The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce has filed another case against J.P. Morgan Securities for alleged misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts continuing in fall 2019 and thereafter by Edward Turley (“Turley”), a former “Vice-Chairman” of J.P. Morgan. At the outset, it is important for our readers to know that our clients’ allegations have not yet been proven. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with J.P. Morgan and Mr. Turley and had similar investments, a similar investment strategy, and a similar bad experience to help us win our clients’ case. Please contact us online via our contact form or by giving us a ring at (800) 732-2889. Turley Allegedly Misrepresented And Misled Claimants About His Investment Strategy The claims arise out of Turley’s “one-size-fits-all” fixed income credit spread investment strategy involving high-yield “junk” bonds, preferred stocks, exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), master limited partnerships (“MLPs”), and foreign bonds. Instead of purchasing those securities in ordinary margin accounts, Turley executed foreign currency transactions to raise capital and leverage clients’ accounts to earn undisclosed commissions. Turley over-leveraged and over-concentrated his best and biggest clients’ accounts, including Claimants’ accounts, in junk bonds, preferred stocks, and MLPs in the financial and energy sectors, which are notoriously illiquid and subject to sharp price declines when the financial markets become stressed as they did in March 2020. In the beginning and throughout the investment advisory relationship, Turley described his investment strategy to Claimants as one which would generate “equity returns with very low bond-type risk.” Turley and his partners also described the strategy to clients and prospects as one “which provided equity-like returns without equity-like risk.” J.P. Morgan supervisors even documented Turley’s description of the strategy as “creating portfolio with similar returns, but less volatility than an all-equity portfolio.” Note: It appears that no J.P. Morgan supervisor ever checked to see if the representations were true and if anybody did, they would have known Turley was lying and have directly participated in the scheme. The Claimants’ representative was also told Turley used leverage derived from selling foreign currencies, Yen and Euros, to get the “equity-like” returns he promised. Turley also told the investor not to be concerned because he “carefully” added leverage to enhance returns. According to Turley, the securities of the companies he invested in for clients “did not move up or down like the stock market,” so there was no need to worry about him using leverage in Claimants’ accounts and their cash would be available whenever it was needed. The Claimants’ representative was not the only client who heard this from Turley; that is, he did not own volatile stocks and not to worry about leverage. Turley did not discuss the amount of leverage he used in clients’ accounts, which ranged from 1:1 to 3:1, nor did Turley discuss the risks currency transactions added to the portfolio, margin calls or forced liquidations as a result of his investment strategy. After all, Turley knew he could get away without disclosing those risks. This was because J.P. Morgan suppressed any margin calls being sent to Turley’s clients and he liquidated securities on his own to meet those margin calls without alarming clients. This “one-size-fits-all” strategy was a recipe for disaster. J.P. Morgan and Turley have both admitted that Turley’s investment strategy was not suitable for any investor whose liquid net worth was fully invested in the strategy. It was especially unsuitable for those customers like Claimants who had other plans for the funds in their J.P. Morgan accounts in fall 2019 and spring 2020. Unfortunately, Turley recommended and managed the “one-size-fits-all” strategy for his best clients and friends, including Claimants. Turley was Claimants’ investment advisor and portfolio manager and required under the law to serve them as a “fiduciary.” He breached his “fiduciary” duties in making misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts. The most egregious breach was his failure to take any action to protect his clients at the end of February 2020, when J.P. Morgan raised the red flags about COVID-19 and recommended defensive action be taken in clients’ accounts. Turley Allegedly Managed Claimants’ Accounts Without Written Discretionary Authority Claimants’ representative hired Turley to manage his “dry powder,” the cash in Claimants’ accounts at J.P. Morgan, which he would need on short notice when business opportunities arose. At one point, Claimants had over $100 million on deposit with J.P. Morgan. It was not unusual for Claimants to deposit millions and make multi-million-dollar withdrawals of funds for different acquisitions and projects. Turley would then select the securities to buy with the cash deposited that suited his “one-size-fits-all” strategy. He would also decide whether to sell securities and/or increase the leverage in the accounts to meet Claimants need for cash from the accounts. Turley regularly made multi-million-dollar purchases and sales in Claimants’ accounts without a word being spoken with his clients. Although Turley called and texted often, the communications with his clients were almost always about anything other than getting permission to buy or sell any securities in Claimants’ accounts. Turley’s reports about account activity were generally limited to the “Big Number;” that is, reporting the net equity in the accounts and whether it had gone up or down. Turley rarely consulted with Claimants’ representative about any transaction in Claimants’ accounts before they occurred. Turley exercised his discretion even though Claimants never executed any documents giving him written discretionary authority over Claimants’ accounts. There was not enough time in the day to speak with every client and do the volume of transactions on an individual basis, so Turley exercised discretion and entered large block orders in the same securities for many of his clients at the same time to generate millions in commissions and fees each year. Note: Claimants did not think this was unusual because they hired Turley to manage their accounts, just as they hired others to manage other businesses. However, Turley knew better...Continue Reading
OUR STOCKBROKER FRAUD CASES & INVESTIGATIONS
For over 40 years, Attorney Pearce and his staff members at The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. have worked on and continue to work on a wide variety of securities, commodities and investment disputes for investors arising out of stock brokerage, commodity brokerage, insurance and other financial service company’s’ employees, representatives and agents’ misconduct. We represent investors with securities and commodities law issues and a broad range of other practice areas in courtroom litigation, arbitration and mediation proceedings from offices in Boca Raton, Florida across the United States.
Our Florida Attorneys Handle Stockbroker Fraud Cases & Investigations Nationwide
The most common investor claims have been claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose important information, unsuitable recommendations, churning or excessive trading, and unauthorized trading in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and options in violation of federal and state statutes, common law and industry rules. However, in the past three years, most of our cases have arisen out of the latest wave of investment products, widespread misconduct with the same investment firms, branch offices and/or brokers. We are presently engaged in a number of cases and investigations involving not only the so-called “garden variety” stock, bond and option claims but many other types of misrepresented and mismanaged investment products and fraudulent schemes.
A brief description of some of our current stockbroker fraud Cases and Investigations with links to other pages within our website and Investors Rights Blog to help answer your questions and help you recover your losses is below:
Structured notes are investments that combine securities from several asset classes to create a single investment with a particular risk and return profile over a time period. Unfortunately, investment loss is not unheard of with structured notes. This article will try to explain how a structured note works and what you can do if you have lost money due to an advisor’s bad purchase decisions for you. Can I Sue My Financial Advisor For Structured Note Investment Losses? Yes, you can sue your financial advisor for structured note investment losses for one or more of the following reasons: The nature, mechanics, or risks of the structured note were misrepresented. The financial advisor failed to provide you with a prospectus, offering memorandum, or otherwise disclose all of the material risks of the structured product investment. The recommendation that you invest in a particular structured note was unsuitable. Your account was over-concentrated in structured notes which may otherwise have been suitable for a small percentage (10% or less) of your portfolio. What Are Structured Notes? Structured notes are investments which often combine securities of different asset classes as one investment for a desired risk and return over a period of time. They are complex investments that are often misunderstood by not only investors but the financial advisors who recommend them. Structured notes are manufactured by financial institutions in all sizes and shapes. Generally, a structured note is an unsecured obligation of an issuer with a return, generally paid at maturity, that is linked to the performance of an underlying asset, such as a securities market index, exchange traded fund, and/or individual stocks. The return on the structured note will depend on the performance of the underlying asset and the specific features of the investment being made. The different features and risks of structured notes can affect the terms and issuance, returns at maturity, and the value of the structured product before maturity. They may have limited or no liquidity before maturity. Before investing, you better make sure you understand the terms and conditions and risks associated with the structured note being offered. Structured notes are often represented as investments being guaranteed by large financial institutions. Indeed, the top issuers of structured notes in 2021, Goldman Sachs (12.75%), Morgan Stanley (12.70%), Citigroup (12.46%), J.P. Morgan (11.92%), UBS (80.47%), Credit Suisse (4.99%), RBC (4.45%), Bank of America (3.90%), Scotiabank (3.89%), are some of the largest financial institutions in the world. It’s important to understand that although the benefits of owning structured products may be guaranteed to be paid by one of those large financial institutions, the amount of interest or principal being guaranteed is dependent upon the features of the product being sold; that is, the specific terms and conditions of the investment contract being purchased. In this low-interest rate environment the most popular structured notes being offered are structured notes with principal protection and income features. Some of the structured notes offer full principal protection, but others offer partial or no protection of principal at all. Some structured notes offer higher rates of interest that may be paid monthly and then suddenly stop paying any interest at all because payment was contingent upon certain events not happening. It all depends on the terms and conditions of the investment contract being purchased, which is why you must read the term sheet or better yet the prospectus to understand the nature, mechanics and risks of the structured note being sold. You need to understand that there are many key terms beyond the words “guarantor” and “guaranteed” which are used often to describe structured notes. You need to ask about and be sure to understand the following features of the structured notes being offered: the nature of the “reference asset” (a/k/a the “underlyings”) the reference index(es), ETF(s), or stock(s) underlying the structured note. whether the “reference asset” gets put to you at maturity (delivered) or you get paid in cash and forced to realize a loss. the “barrier levels” which can dictate the payment of interest and/or return of capital to the investor in the structured notes. whether the notes “auto-callable” which might force you to realize permanent loss that might not otherwise have occurred if you were allowed to hold the securities through market fluctuation. the “redemption dates,” or “observation dates, ” which may impact the amount of payment of principal or interest you ultimately receive. whether the interest payments subject to a “contingent coupon” and, if so, be sure you know the contingency parameter and the level where your interest payments may stop. How the “closing value” and/or “final value” of the “reference asset (as)” are calculated on the “redemption date(s)” or “observation date(s).” Are Structured Notes Suitable Investments? Let me answer that question this way, a particular structured note may be suitable for somebody but not everybody. With regard to the more common structured notes being offered by the major financial institutions these days, they are not suitable for individuals seeking an investment that: produces fixed periodic interest payments, or other non-contingent sources of income and/or you cannot tolerate receiving few or no interest payments over the term of the notes in the event the closing value of the underlings or reference stock falls below a barrier level on one or more of the observation dates. participates in the full appreciation of the reference stock rather than an investment with a return that is limited to the contingent interest payments, if any, paid on the notes. provides for the full repayment of principal at maturity, and/or you are unwilling or unable to accept the risk that you may lose some or all of the principal amount of the notes in the event the final value of the reference asset falls below the barrier value. They are not suitable investments if you are someone who: anticipates that the closing value of the reference asset will decline during the term of the notes such that the closing value of the reference asset will fall below...Continue Reading
Many investors have heard of margin accounts and the horror stories of others who invested on margin and suffered substantial losses. But few investors understand that securities-backed lines of credit (SBL) accounts, which have been aggressively promoted by brokerage firms in the last decade, are just as dangerous as margin accounts. This is largely due to the fact that the equity and bond markets have been on an upward trend since 2009 and few investors (unless you are a Puerto Rico investor) have experienced market slides resulting in margin calls due to the insufficient amount of collateral in the SBL accounts. Securities-Backed Lines of Credit Overview It is only over the last several months of market volatility that investors have begun to feel the wrath of margin calls and understand the high risks associated with investing in SBL accounts. For investors considering your stockbroker’s offer of a line of credit (a loan at a variable or fixed rate of interest) to finance a residence, a boat, or to pay taxes or for your child’s college education, you may want to read a little more about the nature, mechanics, and risks of SBL accounts before you sign the collateral account agreement and pledge away your life savings to the brokerage firm in exchange for the same loan you could have obtained from another bank without all the risk associated with SBL accounts. First, it may be helpful to understand just why SBL accounts have become so popular over the last decade. It should be no surprise that the primary reason for your stockbroker’s offering of an SBL is that both the brokerage firm and he/she make money. Over many years, the source of revenues for brokerage firms has shifted from transaction-based commissions to fee-based investments, limited partnerships, real estate investment trusts (REITs), structured products, managed accounts, and income earned from lending money to clients in SBL and margin accounts. Many more investors seem to be aware of the danger of borrowing in margin accounts for the purposes of buying and selling securities, so the brokerage firms expanded their banking activities with their banking affiliates to expand the market and their profitability in the lending arena through SBL accounts. The typical sales pitch is that SBL accounts are an easy and inexpensive way to access cash by borrowing against the assets in your investment portfolio without having to liquidate any securities you own so that you can continue to profit from your stockbroker’s supposedly successful and infallible investment strategy. Today the SBL lending business is perhaps one of the more profitable divisions at any brokerage firm and banking affiliate offering that product because the brokerage firm retains assets under management and the fees related thereto and the banking affiliate earns interest income from another market it did not otherwise have direct access to. For the benefit of the novice investor, let me explain the basics of just how an SBL account works. An SBL account allows you to borrow money using securities held in your investment accounts as collateral for the loan. The Danger of Investing in SBL Accounts Once the account is established and you received the loan proceeds, you can continue to buy and sell securities in that account, so long as the value of the securities in the account exceeds the minimum collateral requirements of the banking affiliate, which can change just like the margin requirements at a brokerage firm. Assuming you meet those collateral requirements, you only make monthly interest-only payments and the loan remains outstanding until it is repaid. You can pay down the loan balance at any time, and borrow again and pay it down, and borrow again, so long as the SBL account has sufficient collateral and you make the monthly interest-only payments in your SBL account. In fact, the monthly interest-only payments can be paid by borrowing additional money from the bank to satisfy them until you reach a credit limit or the collateral in your account becomes insufficient at your brokerage firm and its banking affiliate’s discretion. We have heard some stockbrokers describe SBLs as equivalent to home equity lines, but they are not really the same. Yes, they are similar in the sense that the amount of equity in your SBL account, like your equity in your house, is collateral for a loan, but you will not lose your house without notice or a lengthy foreclosure process. On the other hand, you can lose all of your securities in your SBL account if the market goes south and the brokerage firm along with its banking affiliate sell, without prior notice, all of the securities serving as collateral in the SBL account. You might ask how can that happen; that is, sell the securities in your SBL account, without notice? Well, when you open up an SBL account, the brokerage firm and its banking affiliate and you will execute a contract, a loan agreement that specifies the maximum amount the bank will agree to lend you in exchange for your agreement to pledge your investment account assets as collateral for the loan. You also agree in that contract that if the value of your securities declines to an amount that is no longer sufficient to secure your line of credit, you must agree to post additional collateral or repay the loan upon demand. Lines of credit are typically demand loans, meaning the banking affiliate can demand repayment in full at any time. Generally, you will receive a “maintenance call” from the brokerage firm and/or its banking affiliate notifying you that you must post additional collateral or repay the loan in 3 to 5 days or, if you are unable to do so, the brokerage firm will liquidate your securities and keep the cash necessary to satisfy the “maintenance call” or, in some cases, use the proceeds to pay off the entire loan. But I want to emphasize, the brokerage firm and its banking affiliate, under the terms of almost all SBL account agreements,...Continue Reading
Investors With “Blown-Out” Securities-Backed Credit Line and Margin Accounts: How do You Recover Your Investment Losses?
If you are reading this article, we are guessing you had a bad experience recently in either a securities-backed line of credit (“SBL”) or margin account that suffered margin calls and was liquidated without notice, causing you to realize losses. Ordinarily, investors with margin calls receive 3 to 5 days to meet them; and if that happened, the value of the securities in your account might have increased within that period and the firm might have erased the margin call and might not have liquidated your account. If you are an investor who has experienced margin calls in the past, and that is your only complaint then, read no further because when you signed the account agreement with the brokerage firm you chose to do business with, you probably gave it the right to liquidate all of the securities in your account at any time without notice. On the other hand, if you are an investor with little experience or one with a modest financial condition who was talked into opening a securities-backed line of credit account without being advised of the true nature, mechanics, and/or risks of opening such an account, then you should call us now! Alternatively, if you are an investor who needed to withdraw money for a house or to pay for your taxes or child’s education but was talked into holding a risky or concentrated portfolio of stocks and/or junk bonds in a pledged collateral account for a credit-line or a margin account, then we can probably help you recover your investment losses as well. The key to a successful recovery of your investment loss is not to focus on the brokerage firm’s liquidation of the securities in your account without notice. Instead, the focus on your case should be on what you were told and whether the recommendation was suitable for you before you opened the account and suffered the liquidation.Continue Reading
We introduced the new U.S. Securities & Exchanges Commission (SEC) Regulation Best Interest (Reg. BI) just after it went into effect and summarized the four obligations now being imposed upon broker-dealers and their associated persons with respect to any post June 30, 2020 securities-related recommendations, namely:Continue Reading
If you are reading this article, you probably invested in the UBS Yield Enhanced Strategy (“UBS-YES”) and were surprised to learn the UBS-YES program you invested in was not exactly a “market neutral” investment strategy during the recent COVID 19 market crash. Despite your UBS stockbroker’s representations about the UBS-YES managers ability to “manage risk” and “minimize losses” through its “iron condor” option strategy you still realized substantial losses. You are not alone because that is just what many other UBS-YES investors have told us about the pitch made to them to invest in the UBS-YES program and their recent experience.Continue Reading
UBS Financial Services, Inc. Sued for Florida and Ohio Advisor’s Alleged Misconduct Involving a Credit-Line Investment Strategy
UBS Financial Services, Inc, (“UBS”) employed a financial advisor (the “FA”) who has offices in Bonita Springs, Florida and Sylvania, Ohio. UBS held out the FA and other UBS employees on his team as investment advisers, investment managers, financial advisers, and financial planners with special skills and expertise in the management of securities portfolios and financial, estate, retirement, and tax planning matters.Continue Reading
Financial Fraud Has Probably Been Around Since The Dawn Of Commerce. It Has Always Been Perpetrated By Individuals Who Scheme To Take Possessions (Goods And Capital) From Another By Misrepresentations, Misleading Statements, Manipulation And Other Means Declared Over Time To Be Fraudulent Practices, Schemes, Contrivances, And Devices.Continue Reading
Oil and Gas Investors: How Do You Recover Your Oil and Gas Investment Losses? If you are reading this article, we are guessing you invested in one or more of those misrepresented and unsuitable oil and gas stocks, bonds, limited partnerships, commodities, commodity pools and/or structured products as alternative investments linked to the oil and gas sector of the stock and commodities markets. We would not be surprised if you were told that the large oil and gas conglomerates had a proven track record of great dividends much higher than the yields on the fixed income investments you were accustomed but said nothing about the volatility of those types of investments. Maybe you are reading this webpage because your financial advisor recommended you invest your retirement savings in some those more complex and leveraged oil and gas structured products packaged as Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs) or other Exchange Traded Products (ETPs), that were leveraged two to three times and crashed in March this year. These were not suitable investments for retirees with conservative or moderate investor risk profiles. Did your financial advisor recommend you invest without explaining the nature, mechanics or risks of any of those oil and gas investments? Were your investments over-concentrated (more than 10% of your portfolio) by your stockbroker or investment advisor in the oil and gas sector to replace the bonds you owned for the higher dividend paying stocks? Did you lose fifty percent (50%) or more on those oil and gas investments? We’re not shocked because that is just what many other investors have told us about what happened to them recently. Now we are going to tell you what to do about those oil and gas investment losses. Your stockbroker had a duty to not only understand but explain the nature, mechanics and all of the risks associated with those investments before he/she sold you those investments, particularly some of the provisions within the ETNs where the broker-dealer who issued the ETNs or ETPs could redeem or retire them and force you to realize huge losses. Your stockbroker also had a duty to make sure they were suitable investments before they were recommended in light of your risk tolerance and financial condition and not over-concentrate investments in the volatile oil and gas sector in your portfolio. Unfortunately, many financial advisors who did not understand the nature, mechanics or risks sold these investments to clients with conservative and moderate risk who were seeking to enhance their income for their retirement. These were not suitable investments for investors with that kind of profile. If your financial advisor misrepresented the nature, mechanics or risks of those oil and gas investments or the risks were not fully explained, or you were over-concentrated (more than 10%) in the oil and gas sector, or if it was not in your best interest (or unsuitable), and/or your investments were liquidated without notice due to margin calls, you may have the right to bring an arbitration claim against your financial advisor and/or the brokerage firm who employed him. There is no way you will recover your losses on these oil and gas investments without some legal action. At The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., we represent investors in investment disputes for misrepresented and unsuitable investments in oil and gas stocks, bonds, limited partnerships, commodities, commodity pools and/or structured products as alternative investments linked to the oil and gas sector of the stock and commodities markets in FINRA arbitration and mediation proceedings. The claims we file are for fraud and misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, and unsuitable recommendations in violation of SEC and FINRA rules and industry standards. Attorney Pearce and his staff represent investors across the United States on a CONTINGENCY FEE basis which means you pay nothing – NO FEES-NO COSTS – unless we put money in your pocket after receiving a settlement or FINRA arbitration award. Se habla español CONTACT US FOR A FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH EXPERIENCED STRUCTURED PRODUCT INVESTMENT ATTORNEYS IN FINRA ARBITRATIONS The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. have highly experienced lawyers who have successfully handled many oil and gas investment cases and other securities law matters and investment disputes in FINRA arbitration proceedings, and who work tirelessly to secure the best possible result for you and your case. For dedicated representation by an attorney with over 40 years of experience and success in structured product cases and all kinds of securities law and investment disputes, contact the firm by phone at 561-338-0037, toll free at 800-732-2889 or via e-mail.Continue Reading