Published on:

By

In October 2019, a Maryland District Court judge sentenced Kevin B. Merrill, a salesman, and Jay B. Ledford, a former CPA, to 22 years and 14 years in federal prison, respectively, each followed by three years of supervised release, arising from an investment fraud Ponzi scheme that operated from 2013 through September 2018 and raised more than $345 million from over 230 investors nationwide. The judge ordered Merrill and Ledford to pay full restitution for victims’ losses, which is at least $189,166,116, plus forfeiture of additional sums still to be determined. Cameron R. Jezierski, a key employee of two companies controlled by Merrill and Ledford, was sentenced in November 2019 to serve 2 years in prison and an additional year of home confinement for his role in the fraud. The criminal charges and recent sentencing stem from an action filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) filed a complaint in federal district court in Maryland in September 2018 against Merrill, Ledford and Jezierski alleging that, from at least 2013 to 2018, they attracted investors by promising substantial profits from the purchase and resale of consumer debt portfolios. Consumer debt portfolios are defaulted consumer debts to banks/credit card issuers, student loan lenders, and car financers which are sold in batches to third parties that attempt to collect on the debts. Instead of using investor funds to acquire and service debt portfolios—as they had promised— Merrill, Ledford and Jezierski allegedly used the money to make Ponzi-like payments to investors and to fund their own extravagant lifestyles, including $10.2 million on at least 25 high-end cars, $330,000 for a 7-carat diamond ring, $168,000 for a 23-carat diamond bracelet, millions of dollars on luxury homes, and $100,000 to a private fitness club. Merrill, Ledford and Jezierski allegedly perpetrated their fraudulent scheme by lying to investors, creating sham documents and forging signature. The victims included small business owners, restauranteurs, construction contractors, retirees, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, talent agents, professional athletes, and financial advisors located in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, Boulder, Texas, Chicago, New York, and elsewhere.

The SEC obtained an emergency asset freeze and the appointment of a receiver. The receiver is empowered to pursue actions on behalf of the receivership estate to recover assets for the benefit of defrauded investors, victims, and creditors. Avoidance (“clawback”) actions are often brought by a receiver in bankruptcy court after a Ponzi scheme or fraud is revealed. Clawback actions are commenced to recover funds distributed to victims or investors by the fraudster operating the Ponzi scheme or fraud.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

On July 17, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Commercial Division) confirmed a FINRA Arbitration Award against Credit Suisse for approximately $6.68 million, including unlawfully withheld deferred compensation, interest, attorneys’ fees, and liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.  See Lerner and Winderbaum v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Index No. 652771/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Doc. 140.   

The two former Credit Suisse investment advisers, represented by Lax & Neville LLP, sued Credit Suisse for breach of contract, fraud and violation of the New York Labor Law after it closed its US wealth management business in October 2015 and cancelled their earned deferred compensation.  Credit Suisse defended the claims on the grounds that its former advisers voluntarily resigned after it told them they were being terminated, that future compensation by their next employer “mitigated” their damages, and that the New York Labor Law does not apply to deferred compensation.  A three member FINRA Arbitration Panel found for the advisers and ordered Credit Suisse to pay  compensatory damages totaling $2,787,344 and interest, attorneys’ fees, FINRA forum fees, and liquidated damages equal to 100% of the advisers’ unpaid wages pursuant to New York Labor Law § 198(1-a).  The FINRA Panel also recommended that the “Reason for Termination” on the advisers’ Form U-5 be changed from “Voluntary” to “terminated without cause.”

Credit Suisse petitioned to vacate the Award for manifest disregard of the law, “challeng[ing] FINRA’s finding that petitioners’ deferred compensation qualified as wages under Labor Law §198 (1-a).”  Lerner at 3.   Rejecting Credit Suisse’s petition to vacate the Award in its entirety, the Court held:

Continue reading
Published on:

By

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced this month that four investment advisory firms—Merrill Lynch, RBC Capital Markets, Eagle Strategies, and Cozad Asset Management—agreed to pay $4.72 million to settle charges that they recommended and sold mutual share classes to its customers when cheaper shares were available to those investors.  The majority of that sum, namely, $3.88 million, is attributable to RBC Capital Markets.  The mutual fund fee disgorgements resulting from the settlements with the SEC are part of the SEC’s initiative, launched in February 2018, wherein the SEC agreed to waive civil penalties against investment advisers who self-reported and admitted that they had been putting investors into high-fee mutual fund classes and agreed to reimburse those customers.  These settlements are the last ones the SEC will accept as it concludes the mutual fund amnesty program.

A mutual fund share class represents an interest in the same portfolio of securities with the same investment objective, with the primary difference being the fee structures.  For example, some mutual fund share classes charge what are called “12b-1 fees” to cover fund distribution and sometimes shareholder service expenses.  Many mutual funds, however, also offer share classes that do not charge 12b-1 fees, and investors who hold these shares will almost always earn higher returns because the annual fund operating expenses tend to be lower over time.

In the various cease and desist orders, the SEC found that Merrill Lynch, RBC Capital Markets, Eagle Strategies, and Cozad Asset Management purchased, recommended or held for their clients mutual fund share classes that paid the firms or the advisors 12b-1 fees instead of lower cost share classes of the same funds for which their customers are also eligible.  The firms also failed to disclose these conflicts of interest, either in its Forms ADV or otherwise, related to their receipt of 12b-1 fees and/or the selection of mutual fund share classes that pay higher fees and result in higher commissions to the investment advisors.  Investment advisors owe a fiduciary duty to their customers to act in their best interest, including disclosing conflicts of interest.  The SEC found that the investment advisory firms’ failures to adequately disclose that the advisors were actually incentivized to recommend funds with higher fees when the same mutual funds without those fees were available violated the firms and advisors’ fiduciary duty to their customers.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Arbitration at FINRA has long been known as a quicker, more efficient alternative to court litigation of disputes eligible for submission to FINRA’s Dispute Resolution forum.  This continues to be true, to an even greater extent, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many courts at the federal and state levels, both in New York and across the US, have indefinitely suspended the filing of new nonessential cases during this time. Courts have also frozen the commencement of trials and the perfection of appeals in pending cases. And conferences, depositions and other in-person court appearances cannot take place where social distancing and large-group gathering guidelines are in effect. Thus, both new and pending court cases are in large part on hold until further notice, to protect the safety of parties, court personnel and the public.

At FINRA, however, the processing and handling of arbitration cases is primarily done electronically, with very little need for in-person contact until the final hearings on the merits. Even during the current unprecedented situation, parties can still file new cases at FINRA using the Dispute Resolution Portal, and can choose arbitrators and engage in discovery. Because FINRA arbitration does not allow for depositions except in extraordinary circumstances, the discovery process and exchange of documents and information can be done completely remotely and electronically, and without delay.  Parties or potential parties should be reassured that their new or already-pending cases will continue to be administered as they were before the current pandemic.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Cantor Fitzgerald has a practice of awarding its FINRA registered employees compensation in the form of partnership units in an associated entity called Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. (CFLP), which is not a member of FINRA.  The employees are often employed by or registered with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (CF&Co.), the main Cantor FINRA-registered broker dealer.  Many Cantor employees have employment agreements with CF&Co. which provide for payment in CFLP partnership units.  The compensation in the form of CFLP partnership units can only be for the employees’ work as FINRA-registered representatives for CF&Co since the employees don’t work for CFLP.

As Bloomberg reported. Cantor recently announced layoffs.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/cantor-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-in-break-from-wall-street-pledge

Many employees who are laid off may own significant amounts of CFLP partnership units.  If an employee believes he or she is not being compensated fairly with respect to the partnership units, what can an employee do?  Our firm has handled this issue with Cantor before.  The answer, if the employee is a FINRA registered representative, is he or she can bring a FINRA arbitration against CF&Co. to recover the value of the partnership units.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

We are increasingly hearing from investors who say that their investment representative at their “self directed” broker dealer—such as T.D. Ameritrade—recommended an outside investment advisor who was not formally affiliated with the firm and incurred investment losses as a result.

There could be many reasons why this may happen: the investment representative may have a financial arrangement with the advisor, or a personal relationship, or even just trying to be helpful. However, this is a problem that is obviously foreseeable for such firms, and sometimes lands an unwitting investor with a fraudster.  In fact, such firms discourage their investment representatives from giving any investment advice because that can expose them bring to potential liability if the advisor or advice is unsuitable or fraudulent. Nevertheless, investment representatives sometimes make recommendations of outside unaffiliated advisors to their customers.  The question is can the firm be legally responsible if the recommended advisor’s strategy is not suitable or fraudulent. The general rule is that if an investment representative recommends that a customer use an outside advisor, or even brings such an advisor or her strategy to the attention of the customer, the firm may be liable in FINRA arbitration to the customer if the advisor/strategy is unsuitable or fraudulent and losses are incurred as a result.

Brokerage firms that use the self directed business model try to protect themselves by inserting language in their client agreements that purports to absolve them of such liability. However, FINRA frowns on brokerage firm attempts to insulate themselves contractually for liability resulting from breach by their registered representatives of industry rules, such as the suitability rule. In addition, at least one FINRA panel has awarded damages against T.D. Ameritrade in just such a case. https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/aao_documents/18-01404.pdf

Published on:

By

The market for financial advisors to transition from one firm to another is thriving despite less broker dealers being part of the Broker Protocol, the global economy being at a near standstill, and millions of Americans applying for unemployment on a weekly basis. The wire houses are actively recruiting and Fidelity recently announced its hiring efforts: https://jobs.fidelity.com/ With a volatile stock market causing extreme angst among investors, advisors are in high demand as they calm unsteady nerves and identify investment opportunities for weary clients. Given these realities, it would seem an unlikely time for advisors to make the jump from one firm to another. But many advisors – and the firms who have stepped up their recruiting efforts during the pandemic – feel otherwise.

Attempting to move an entire book of business during unprecedented market volatility can certainly be a risky endeavor, but there are good reasons to consider taking the leap at this particular time. Having experienced counsel will help too.

First, in light of the stock market roller coaster of the past several weeks, investors are more inclined to remain with the advisor upon whom they’ve come to rely, regardless of which firm he or she works.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Mortgage REITs have often been recommended by brokerage firms as safe investments that generate consistent income.  However, during the recent market turmoil the bottom has fallen out for many Mortgage REITs.  For example, AGNC Investment and Annaly Capital are down over 50% in the last month or so, a way larger drop than the general equities markets.  Another Mortgage REIT, AG Mortgage, is down 75%.  Many of these mortgage REITs do not expect to be able to meet upcoming margin calls.

How did these mortgage REITs end up here?  Well, first of all, a REIT is a real estate investment trust which is a security that invests in real estate directly either through properties or in this case, mortgages or mortgage-related bonds.  The mortgage REITs listed above are publicly held and sold on exchanges. There are also what are called non-traded REITs which are often sold through broker-dealers and are not traded publicly.  Mortgage REITs invest and own property mortgages. They also loan money for mortgages to real estate owners, buy existing mortgages and purchase complicated MBS (mortgage-backed securities). Mortgage REITs generate revenue by collecting interest on the mortgage-related products.

As reported widely this week, the Mortgage REITs often fund themselves by pledging bonds in return for cash in the repo markets.  They are highly leveraged which in good times allowed them to pay dividends at higher yields than most bonds.  Brokers often recommend to investors to reach for yield in low yielding time periods and many brokers sold Mortgage REITs to investors without fully disclosing the risks associated with them.  In recent weeks, many Mortgage REITs found that the mortgage bonds they held dropped in value which triggered margin calls which then forced the Mortgage REITs to sell bonds into a falling market.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Margin call disputes often arise during times of market turmoil such as now.  Knowing what to do and whom to speak to when a margin call is issued is vitally important to an investor’s financial well-being.  Here is a little primer on what to do.

A margin call often occurs when the value of an investor’s margin account falls below the broker dealer’s required amount. A margin call is the broker dealer’s demand that an investor deposit additional money or securities so that the value of the account is brought up to the minimum value, which is known as the maintenance margin.  Some margin calls are small and an investor simply has to move securities in from another account or write a check to the broker.  However, in other situations, the acts by the broker dealer prior to the margin call being issued may have played a role in the margin call itself.

For example, a conservative investor often should not be holding any securities on margin at a brokerage firm.  If the firm recommended an unsuitable investment strategy that contained a significant amount of margin, and the market turned bad, and the investor sustained losses, said investor may have a potential FINRA arbitration claim against the broker.  In these situations, when a margin call is issued on the account, we highly recommend that the investor call a law firm such as ours who regularly represents investors in disputes with the financial industry.  It is paramount that the investor receives legal advice as soon as possible.  Most broker dealers have very broad powers in how to handle margin calls pursuant to onerous margin agreements.  The brokers sometimes even blow out investors’ portfolios without providing any notice (though they are supposed to exercise good faith in any decision they implement).  Time is usually of the essence.  It is important to have counsel engage with the broker dealer as soon as possible to potentially work out any issues.

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Many firms, such as TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab and Fidelity, whose business model includes or is tailored primarily to investors who want the benefits of a self-directed account also offer to introduce investors who wish independent investment advice to professional investment advisors who are technically “unaffiliated” with the firm.  Such investment advisors are often small SEC Registered Investment Advisors (“RIA”s) who are thinly capitalized and have supervisory systems that are well below FINRA broker dealer standards. The brokerage firms contract with such RIAs to be on their platforms and available to provide advice to customers that the firm introduces them to.   Those contracts are often designed to, among other things, insulate the brokerage firm from liability for investment advice given to the investor. This is so even though the brokerage firms vet such advisors, who become part of a “platform” they market to investors. Investors who are “introduced” by their firm to an RIA who will provide them investment advice may not realize that the firm’s position is that if the advice is inappropriate the RIA and not the firm is legally responsible.  Indeed, the firms structure their contracts with the customer as well as the RIA to give them this protection. Customers can be easily misled by such “introductions” into believing that the firm stands behind the RIA. Although the legal documents, couched in legalese, may so specify, the customer, who often does not read all the legalese in these documents, can be forgiven for believing that the firm that recommended the advisor and investment plan should have some responsibility if that advisor acts improperly. Investors at such firms need to know that they are taking a risk that if their firm recommended RIA gives them unsuitable advice they may be stuck suing a potentially judgment proof RIA in court (rather than the more cost effective FINRA arbitration).

Contact Information
New York Office
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue Suite 4640
New York, NY 10118
Phone: 212-696-1999
Fax: 212-566-4531
Connecticut Office
2425 Post Road, Suite 200
Southport, CT 06890
Phone: 212-696-1999
Fax: 212-566-4531
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 © 2014 – 2025, Lax & Neville
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design