securities and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Royal Securities perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Royal Securities perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Royal Securities to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Royal Securities was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Royal Securities was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, RBC Capital Markets LLC ("RBC Capital"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. RBC Capital is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. RBC Capital is headquartered in New York, New York and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
RBC Capital, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by RBC Capital was Mandatory
RBC Capital and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did RBC Capital perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did RBC Capital perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against RBC Capital to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
RBC Capital was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
RBC Capital was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Northland Securities, Inc. CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Northland Securities is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Northland Securities is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Northland Securities, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Northland Securities was Mandatory
Northland Securities and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Northland Securities perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Northland Securities perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Northland Securities to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Northland Securities was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Northland Securities was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

INVESTORS CAPITAL CORP. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Investors Capital Corp. CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Investors Capital is a mid-size independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Investors Capital is headquartered in Lynnfield, Massachesetts and reportedly has over 500 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.

Investors Capital, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.

Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Investors Capital was Mandatory

Investors Capital and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."

Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.

It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.

Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.

All of this begs the question: Did Investors Capital perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Investors Capital perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Investors Capital to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.

Investors Capital was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis

Investors Capital was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.

For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!

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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

INTERVEST INTERNATIONAL EQUITIES CORP. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Intervest International Equities Corp. ("Intervest International"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Intervest International is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Intervest International is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Intervest International, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Intervest International was Mandatory
Intervest International and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Intervest International perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Intervest International perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Intervest International to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Intervest International was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Intervest International was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

FINANCIAL WEST GROUP - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Financial West Group ("Financial West"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Financial West is a mid-size independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Financial West is headquartered in Westlake Village, California and reportedly has over 340 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.

Financial West, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.

Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Financial West was Mandatory

Financial West and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."

Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.

It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.

Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.

All of this begs the question: Did Financial West perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Financial West perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Financial West to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.

Financial West was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis

Financial West was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.

For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!

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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

HARVEST CAPITAL LLC - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC (“CLFA”) through an independent broker-dealer, Harvest Capital LLC.  CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably.  Harvest Capital is one of the smaller independent broker-dealers in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients.  Harvest Capital is headquartered in Wethersfield, Connecticut and reportedly has over 70 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.

Harvest Capital, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rules to  conduct “due diligence,” that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer’s representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the “suitability” of this investment for any and all of its clients.

Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Harvest Capital was Mandatory

Harvest Capital and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer’s attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. (“PCCI”) to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent “conflict of interest.” 

Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a “red flag” and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry.  All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any “red flags” that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management.  When presented with “red flags,” the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer’s management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer’s counsel or some third party expert.

It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it’s principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering. 

Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities.  Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules.  It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic. 

All of this begs the question: Did Harvest Capital perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Harvest Capital perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Harvest Capital to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.

Harvest Capital was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis

Harvest Capital was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer.  This analysis has two principal components.  First, the “reasonable basis” suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors.  If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor.  Second, the “customer specific suitability” analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended.  This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor’s stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition.  Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.

For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount!  If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment.  Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable.  The suitability problem is compounded when any investors’ portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone’s investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!

Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered! 

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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

EQUITY SERVICES, INC. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Equity Services, Inc. CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Equity Services is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Equity Services is headquartered in Montpelier, Vermont and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Equity Services, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Equity Services was Mandatory
Equity Services and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Equity Services perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Equity Services perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Equity Services to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Equity Services was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Equity Services was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

CASCADE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Cascade Financial Management, Inc. ("Cascade Financial"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Cascade Financial is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Cascade Financial is headquartered in Denver, Colorado and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Cascade Financial, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Cascade Financial was Mandatory
Cascade Financial and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Cascade Financial perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Cascade Financial perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Cascade Financial to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Cascade Financial was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Cascade Financial was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

ADVISORY GROUP EQUITY SERVICES, LTD. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Advisory Group Equity Services, Ltd.  CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Advisory Group Equity Services is an independent broker-dealer in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Advisory Group Equity Services is headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts and reportedly has registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Advisory Group Equity Services, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Advisory Group Equity Services was Mandatory
Advisory Group Equity Services and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Advisory Group Equity Services perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Advisory Group Equity Services perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Ameritas to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Advisory Group Equity Services was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Advisory Group Equity Services was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.

AMERITAS INVESTMENT CORP. - CIP LEVERAGED FUND ADVISORS, LLC - INVESTOR ALERT!

Many investors have purchased CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors, LLC ("CLFA") through an independent broker-dealer, Ameritas Investment Corp. ("Ameritas"). CLFA was supposed to be a manager of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but failed miserably. Ameritas is one of the larger independent broker-dealers in the United States who offered and sold CLFA to its best clients. Ameritas is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska and reportedly has over 1700 registered representatives across the United States operating in one or two person offices.
Ameritas, like all broker-dealers engaging in a Regulation D securities offering such as CLFA, was responsible under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") rules to conduct "due diligence," that is, conduct a reasonable investigation of the CLFA securities offering and the issuer's representations about itself, the offering, its management, and business prospects, including any targeted returns on the investment to investors and determining the "suitability" of this investment for any and all of its clients.
Independent Due Diligence of CLFA by Ameritas was Mandatory
Ameritas and other broker-dealers could not simply rely upon an issuer of securities like CLFA, the issuer's attorneys or the lead broker-dealer Pacific Cornerstone Capital, Inc. ("PCCI") to conduct the investigation for it particularly where that lead broker-dealer has a relationship with the issuer, which is an inherent "conflict of interest."
Under FINRA Rules, all broker-dealers are responsible for discovering and investigating any information that could be considered a "red flag" and alerting a prudent person to conduct further inquiry. All broker-dealers have a responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and are obligated to follow up on any "red flags" that it encounters during its inquiry as well as to investigate any substantial adverse information about the issuer and its management. When presented with "red flags," the broker-dealer must do more than simply rely upon representations by issuer's management, the disclosure and an offering document or even a due diligence report of issuer's counsel or some third party expert.
It is reported that your CLFA investment is now worthless. PCCI and it's principal, Terry Roussel, were fined and/or suspended by FINRA for making misleading statements to investors in connection with the CLFA offering.
Thus far, two other broker-dealers have been investigated and sanctioned by FINRA for violations relating to their own failure to conduct due diligence on CLFA prior to recommending it to their best clients, namely, Investors Capital Corp. and Workman Securities Corporation. FINRA has reported that one or more of these broker-dealers failed to conduct any reasonable due diligence investigation on CLFA prior to selling CLFA securities. Further, they did not seek independent third party due diligence reports, meet with or ask questions of management about certain disclosures in the PPM relating to projections and targets or even review unaudited CLFA financial statements, which violated the rules. It has also been reported that they reviewed third party reports that did not include an analysis of how investors in CLFA would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic.
All of this begs the question: Did Ameritas perform an independent due diligence analysis before it recommended the investment to its best clients? What analysis, if any, did Ameritas perform of how investors would recover their principal investment and whether the projected 18.75% yield was realistic? FINRA investigations are confidential and although FINRA has not reportedly taken any action against Ameritas to date, the failure of any broker-dealer to conduct those types of inquiries could constitute a violation of FINRA rules and entitle you to recovery of your investment losses from that brokerage firm.
Ameritas was Obligated to Perform a Suitability Analysis
Ameritas was also required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for the customer. This analysis has two principal components. First, the "reasonable basis" suitability analysis requires the broker-dealer to have a reasonable basis to believe, based on a reasonable investigation, that the recommendation is suitable for at least some investors. If there is no reasonable basis for any of the targeted returns, then the securities offered are not suitable for any investor. Second, the "customer specific suitability" analysis requires the broker-dealer to determine whether the security is suitable for the customer to whom it would be recommended. This second suitability analysis is dependent upon the investor's stated investment objectives, risk tolerance and financial condition. Any recommendation by a broker that does not satisfactorily comply with either component can be a violation of FINRA rules.
For most investors, liquidity, income and risk tolerance are a concern, but if you are elderly and retired, they are paramount! If you have limited resources and no ability to generate income from other sources to meet your liquidity and income needs then CLFA was an unsuitable investment. Likewise, if you cannot afford a total risk of loss, then the speculative CLFA investment was unsuitable. The suitability problem is compounded when any investors' portfolio is concentrated in CLFA. A rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of anyone's investment portfolio should be concentrated in any illiquid real estate investments, and that percentage should be far less as a person reaches retirement and advances in age, perhaps zero!
Know Your Rights and Get Your Questions Answered!
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 CLFA and this blog post and/or any related matter.