Featured Posts

Mar 18, 2023

J.P. Morgan Sued For Edward Turley’s Alleged Misconduct: $55 Million!

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has filed another case against Ex-J.P. Morgan broker Ed Turley for alleged misrepresentations, misleading statements, unsuitable recommendations, and mismanagement of Claimants’ accounts. 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. Latest Updates on Ed Turley – November 18, 2022 The Advisor Hub reported today that the former star broker with J.P. Morgan Advisors in San Francisco Edward Turley agreed to an industry bar rather than cooperate with FINRA’s probe of numerous allegations of excessive and unauthorized trading that resulted in more than $100 million worth of customer complaints. FINRA had initiated its investigation of Edward Turley as it related to numerous customer complaints in 2020. The regulator noted in its Acceptance Waiver and Consent Agreement (AWC) that the investors had generally alleged “sales practice violations including improper exercise of discretion and unsuitable trading.” According to Edward Turley’s BrokerCheck report, he had been fired in August 2021 for “loss of confidence concerning adherence to firm policies and brokerage order handling requirements.” On October 28th, FINRA requested Turley provide on-the-record testimony related to his trading patterns, including the “use of foreign currency and margin, and the purchasing and selling of high-yield bonds and preferred stock,” but Edward Turley through counsel declined to do so. As a result, Edward Turley violated FINRA’s Rule 8210 requiring cooperation with enforcement probes, and its catch-all Rule 2010 requiring “high standards of commercial honor,” the regulator said and he was barred permanently from the securities industry. Related Read: Can You Sue a Financial Advisor or Stockbroker Over Losses? 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...

Keep Reading
Sep 1, 2020

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.

Keep Reading
Jul 1, 2020

FINRA Arbitration: What To Expect And Why You Should Choose Our Law Firm

If you are reading this article, you are probably an investor who has lost a substantial amount of money, Googled “FINRA Arbitration Lawyer,” clicked on a number of attorney websites, and maybe even spoken with a so-called “Securities Arbitration Lawyer” who told you after a five minute telephone call that “you have a great case;” “you need to sign a retainer agreement on a ‘contingency fee’ basis;” and “you need to act now because the statute of limitations is going to run.”

Keep Reading
Mar 2, 2019

A Stockbroker’s Introduction to FINRA Examinations and Investigations

Brokers and financial advisors oftentimes do not understand what their responsibilities and obligations are and what may result from a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) examination or investigation. Many brokers do not even know the role that FINRA plays within the industry. This may be due to the fact that FINRA, a self-regulatory organization, is not a government entity and cannot sentence financial professionals to jail time for violation of industry rules and regulations. Nevertheless, all broker-dealers doing business with members of the public must register with FINRA. As registered members, broker-dealers, and the brokers working for them, have agreed to abide by industry rules and regulations, which include FINRA rules.

Keep Reading
Read More

More Posts

May 10, 2023

What is the Difference Between Solicited & Unsolicited Trades?

Ideally, hiring a skilled broker takes some of the risk out of investing. Unfortunately, however, some brokers fail to act with the appropriate level of integrity. As an investor, it’s very important to understand the difference between solicited and unsolicited trades. The distinction has significant consequences on your ability to recover losses from a bad trade. What’s the Difference Between a Solicited and an Unsolicited Trade? The main difference between a solicited and unsolicited trade is: a solicited trade is a transaction that the broker recommends to the client. In contrast, an unsolicited transaction is one that the investor initially proposed to the broker. Need Legal Help? Let’s talk. or, give us a ring at 561-338-0037. In regards to solicited trades, the broker is ultimately responsible for the consideration and execution of the trade because he or she brought it to the investor’s attention. The responsibility for unsolicited trades therefore lies primarily with the investor, while the broker merely facilitates the investor’s proposed transaction. Why does the Difference Between an Unsolicited and Socilited Trade Matters? The status of a trade as solicited or unsolicited is hugely important when an investor claims unsuitability. An investor who wants to recover losses may be able to do so if the broker is the one who initially suggests the transaction. Take the following example. You purchase $175,000 of stock in a new company. Shortly after the trade is complete, the stock loses nearly all its original value. As an investor, you will want to recover as much of that loss as possible. One way is to file a claim against your broker on the basis that the stock was an unsuitable investment. When you say that an investment was unsuitable, you are essentially saying that based on the information your broker had about you as an investor, the broker should not have made the trade in the first place. If the stock purchase was at your request—that is, it was unsolicited—then it’s unlikely you’d be able to hold your broker liable for your losses. After all, the trade was originally your idea.  IMPORTANT: If the stock was suggested to you as a good investment by your broker, however, then you may have an argument that you were pushed into a solicited trade that was not in your best interests. If this is the case, you would have a much stronger argument for holding your broker liable. What Is Suitability? The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposes rules on registered brokers to protect investors against broker misconduct. Under FINRA Rule 2111, brokers are generally required to engage in trades only if the broker has “a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer.” Whether an investment is suitable depends on diligent consideration of several aspects of a client’s investment profile, including: When a broker makes a trade without a reasonable basis for believing that the trade is suitable, the broker violates FINRA Rule 2111. Investors may then be able to recover losses from the broker, and FINRA may impose sanctions, suspension, or other penalties on the broker. Broker Obligations to Their Clients When a broker conducts a trade on behalf of an investor, the broker uses an order ticket with the details of the trade. Brokers mark these tickets as “solicited” or “unsolicited” to reflect the status of the trade. For the reasons explained above, this marking is very important. On one hand, it protects a broker from unsuitability claims following a trade suggested by the broker’s client. On the other, it provides an avenue to recover losses in the case of a solicited trade that turns out poorly. FINRA Rule 2010 covers properly marking trade tickets. This rule requires brokers to observe “high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in their practice. If a broker fails to properly mark a trade ticket, that broker violates Rule 2010. As an investor, you should always receive a confirmation of any trades your broker conducts on your account.  FINRA has found that abuse of authority by mismarking tickets is an issue within the securities industry. The 2018 report found that brokers sometimes mismarked tickets as “unsolicited” to hide trading activity on discretionary accounts. If your broker feels the need to hide a trade from you, that trade is likely unsuitable. How to Protect Yourself Against Trade Ticket Mismarking Whether your account is discretionary or non-discretionary, and whether you’re new to investing or a skilled tycoon, you should always pay close attention to your investment accounts. Carefully review your trade confirmations to make sure that all trades are properly marked. If you find a mistake, immediately report it to your broker or the compliance department of their brokerage firm. It’s their job to correct these mistakes and make sure they don’t happen in the future. Negative or suspicious responses to a legitimate correction request are red flags that should not be ignored. If you discover your broker intentionally mismarking your trade tickets, contact an investment fraud attorney immediately. Can Litigation Finance Help Your Legal Case? Exploring Options for Investment Losses Caused by a Broker Litigation finance can help your legal case by providing financial support for legal fees and expenses. It allows you to pursue your claim without upfront costs and levels the playing field against well-resourced opponents. However, it’s important to carefully consider the costs, choose a reputable provider, and understand the terms of the funding agreement. Concerned About a Solicited Trade? The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., have been helping investors recover losses for over 40 years. We have extensive experience representing investors and have helped our clients recover over $175 million in total. If you’ve become the victim of unsuitable or fraudulent investing, we can help you. Contact us today or give us a call at 561-338-0037 for a free consultation.

Continue Reading

Apr 11, 2023

Everything You Need to Know about an SEC Wells Notice

If you’ve received a Wells Notice from the SEC, it’s important to understand what it is and how to respond. What is a Wells Notice? A Wells Notice is usually a formal letter (sometimes just a telephone call) in which the staff enforcement attorneys of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notify individuals and/or firms that they are planning to recommend that the SEC authorize the attorneys to bring an enforcement action against the individual and/or the firm.  Investment Losses? Let’s talk. or, give us a ring at 800-732-2889. A Wells Notice will typically set forth the specific allegations against the individual and/or firm, as well as provide an opportunity for a response before the SEC makes a final decision on whether to bring charges. After an SEC investigation has turned up evidence of potential securities law infractions, the staff enforcement attorneys will usually provide a Wells Notice but, not always! Note: If you have received a Wells Notice, it means the SEC enforcement attorneys believe you have been violating securities laws and regulations, it is not a finding of guilt. It is important that you act quickly and consult with an experienced securities defense attorney to protect your rights and interests. What information is contained in a Wells Notice? A Wells Notice from the SEC will usually contain the following information: The majority of what appears in a written Wells notice is boilerplate. Typically, the written notice details statutory and regulatory infractions under consideration but does not allude to the specifics of the specific case. Are public companies required to disclose a Wells Notice? A Wells notice is a private communication to the recipient, and the Commission will not disclose it. In the past, many companies elected to not make any public disclosure of a Wells Notice. However, in recent years, some companies have voluntarily disclosed the receipt of a Wells Notice in their public filings with the SEC. Generally, such disclosures are a discretionary choice, rather than a requirement. The decision turns on whether the investigation and potential consequences would be a material fact that needs to be disclosed in light of other statements being publicly made by the company. Are registered broker-dealers and investment advisors required to disclose a Wells Notice? Yes, if you are a registered broker-dealer or investment advisor, you will be required to disclose the receipt of a Wells Notice in your Form U4. Related Reads: SEC Subpoenas: How to Respond How to Respond to a Wells Notice If you’ve received a Wells Notice, the first thing you should do is consult with an experienced securities defense attorney. Your attorney will help you understand the specific allegations against you and decide whether you should respond at all. If so, the attorney will craft a strategic and customized response on your behalf. Your response to a Wells Notice (also known as a Wells Submission) will be incredibly important in determining whether or not the SEC takes enforcement action against you. In some cases, a well-crafted response may convince the SEC to drop the matter entirely. In other cases, it may result in a more lenient punishment if the SEC does decide to bring charges. Before responding to a Wells Notice, you and your attorney will need to carefully review all of the evidence collected during the SEC’s investigation. This may include: Once the analysis of the evidence is complete, your attorney will work with you to prepare a persuasive response that addresses the SEC’s specific concerns. This is a very important step as a Wells Submission presents the facts and the first arguments to persuade the SEC Enforcement Division to not pursue an enforcement action or to recommend a less severe action. The SEC will review the response and make a final determination on whether or not to bring charges. Even though the Wells Notice process is confidential, it may become public if the SEC decides to bring an enforcement action against you. More important, whatever is written in the response to the Wells notice could be deemed an admission of the facts stated within the Wells Notice. What Happens if the SEC decides to bring Charges? If the SEC decides to bring charges after you’ve received a Wells Notice, it will file a formal complaint against you in federal court or administrative proceeding. At this point, you will have an opportunity to defend yourself against the SEC’s charges. This is a complex process, and you will need to have an experienced securities defense attorney by your side to protect your rights and help you navigate the legal system. A Wells Notice is just the beginning of the SEC’s enforcement process, but it’s a very important step. If you’ve received a Wells Notice, make sure you consult with an experienced SEC defense attorney as soon as possible to ensure the best possible outcome in your case. Consider Consulting with an Experienced SEC Defense Attorney If you’ve received a Wells Notice, you should consult with an experienced securities defense attorney as soon as possible. The Law Firm of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., has represented individuals and entities in SEC investigations and enforcement actions for over 40 years. For dedicated representation by attorneys with substantial experience in all aspects of SEC investigations and enforcement proceedings nationwide, contact our law firm by phone toll-free at 800-732-2889, locally at 561-338-0037, or Contact Us online. We will help you understand the specific allegations against you and will work with you to prepare a persuasive response to the SEC.

Continue Reading

Apr 4, 2023

Broker-Dealer Fraud & Misconduct

This is the ultimate guide to understanding broker-dealer fraud and misconduct for investors. For more than 40 years, the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has been helping investors understand brokers, broker-dealers and the rules governing their activities. We understand that brokers and broker-dealers do not always act in the best interests of their customers. As a result, we have devoted our practice to helping investors who have been harmed by unscrupulous or negligent broker-dealers recover their losses through litigation or arbitration proceedings. In this guide, we’ll cover: What is Broker-Dealer Fraud? Broker-dealer fraud occurs when stockbrokers put their own financial interests ahead of their customers, violating their fiduciary duty. This can take many forms, including churning accounts to generate more commissions, misappropriating funds from customer accounts, making unsuitable investment recommendations, or even outright theft. Broker-dealers are held to a high standard of care in their dealings with customers. They must exercise care, skill and diligence when recommending investments, executing trades, and providing advice. When they fail to do so, they can be held liable for any losses suffered by their customers. Sometimes fraud is easy to spot – if a broker-dealer is stealing funds directly from an account, for example. Other times it may be more subtle, such as recommending investments that are not suitable for the customer’s needs or risk tolerance. When investors suffer significant losses due to broker-dealer fraud or misconduct, they may be able to recover damages through a process called FINRA arbitration. In these situations, it is best to consult with a securities attorney to determine the best course of action. What’s the Difference Between Broker-Dealer Fraud and Misconduct? Broker-dealer fraud is the intentional act of causing financial harm to customers by deliberately making false or misleading statements or omissions or engaging in dishonest or unethical practices. On the other hand, broker-dealer misconduct refers to negligence by a stockbroker in failing to meet their responsibilities and obligations as outlined in FINRA rules and regulations. For example, if a broker-dealer provides incorrect information to their customers or fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of statements they make, this could be considered misconduct. Similarly, recommending investments that are not suitable for a customer’s needs or risk tolerance can also be considered misconduct. Investment losses due to either fraud or misconduct can be recovered through a FINRA arbitration. What are the Most Common Types of Broker-Dealer Fraud? There is a wide variety of broker-dealer fraud schemes, but there tend to be a few that are more common than others. When a broker-dealer fails to act in the best interest of their client, they may be engaging in one or more of the following practices: High-Yield Investment Frauds High-yield investment frauds are characterized by promises of high returns on investment with little to no risk. These types of fraud can involve several forms of investments, including securities, commodities, real estate, or other highly-valuable investments. You can identify these schemes by their “too good to be true” offers. Perpetrators may elicit investments from investors by internet postings, emails, social media, job boards, or even personal contact. They may also use mass marketing techniques to reach a large number of potential investors at once. Once the fraudster has received the investment money, they may simply disappear with it or use it to fund their own lifestyle. The investment itself may not even exist. Ponzi & Pyramid Schemes Ponzi and pyramid schemes use the money collected from new investors to pay the high rates of return that were promised to earlier investors in the scheme. Payouts over time give the early impression that the scheme is a legitimate investment. However, eventually, there are not enough new investors to support the payouts, and the entire scheme collapses. When this happens, the people who invested at the beginning of the scheme often lose all of their money. In these schemes, the investors were the only source of funding. Other Broker-Dealer Fraud In addition to the above list, at The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., we have found that the following types of securities fraud are also common: Misconduct by an Investment Advisor By far the most common type of broker-dealer securities fraud that our firm sees is misconduct by brokers. Brokers are supposed to act in their clients’ best interests (fiduciary duty), but some broker-dealers put their own interests ahead of their clients. For example, a broker-dealer might recommend that a client invests in a certain stock or mutual fund because it will generate a high commission for the broker, not because it is a good investment for the client. Other examples of misconduct by an investment advisor or broker include: Structured Notes Structured notes are investments that 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. Due to their complexity, it is easy for the terms of the investment to be misrepresented. For example, an advisor might tell their client that a structured note is “risk-free” when, in reality, there is a significant risk of loss. What Actions Can You Take if You Suspect Broker-Dealer Fraud? Broker-dealers must register with FINRA to participate in the securities industry, and FINRA’s arbitration program typically handles disputes between investors and broker-dealers rather than court proceedings. Compared to court proceedings, FINRA arbitration is typically faster, less expensive, and more private. To seek justice for losses due to broker-dealer fraud, filing a claim with FINRA’s arbitration program is recommended. Investors are advised to consult with an attorney to understand their rights and determine if they have a valid claim against the broker-dealer or associated financial professionals. An experienced investment fraud attorney can provide valuable guidance throughout the process. If you’ve lost a significant amount of your investments due to fraudulent broker-dealer activities, don’t hesitate to reach out for help. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., can assess your case and represent you in the FINRA...

Continue Reading

Mar 30, 2023

Broker C. Raymond Weldon Investigation & Customer Complaints

C. Raymond Weldon Of Independent Financial Group, LLC And Formerly With The Investment Center, Inc. and Cetera Advisor Networks LLC, Has Six Customer Complaints For Alleged Broker Misconduct. C. Raymond Weldon has been the subject of at least six (6) customer complaints that we know about to recover investment losses. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. currently represent five of his customers in a FINRA arbitration claim against Weldon’s employers. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with C. Raymond Weldon 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. Raymond Weldon Customer Complaints Weldon has been the subject of at least six (6) customer complaints that we know about to recover investment losses. We currently represent five of his customers against Weldon’s employers. A summary of the allegations made in the FINRA arbitration filed for investment losses realized by five of Weldon’s clients were as follows: 1. Introduction Claimants filed an arbitration claim against Respondents Cetera Advisors Networks, LLC (“CAN”), The Investment center, Inc. (“TIC”), and (“IFG”) for their registered representative C. Raymond Weldon (“Weldon”) failure to act in Claimants’ “best interest,” and his unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, misleading statements, acts, and omissions. Weldon had written discretionary authority to manage Claimants’ accounts and failed to do so. Respondents CAN and TIC formerly employed and IFG who currently employs Weldon held him out and other employees on his team as stockbrokers, 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. Weldon was a Chartered Financial Consultant, a professional with a certification which would indicate Respondents and Weldon knew or should have known his mismanagement Claimants’ accounts was in breach of his fiduciary duties and below the acceptable standard of care of professionals like him.  2. THE RELEVANT FACTS All Claimants, except one Claimant’s wife, worked together. They were introduced to Weldon as an investment manager who successfully managed securities brokerage accounts for a local synagogue and many of its members. With one limited exception, none of the Claimants had any securities brokerage accounts or experience investing in the stock or bond markets before they met Weldon. They were all interested in saving for retirement and he solicited them to establish an investment advisory and brokerage relationship for that purpose. Claimants Richard, Anthony, Alex, Chris, and, later on, Jessica, opened small, unleveraged, and well diversified mutual fund investment accounts, which Weldon managed for a fee on an annualized basis (the “ProFunds Accounts”). The Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC (“CAN”) Accounts In or about October 2020, Weldon boasted about his performance in managing the ProFunds Accounts and introduced them to another type of customized stock brokerage account he managed for synagogue members. He encouraged Claimants to open additional accounts with him to invest in the stock market for their retirement (the “CAN Accounts”). Weldon met with Claimants and showed them documents related to his performance managing other clients’ accounts. He spoke with the other Claimants over the telephone about his performance record. He provided little detail about his management style other than he had a “track record” for substantially growing the assets deposited in his clients’ securities brokerage accounts and preserving assets for their retirement. Weldon claimed that his pro-active management style allowed him to maximize growth in the up markets and minimize losses in down markets. There was no discussion with them about the true nature, mechanics, or risks of the highly leveraged and overly concentrated investment strategy he deployed in the technology sector of the stock market.  The individual Claimants gathered assets from savings, bonuses, and/or refinanced real estate to open and deposit cash in their CAN Accounts. They each deposited substantial amount of money in each of their accounts in December of that year and the following year for Weldon to manage for their retirement. The Claimants’ employer was the last to open an account and deposit funds it had reserved for working capital in January 2021. Weldon prepared and all the Claimants signed management agreements and gave Weldon the authority to manage their accounts on margin without any prior consultation about the investments being made or strategy deployed and paid him a management fee to do so. Claimants did not realize Weldon’s papers also allowed Respondents to get paid commissions on each transaction in their accounts. Weldon also prepared and completed new account opening documents and agreements for managed accounts with false and/or misleading information to suit his strategy and his own “best interest,” as opposed to Claimants. For example, he wrote that one Claimant that was a construction company had over 20 years’ experience investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds when he knew it did not even exist until 2013 and never had any securities brokerage accounts. Further, Weldon knew that the company was depositing working capital which needed to be conservatively invested in non-volatile liquid investments and yet he falsely identified the company’s investment objective as “aggressive growth” and risk tolerance as “significant” meaning “an investor who seeks maximum return and accepts the risk of significant volatility and decreases in the value of a portfolio.” According to Weldon, the company had no need for liquidity, which was untrue. These were not clerical errors; rather, they were intentional mischaracterizations by Weldon to slip under the Compliance Department’s radar and manage the accounts in a speculative manner against Claimants’ instructions.  Weldon regularly encouraged Claimants to bring in more money for him to manage. Why? Because it was in his “best interest,” not the Claimants. The greater the total account market value, the greater the management fees which were based upon assets under management. The more money Claimants deposited, the more transactions and more commissions, Respondents and he received, in addition...

Continue Reading

Mar 30, 2023

Aaron Graham Investigation For Alleged Broker Misconduct

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is representing two Co-Trustees of a family trust in a FINRA arbitration case against United Planners’ Financial Services of America and AG Financial advisor Aaron Graham for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, negligence, and negligent supervision and fraudulent concealment of Graham’s misconduct. Aaron Graham Of United Planners’ Financial Services Of America A Limited Partner And AG Financial Has 4 Customer Complaints For Alleged Broker Misconduct. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is currently representing two Co-Trustees of a family trust who have filed an arbitration claim against his employer, United Planners’ Financial Services Of America, and Aaron Graham himself. IMPORTANT: We are providing information about our clients’ allegations and seeking information from other investors who did business with Aaron Graham 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. Aaron Graham Customer Complaints Aaron Graham has been the subject of 4 customer complaints that we know about. Two of Aaron Graham’s customer complaints were settled in favor of investors. One of Aaron Graham’s customers’ complaints was denied, and, to date, the customer has not taken any further action. We represent another customer whose arbitration claim was recently filed and is pending. Current Allegations Against Aaron Graham A sample of the allegations made in the previously FINRA reported arbitration claim settlements and/or complaints for investment losses were as follows:  We currently represent two Co-Trustees of a family trust who have filed an arbitration claim against his employer, United Planners’ Financial Services Of America and Aaron Graham himself. A summary of the allegations made in the FINRA arbitration filed for investment losses realized by the family’s trust were as follows: 1. Introduction Beginning in the late summer 2017, Graham, who had written discretionary authority to manage Claimants’ account in a reasonable manner, deployed a highly speculative strategy involving speculative investments and an excessive amount of leverage, which were inconsistent with Claimants instructions, needs, financial condition, and agreements related to their brokerage and investment advisory relationships. Graham mismanaged Claimants’ TDA account and made other investments for Claimants in violation of securities law, state and securities industry rules and regulations, and brokerage and/or advisory agreements. Respondent Graham is a registered representative and agent of and employed by United Planners Financial Services of America (“UP”) and was held out as a stockbroker, investment advisor, investment manager, financial advisor, and financial planner with special skills and expertise in the management of securities portfolios and financial, estate, retirement, and tax planning matters. Graham was a Certified Trust Financial Advisor (CTFA), a designation he held since 1999 for expertise in trust and other fiduciary matters. As a registered principal with UP, Graham held FINRA Series 7, 9, 24, 63 and 65 and various insurance licenses. This arbitration was filed by Claimants as Co-Trustees of their family’s trust against Respondent UP and its registered representative Graham for his breach of brokerage and advisory agreements, statutory and common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, negligence, failures to act in Claimants’ “best interest,” unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, omissions, misleading statements, and other acts and omissions, which were fraudulently concealed from Claimants. 2. The Relevant Facts Claimants are 68 and 63 years, respectively. Neither one has had any education beyond high school. They both went to work immediately thereafter. They have been married since 1980 and have children. The husband went to work in the oil fields with his father, and the wife became a dental assistant.  In 1999, the Claimants formed a company that drilled the initial conductors, mouseholes, and ratholes for oil producers before they constructed the drilling rigs that drilled for the oil. This was the family business that the husband learned from his father. After his father retired, the husband set out on his own and became very successful in a short period. By 2008, the Claimants had accumulated several million dollars and were introduced to Graham through their friends in the oil business. Neither one of the Co-Trustees had any education or experience investing in the stock or bond markets prior to meeting him. Graham would travel from his Salt Lake City office to meet with his clients. On those occasions, he would stop by the Claimants’ office to visit and solicit their business. Eventually, Graham was successful in persuading the Claimants to open a TDA account, which Graham managed for a management fee on a discretionary basis. In 2010, the Co-Trustees sold their company and deposited all the sales proceeds along with their other savings previously deposited into the TDA account managed by Graham. By the end of 2010, Respondent UP’s agent Graham controlled $12.5 million of the Claimants’ life savings held in trust for them. Graham managed the TDA account exclusively; he did not consult with Claimants with respect to any transaction therein.  In or about 2011 Graham began to distribute $15,000 per month to Claimants. The next year he increased the distribution to $25,000 per month to Claimants. From inception of the relationship, Graham continuously assured Claimants they would have more than enough funds for a lifetime of distributions at a rate of $25,000/month. Indeed, this might have been true if Graham had only continued to manage the account as he was instructed and agreed. Initially, Claimants received monthly account statements from TDA at Claimants’ business office PO Box address. Graham also supplied Claimants with written reports supposedly summarizing the account activity and performance of the account. However, after the sale of the business, Claimants only received Graham’s summary reports and annuity statements at their home. Graham never notified TDA that the Claimants sold their business, moved, and no longer received TDA statements that may have been delivered to their former business office. When Claimants asked Graham about the whereabouts of the TDA statements, he told them he was receiving them and all they needed...

Continue Reading

Mar 20, 2023

Elder Financial Abuse: Definition, Signs & What You Can Do

Growing up, one of the lessons we’re all taught is to respect our elders. Unfortunately, many people fail to take this to heart. Unscrupulous family members and other bad actors often take advantage of senior citizens, especially when it comes to their finances. According to one study, elder financial abuse accounted for roughly 18% of elder abuse reports. However, the actual percentage is likely much higher; only about 1 in 44 financial abuse cases is ever reported. Because many elderly people live off of their investments, the consequences of this type of abuse can be particularly extreme. The best way to protect our elderly family members is to know the signs of elder financial abuse. By recognizing the abuse as soon as possible, we can hopefully prevent irreversible damage to their finances. In this article, we will cover everything you need to know about elder financial abuse. What Is Elder Financial Abuse? Elder financial abuse is theft or mismanagement of an elderly person’s assets and/or investments. These may include real estate, bank accounts, or other property that belongs to the elderly person. Need Legal Help? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at 800-732-2889. Because the abuser is often a close family member, or trusted financial advisor, elder financial abuse frequently goes unnoticed. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder financial abuse, it’s important to act quickly. The elder financial abuse attorneys at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. can help walk you through the process to protect your rights and interests. Contact us today to schedule a consultation. Signs of Elder Financial Abuse and Exploitation At the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. we have seen firsthand the effects of elder financial abuse. Spotting the signs of elder financial abuse can be tricky, but it’s important to learn how to recognize them so that you can protect your loved ones. The following are some common signs of elder financial abuse and exploitation: Sign 1. Unusual Bank Account Activity As they get older, many people grant financial powers of attorney to their spouse or adult children or trusted financial advisors. While this is perfectly normal, it opens up the possibility that the designated person may abuse that power. If you suspect elder financial abuse, pay close attention to the elderly person’s bank accounts and investments in their brokerage accounts. Withdrawals, transfers, or other suspicious activity like new or inactive accounts suddenly becoming active are red flags. The elderly person may be making these transfers themself, but it’s always good to be sure, since it could be for the wrong reasons (like the internet scams discussed below). Keep an eye on their investments as well. An elderly person’s portfolio is typically structured to provide a livable income off interest alone through low-risk investments. Keep an eye out for restructuring of investments to riskier funds or unexplained “cash outs.” Sign 2. Suspicious Internet Activity Over the past few years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of online scams targeting elderly people. Because elderly people are more trusting and less able to distinguish a scam from a legitimate venture, scammers frequently target them with fake tech support calls and the like. One of the most common online scams involves the scammer posing as a lover, friend, or family member online. After contacting the elderly victim, the scammer then requests money for plane tickets or some kind of emergency. This sign may be impossible to notice without speaking to the potential victim. Be wary if they mention someone new they met online or if you notice suspicious financial activity initiated by the victim. Sign 3. Missing Food or Unpaid Bills Ordinarily, caregivers or family members will make sure that an eldery person’s home is stocked with food and that bills are paid on time. Especially in a world with automatic bill payments, aging parents shouldn’t have to worry about paying their bills on time. A lack of food in the house and unpaid bills are indicators that that money is going elsewhere. Sign 4. Frequent Requests for Money by Someone Close to the Victim If someone makes frequent demands for money, that could be an indicator of financial exploitation. Anyone from neighbors to adult children may try to make frequent requests for money because they know the victim may have a poor memory or may have difficulty saying no.  Keep in mind that elder financial abuse like this is often subtle. Demands may not always be for large amounts of cash; this sign also includes polite requests for small amounts here and there. Over time, however, those “small amounts” can become exploitative. Sign 5. Payment for Unnecessary Services Door-to-door salesmen and “cold callers” may try to a upsell your elderly family member on services they don’t want or need. One common example of door-to-door sales abuse is roof repair or landscaping work. Cold callers barrage elderly at home with the next best investment in gold, silver, diamonds, and the next supposed Apple, Amazon, or Nextflix investment opportunity  to get into before its too late! These scams can take many different forms and may be difficult to spot. Sign 6. Threats or Coercion It may be difficult to imagine, but people may threaten their elderly family members to obtain money. These threats usually do not involve force, but rather things like, “I will put you in a home” or “I will stop visiting you.” If you don’t buy this stock, I’ll never call you again with any investment opportunities.  The abuser may also instruct the victim not to tell anyone what is happening. As a result, you’ll often have to pay close attention to spot this sign of elder financial abuse. Watch for a change in the elderly person’s demeanor or mood, especially around a suspected abuser.  What to Do If You Suspect Elder Financial Abuse If you suspect your loved one is the victim of elder financial abuse, there are a couple things you can...

Continue Reading

Mar 19, 2023

What is a Broker CRD Number?

CRD, or Central Registration Depository, is a comprehensive database maintained by FINRA of all registered securities professionals and firms, providing an invaluable resource for investors. Investors can use a CRD number to access information about any broker or investment advisor, including their employment history, qualifications, examinations taken and passed, licenses held, disciplinary actions and more. Brokers and brokerage firms must register with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before they can legally sell securities in the United States. By maintaining a registration system, FINRA can better monitor and record the activities of registered brokers. These registrations are also open to the public, so investors can review the backgrounds of potential brokers before entrusting them with their money. You can look up your broker and brokerage firm by using their unique CRD (Central Registration Depository) number. What Is a Broker CRD Number? CRD stands for the Central Registration Depository. CRD numbers are unique identification numbers assigned by FINRA to registered brokers and brokerage firms. You can use the CRD number to look up a broker or brokerage firm’s disciplinary history, qualifications and other detailed information. Investment Losses? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at 800-732-2889. Central Registration Depository (CRD) & FINRA FINRA manages the Central Registration Depository (CRD) program. This program covers the licensing and registration of individuals and firms in the securities industry in the United States. When a broker or firm registers with FINRA, the regulator assigns them a CRD number. Investors can use a broker’s CRD number to check that broker’s work history and disciplinary record using BrokerCheck.  A broker’s profile on BrokerCheck will contain useful information for investors. On any given profile, investors can find information related to Complaints and regulatory actions are called “disclosures,” and investors can see details about each one using BrokerCheck. If the claim was settled, BrokerCheck displays the settlement along with the claimed allegations and the broker’s response, if any. Why It’s Important to Investigate a Potential Broker An investment broker is responsible for handling a significant portion of your assets. For that reason, you should learn as much about them as possible before giving them control. Doing your research before handing over your money can save you time and stress in the long run by helping you avoid unscrupulous brokers. If a broker’s disclosure history shows several complaints, each of which the broker denies, you can make the decision to move on or bring up your concerns. In any case, having more information about your broker’s past allows you to make a smarter decision about who is managing your money. How to Find a Broker’s CRD Number Before engaging a broker, you have the legal right to request their CRD number. If a broker refuses to provide this information to you, stop and find another broker to work with. Any broker unwilling to give you their CRD number likely has something to hide and is probably not someone with whom you want to invest. While asking your broker directly is the fastest way to get their CRD number, the information materials and agreement you receive before engaging your broker will likely contain this information as well. Regardless of how you obtain it, searching your broker’s CRD number is an important step when hiring a broker. How to Do a FINRA BrokerCheck CRD Number Search Finding information about a broker or firm in the past used to be a hassle. Fortunately, BrokerCheck makes it easy to research a broker with whom you want to invest. After visiting the BrokerCheck website, there are a few things you can do to check out a broker or firm. Search by CRD Number, Broker, or Firm Name Using the “Individual” or “Firm” search options, you can search for your broker by CRD number or name. Because many brokers may have the same or similar names, using a CRD number ensures that you find the right BrokerCheck report. You can also search for a specific brokerage firm using its CRD number or name. Doing so will return a report with much the same information as a broker search. Additionally, you can see a list of the direct owners and executive officers of the firm and information about when the firm was established. Examine Your Broker’s Employment History and Experience In the “Previous Registrations” section of the BrokerCheck report, you can see a chronological list of the firms with which the broker was previously registered. If you are concerned about gaps in employment or short tenures, you can discuss them with your broker. Check Your Broker’s Licenses and Exam History BrokerCheck also provides a comprehensive list of the examinations and licenses your broker has obtained. In addition to FINRA registration, your broker may have broker or financial adviser registrations in other states. The “Examinations” section shows you the date and type of exam your broker passed. If you are interested in a specific type of security or curious about the broker’s overall certification status, you can check that there. Read Through Any Disclosures BrokerCheck disclosures cover not only customer disputes and disciplinary actions but employment terminations, bankruptcy filings, and criminal and civil proceedings as well. If a broker was the subject of a court-ordered lien or other debt, it will show up with the other disclosures. This is the most important section to review while researching your broker. If there are no disclosures, then you’re good to go. If there are, however, then you should read through them carefully to decide whether to find another broker. Just because a customer dispute is filed does not mean that the broker engaged in wrongdoing. In many cases, the claim may not even reference the individual broker directly even if it shows up in the BrokerCheck report. Essentially, the existence of one or more disclosures does not automatically mean that the broker is bad. You should review and follow up on any disclosures you are concerned about. Do You Need a FINRA Attorney? If you’ve lost money and believe you are a...

Continue Reading

Mar 18, 2023

5 of the Best Investment Fraud Lawyers

When you searched for “best investment fraud lawyer” on Google, you came across a few different directory websites that claim to “rank” or “review” investment fraud law firms. As a consumer, you rely on these types of websites to give you an unbiased opinion on who the top service providers are. Unfortunately, the investment fraud lawyers that you see at the top of these lists have likely paid to be there. Directories are a pay-to-play platform where the best firms are not necessarily the ones that are listed first. This means that the order in which the lawyers are listed, or ranked, is not based on merit or quality, but rather on who is willing to pay the most money to publish them closer to the top. These directory websites have neither the knowledge nor expertise to determine who the best investment fraud lawyers actually are. They are looking to make a quick buck by selling ad space to the highest bidder. That is why I decided to write this article. With over 40 years of experience in the securities industry, I have first-hand knowledge of the top investment fraud law firms in the United States. Did You Lose Money Because of Investment Fraud? If you have lost money due to negligence or fraud by a stockbroker or advisor, the easiest way to know if you have a case is to call our office at 800-732-2889. Our investment fraud attorneys will evaluate your claim for free and let you know if we can help you recover your losses. Need Legal Help? Let’s talk. or, give us a ring at 561-338-0037. I am publicly endorsing some of my firm’s biggest competitors. These are attorneys that I’ve worked with or cases that I’ve followed closely, and which I consider to be the best at what they do. I am publicly endorsing some of my firm’s biggest competitors. These are attorneys that I’ve worked with or cases that I’ve followed closely, and which I consider to be the best at what they do. Why would I do this? Simple. I want you, the investor, to have the best chance possible of recovering your losses. I am more qualified than Justia.com or FindLaw.com or Avvo.com to give my opinion to investors looking for a great investment fraud lawyer. Unlike these websites, I know first-hand the hard work, dedication, and success that each of these attorneys has achieved. My law firm has worked with many of them. We’ve studied their cases. We’ve referred cases to them. They’ve referred cases to us. While we would love for you to come to us first, we understand that you have other options and need to find the one that is best suited for your specific situation. Our goal is for you be successful no matter who you choose. We consider the following to be the best investment fraud lawyers in the United States: I. Robert Wayne Pearce – The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. Best Investment Fraud Lawyer – Based in Florida Reviews on Google | AV® Preeminent Rating – Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Robert Wayne Pearce is the Lead Attorney of The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. and is one of the top investment fraud lawyers in the country. He is a well-respected advocate for investors throughout the legal community; he is known for his fierce litigation skills and tireless advocacy on behalf of his clients. With over 40 years of first-hand experience with investment disputes in Florida, nationwide, and internationally, Mr. Pearce is one of the most experienced Investment Fraud Lawyers nationwide. Attorney Pearce has tried over 100 cases to trial verdict or arbitration award and only lost 4 cases for investors in his career. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has represented thousands of investors in securities arbitration cases and has been successful in recovering more than $175 Million on behalf of our clients. Our most significant case was College Health & Investment Ltd. v Esther Spero, where we obtained $21 million for our client as a result of investment fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil theft. Mr. Pearce has also been AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest available rating through that program. If you have suffered investment losses due to fraud, misrepresentation, or any other type of securities misconduct, we welcome you to contact our office for a free consultation. More: Read About Robert Pearce II. Lloyd Schwed – Schwed Kahle & Kress, P.A. AV® Preeminent Rating – Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Lloyd Schwed is a founding partner of Schwed Kahle & Kress, P.A., where he has practiced law for more than 45 years. Since 2005, Mr. Schwed has obtained the prestigious AV® Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which signifies “very high” ethical standards, trustworthiness and diligence, as well as “very high to preeminent” legal aptitude. Mr. Scweb received the AV® Preeminent Rating in 2011, which is the Highest Possible Rating that must be met for both Legal Ability and Ethical Standards. One of Mr. Scwed’s most notable cases is Gomez v. UBS Financial Services Inc. in which he recovered $18.2 million for his clients. This case was one of the biggest FINRA awards in the past 10 years. We have worked directly with Lloyd Schwed and his legal team and can attest to his experience, knowledge, and dedication to fighting for the rights of investors who have been victimized by securities fraud. III. Carl Schoeppl – Schoeppl Law, P.A. Peer Reviewed – Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Carl Schoeppl is the Managing Shareholder of the Law Firm of Schoeppl Law, P.A. Mr. Schoeppl used to work as a senior federal prosecutor for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), under the Enforcement Division. Over the past several years, Mr. Schoeppl has been appointed to act as a receiver in complex investment fraud cases initiated by both the SEC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Mr. Schoeppl and his legal team have been instrumental in obtaining millions of dollars for investors and customers in receivership litigation cases. A receiver is a court-appointed official who is tasked with taking control of...

Continue Reading

Mar 16, 2023

What is the Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud?

When securities fraud is discovered, legal action can be taken against the perpetrators as long as the statute of limitations for securities fraud has not passed. The investment and securities industry is heavily regulated to protect investors from fraud and other unscrupulous practices. Unfortunately, there are still many instances of securities fraud that occur each year. What is the Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud? Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) there are two distinct timeframes for filing claims related to securities fraud: a two (2) year statute of limitations and a five (5) year statute of repose. Investment Losses? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at 800-732-2889. IMPORTANT: Securities fraud is a complex area of law, and the statute of limitations can be complicated to determine. Due to this, if you believe you are a victim of securities fraud, you should consult with an experienced securities fraud attorney to discuss your legal options and whether the statute of limitations may apply to your case. This is where things can get complicated when dealing with lawsuits relating to securities fraud. Both of these timelines begin running on different dates, and it is important to understand the difference between them. For the two-year statute of limitations, the clock starts ticking when the plaintiff becomes aware of the “facts constituting the violation.” The five-year repose period begins from the defendant’s last culpable act, regardless of whether the plaintiff is aware of it or not. The pairing of these two timelines ensures that there is always a chance to take legal action against securities fraud, even if the victim was not aware of the fraud at the time it occurred. Regardless, if securities fraud has occurred, the sooner action is taken, the better. How does the law define when a securities fraud has been “discovered” or should have been discovered? Due to the complexity of the securities and investment market, it can be difficult to determine when a securities fraud has been “discovered” or should have been discovered. In part, this is why there is a range of two to five years after the date of the fraud within which legal action can be taken. As a good rule of thumb, the time starts ticking on the statute of limitations when the investor becomes aware of (or discovers) the facts or should have been aware of the facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that securities fraud has occurred. This means two things: one, if the investor believes that he or she has been defrauded, the investor should act quickly and consult with an investment fraud attorney to discuss his or her legal options; and two, if the investor is unsure whether securities fraud has occurred, the investor should err on the side of caution and seek legal counsel to avoid losing the right to take action. IMPORTANT: Unfortunately, ignorance to a securities fraud often will not excuse the running of the statute of limitations. If you have suffered investment losses due to another’s actions, you may have a securities fraud claim, even if you were unaware of the fraud at the time it occurred. How is Securities Fraud handled in Court? The securities fraud cases for investors are typically handled in civil court and arbitrations, rather than criminal court.  A vast majority of securities fraud are brought under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits “any manipulative, deceptive, or fraudulent practices” in the securities industry. In addition, securities fraud cases can be tried through the FINRA arbitration process. More and more disputes are being handled through FINRA arbitration, as it is generally faster and less expensive than going to court. You can represent yourself in a FINRA arbitration, but even FINRA recommends that you consult a FINRA arbitration attorney to ensure that your case is properly presented and all possible legal options are explored. How to Report Securities Fraud If you believe that you have been the victim of securities fraud, there are a few things you can do: In securities fraud claims, timely filing of a claim is critical. As a result, if you believe you have been the victim of securities fraud, it is essential to act quickly. Filing a complaint with FINRA or the SEC generally will not help you get compensated for your losses. However, it is an important step in the dispute resolution process as any investigation by the regulators might put pressure on the defendants to resolve your claim and get compensation for your losses. An experienced securities fraud attorney can help you navigate the process of filing a claim and recovering your losses. Consider Speaking with a Securities Fraud Attorney If you believe that you have been the victim of securities fraud, you do have legal options available to you. Finding yourself a victim to securities fraud can be a confusing and frustrating experience. We can help. At The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., we have successfully represented many investors who have been victims of securities fraud. To schedule your free confidential consultation, please call us at 561-338-0037 or fill out one of our short contact forms.

Continue Reading

Mar 14, 2023

How to Sue Your Financial Advisor or Broker Over Investment Losses

If you’ve lost a significant amount of money in your investment portfolios, you could be wondering if you can sue your financial advisor or broker to help recover those losses. While every case is different, there are a number of factors that will influence whether or not you have a successful lawsuit. In this article, we will discuss some of the key things to consider if you are thinking about suing your financial advisor or stockbroker. IMPORTANT: If you are considering suing your advisor, it is important to seek legal counsel. Do not file without legal representation. Securities is a complex area of law, and without an experienced investment loss attorney, you may not be able to recover the full extent of your losses. Can I Sue My Financial Advisor? Yes, you can. You may file an arbitration claim with FINRA to seek financial compensation if your investment advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm violated FINRA’s regulations and rules, resulting in financial losses on your part. Investment Losses? Let’s Talk. or, give us a ring at (800) 732-2889. A Financial Advisor’s Duty of Care People hire financial advisors and brokers to grow and protect their money. Financial advisors have advanced education and training, which should provide their clients with valuable insight and accurate financial advice. Individual investors expect that their advisors will not defraud or harm them in any other way. Market volatility is difficult to predict with any certainty. Markets dip and rebound over time. A financial advisor must guide you through those difficult times and offer you sound investment advice to minimize or avoid losses.  Some investments are riskier than others. Brokers and financial advisors need to understand their clients’ risk tolerance, as well as their clients’ investment needs. Losses could ruin years of hard work and financial planning.  Market volatility is one thing—negligence, deception, and fraud are something else entirely. Therefore, you should review your portfolio closely to see if you are a victim of misconduct.

Continue Reading