Articles Posted in Fiduciary Duty

| By and

The investment fraud lawyers at Rich, Intelisano & Katz (“RIK”) won $3.2 million for their clients, Bret and Marion Pearlman, in a recent FINRA arbitration against UBS.  The Pearlmans’ claim was for misrepresentations and omissions related to UBS’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (YES) – an options overlay strategy.  It is the third largest award against UBS related to YES.  Investors have tried to a final award approximately 46 YES cases against UBS and have won roughly one-half of those cases.  RIK has tried only two cases to a final award and won the largest award ($5.2 million) and the third largest one.  In both cases, the awards reflected over 90% of the clients’ losses as of the date of the filing of the arbitration.  Read the full award here.

Options overlay strategies use underlying assets, such as equities, cash, and bonds, as collateral to buy and sell options.  In its most basic understanding, UBS’s options overlay strategy, YES, periodically bought and sold options, simultaneously, to generate income from the sale of options.  In many cases, YES was pitched and marketed to UBS customers as a “low-risk” strategy that seeks to enhance portfolios approximately 2-6% of their mandate annually (the mandate is the underlying amount of collateral the customers elect to use for the strategy).  YES was further marketed as having limited to no correlation to the S&P 500.  Additionally, in its materials and disclosures, UBS stated that the managers of the program utilized various methods to “limit” risk exposure.  In reality, YES was a high-risk strategy that added significant risk to the underlying assets where potential losses were awfully disproportionate to any potential gains.  The additional risks and potential losses were never fully disclosed to many customers.

RIK’s securities attorneys have represented many investors of YES and other complicated options strategies in legal actions against UBS and other firms.  If you have losses related to YES or options trading strategies, do not hesitate and feel free to schedule an appointment here or call us at (212) 684-0300 for a free consultation.

| By and

HJ Sims & Co. Inc. (“HJ Sims”) appears to have used Regulation D (“Reg D”) offerings to pass its risk of loss onto its customers while it retained the potential for significant gains.  A scheme like this would violate numerous FINRA Rules and regulations, including suitability, Regulation BI (“Reg BI”), and due diligence obligations.  See FINRA’s Due Diligence and Suitability of Private Placement.  RIK’s investment lawyers are currently investigating potential claims related to HJ Sims’ possible improper sales practices.

Reg D securities are non-public offerings designed to help operating firms raise funding, and are exempt from certain security registration requirements.  This type of private placement is offered by the “issuer,” and who, under the rules, is only required to make limited disclosures regarding the price of the offering – making it more challenging for investors to determine a fair price of the private placement when compared to publicly traded investments.

In the past 10 years, HJ Sims sold 93 Reg D Offerings (listed below), where most of the issuers of the Reg D bonds were owned and/or controlled by HJ Sims executives.  Because of this, not only did HJ Sims gain commissions and other fees associated with the offerings, “[i]f a Sims’ Reg D offering failed, the executives would suffer a portion of the losses but realize all the gains if an offering succeeded.”  See HJ Sims Reg D Offerings: Heads, HJ Sims Wins – Tails, Their Investors Lose.  Ultimately, the risks associated with the Reg D offerings were passed onto the customers.  As stated by SLCG Economic Consulting, “HJ Sims ability to shift losses to its clients would naturally lead it to invest in riskier projects with unusually high likelihood of failure.”  See id.

Continue reading

| By and

The investment fraud attorneys at Rich, Intelisano & Katz won a $5.2 million FINRA arbitration award for their clients, George and Sandra Schussel, in a case relating to UBS’s Yield Enhancement Strategy (“YES”).  Investors in YES, including the Schussels, suffered significant losses in December 2018.  Many investors in YES have since filed FINRA claims against UBS.  To date, over 40 of the filed claims have gone to award – approximately half have been in favor of investors while half favored UBS.  RIK has been successful in representing multiple YES investors.  The September 15, 2022 award of $5.2 million represents the largest YES-related award against UBS to date and an approximately 95% recovery for our clients.  Read the full award here.

During the Schussels’ arbitration, RIK’s attorneys stressed that recommending a strategy that the advisor did not fully understand is inherently a breach of their fiduciary duty.  After eight days of hearings, the panel unanimously awarded the Schussels over $5,200,000 including $95,000 in pre-judgment interest and $92,000 in costs.  The significant award has received the following press coverage: FA-mag, Barron’s, and InvestmentNews.

UBS’s YES strategy is an options overlay strategy which uses investors’ conservative investments as collateral for iron condor options trading.  UBS’s financial advisors marketed it as a moderate risk strategy designed to gain additional incremental investment income.  Despite UBS’s disclosure statements, UBS never adequately disclosed the true risks of YES – that it was a high risk, low reward strategy.  As such, investors in YES, including the Schussels, were shocked to discover significant losses in their YES accounts in December 2018.

Continue reading

| By

Although some registered representatives and financial firms downplay the risks involved with options trading, in reality, options trading can be an aggressive strategy that may entail high risks.  Because of the risks associated with option trading, it is generally only suitable for investors with a high net worth, experience, and an appetite for risk.  Brokers, financial advisors, and financial firms sometimes ignore a customer’s tolerance for risk and improperly approve options trading in the customer’s account.  Unfortunately, this can lead to tremendous losses in their accounts.  RIK recently filed several multi-million-dollar cases on behalf of investors to recover for losses relating to improper options trading.

Options are contracts that grant an investor the right, but not obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset at a set price on or before a specific date.  Options trading has become popular amongst investors in recent years.  To be successful, options trading requires research, discipline, and constant market monitoring.  This type of trading involves high risk and requires special approval from the financial firm.

From the outset, options trading often comes with excessive fees which incentivizes brokers and advisors to recommend options trading to their clients regardless of the clients’ investment objectives and willingness to take on risk.  In doing so, the broker or advisor sometimes downplays the risks associated with an options trading strategy by claiming that the only potential downside is the initial cost of the contract or that the advisor can hedge the position.  Both notions can be misleading.  First, the investor pays a premium for options in addition to paying high commission fees.  This means the investor is at a loss the moment an option is purchased.  Secondly, hedging options is highly dependent on market conditions and is an extremely risky strategy in the current volatile market.

Continue reading

| By

In recent years, options trading has become more popular with investors.  Because of the high risks associated with options trading, FINRA imposes specific rules and guidelines relating to trading options and which accounts can be approved for options trading.  For example, firms are required to have an options principal oversee option trading in accounts.  Moreover, in April 2021, FINRA sent a notice to members reminding them that, “[r]egardless of whether the account is self-directed or options are being recommended, members must perform due diligence on the customer and collect information about the customer to support a determination that options trading is appropriate for the customer.”  See FINRA, Notice to Members 21-15 (2021).

FINRA’s recent investigations and sanctions against financial institutions, brokers, and advisors for options-related violations demonstrate how serious rules relating to options approval and option trading are.  For example, last month FINRA imposed its largest financial penalty ever against Robinhood Financial LLC, in part, for failing to exercise due diligence before approving investors for options trading in self-directed accounts.  Below are other recent examples of options-related sanctions FINRA imposed on firms and individuals:

  • Cambridge Research, Inc. was censured, fined $400,000, and ordered to pay over $3,000,000 in restitutions for improper conduct relating to the firms “risky strategies” that relied on purchasing uncovered options – options where the seller does not hold the underlying stock and is required to have an option margin to show the ability to purchase the stock when needed (FINRA Case No. 2018056443801);
Continue reading

| By

Wall Street’s fastest growing trend is investing in Special Purpose Acquisitions Companies (“SPACs”).  SPACs are a way for private companies to go public without having to go through the traditional IPO process.  SPACs have been around for decades but have recently gained popularity in companies seeking to go public in this period of high market volatility.  Historically, SPACs were viewed as extremely risky investments.  The recent rise in SPACs does not change the high risks associated with them.  Some brokers and financial advisors ignore these risks and recommend customers invest in SPACs regardless of the customer’s investment profile and appetite for risk.  RIK’s investment fraud lawyers have extensive experience handling these types of cases and recovering losses for customers.

SPACs, also known as blank check companies, are companies created and publicly traded for the sole purpose of buying or merging with a private company in the future, known as the target company.  SPACs disclose criteria about the what kind of target company or companies it seeks.  Despite these disclosures, which are usually very limited and loosely defined, investors of the SPAC have no idea what the eventual acquisition company will be.  In other words, investors are going in blind.

In using SPACs to go public, private companies forego the process of registering an IPO with the SEC, meaning there is less oversight from the SEC.  The SPAC process also permits private companies to go public in a substantially shorter time period than a conventional IPO.  As one might suspect, the due diligence of the SPAC process is not as rigorous as a traditional IPO and no one is looking out for the best interests of investors.  Even worse, SPAC managers are not incentivized to obtain the best possible deal for investors – their job is to get a merger deal, not get the best deal.  Not surprisingly, this can lead to substantial harm to investors.  For example, the SPAC company may be overpaying for the target company – meaning investors are losing on the deal.

Continue reading

| By

In what has become a hot issue this Spring, the Labor Department yesterday proposed a new set of standards for brokers who offer advice in connection with 401(k)’s and other retirement accounts. Currently, brokers are required only to recommend products that are “suitable” for investors, which permits the sale of products that earn the broker high fees. Reuters reports that the new standards will require brokers to put their clients’ best interests first ahead of any personal financial gain. The Labor Department proposal will require “best interest” contracts between brokers and investors.

Rich Intelisano and Katz LLP represents investors in FINRA arbitrations and other litigations against broker-dealers and other financial firms.

| By

I noted in my March 20 post that the Chair of the SEC had just come out in favor of a rule requiring brokers to act in their clients best interests. While investors wait for the SEC to move forward on the issue, the New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, is proposing that New York State require brokers to disclose the present state of their relationship to clients – “I am not a fiduciary” and “I am not required to act in your best interests, and am allowed to recommend investments that may earn higher fees for me or my firm, even if those investments may not have the best combination of fees, risks and expected returns for you.” The Wall Street Journal posited that New York’s adoption of such a requirement could spur other states to impose similar regulations.

A recent report by the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (“PIABA”) shows why Stringer’s proposal is critical. U.S. News describes the PIABA report which contrasted brokers’ advertising campaigns with the legal positions taken by those brokers in litigation against their clients. For example:

• Ad: “It’s time for a financial strategy that puts your needs and priorities front and center.”

Continue reading

| By

Reuters reported that Mary Jo White, Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, came out in favor of creating of new rules to harmonize standards of care between investment advisers and brokers. Currently, investment advisers must act in a client’s best interest, while brokers may continue to sell products that primarily benefit their or their firm’s financial interests – so long as such products are “suitable” for the clients.

Wall Street has opposed efforts by the Department of Labor to craft rules governing such broker conduct and requiring them to put client’s interest first. White’s comments this week suggest that the SEC may be preparing to weigh in on the issue.

Rich Intelisano and Katz LLP represents investors in FINRA arbitrations and other proceedings against both investment advisers and brokers.

| By

A leaked White House memo supports imposing fiduciary duties on brokers in their dealings with IRA investors, as reported by the New York Times.

Current rules provide a weaker standard for brokers. The memo estimates that the absence of adequate investor safeguards penalizes IRA holders by as much as $17 billion per year. Hopefully, this development indicates that a rule imposing a fiduciary standard will be promulgated by the U.S. Labor Department soon. The securities industry has been vigorously fighting this requirement for years, some threatening to stop offering IRAs that would be subject to the rule. Of primary concern to investors are built in conflicts of interest that brokers often have in recommending IRA investments that may be lucrative to the broker but not right for the investor. The government should err on the side of investor protection in this dispute because the securities industry has the knowledge and resources to protect future retirees, whereas many investors lack the knowledge to protect themselves in the arena of complicated investment products.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/your-money/fiduciary-duty-rule-would-protect-consumers-and-target-investment-brokers.html?_r=0

Contact Information
183 Madison Ave #1601
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 684-0300
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Rich, Intelisano & Katz, LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design