An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer
 
Join BrokeAndBroker blog on Facebook  Follow the BrokeAndBroker blog on Twitter  Connect with BrokeAndBroker on LinkedIn  Join Bill Singer on Google+  Subscribe to RSS Feed

FINRA Panel Imposes Punitive Damages - Another Lost Generation for Wall Street Reform.
Written: September 22, 2010

In a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim filed on September 18, 2009, Claimant alleged, in part, fraud, negligence, and breach of contract; and sought, among other relief, damages in excess of $350,000, disgorgement of excessive commissions, fees and compensations received by Respondents, and punitive damages arising out of the purchase of units in the Land Entitlement and Opportunities Fund (the "Land Fund"). In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Martha C. Campbell, personally and on behalf of the Martha C. Campbell Rollover IRA, Claimant, versus Kevin A. Williams, North Global Securities, Inc. North Wealth Management Company, Asset Management Strategies, LLC, Steven Lee Thornton,  Daniel Guillen, Respondents  (FINRA Arbitration 09-05650, September 20, 2010).

According to online descriptions at http://www.northwealthmanagement.com/LEOF.php, the Land Fund (now closed to new investors} is a:

private placement offering authorized to raise $50,000,000.00 for investment into pre-entitled, post-entitled or other land based opportunities that the fund management deems attractive for investors. North Wealth Management Company LLC has maintained relationships with long-standing real estate law and land development professionals in the Pacific north and southwest areas of the United States. The Fund provides Equity and Debt participation into Real Estate projects, providing current income, capital appreciation and the security of Real Estate ownership.

Respondent Guillen was not a member or associated person of FINRA and did not voluntarily submit to arbitration; and, therefore, the FINRA Arbitration Panel made no determination with respect to him.

On January 29,2010, the FINRA Panel was advised that Claimants had dismissed Respondent Thornton without prejudice.

Initially, Claimants requested an entry of default against Respondents Williams, North Global, and North Wealth, and Asset Management for their failure to answer the Statement of Claim. On March 9, 2010, those Respondents filed an Answer and, in accordance with Rule 12801 of the Code, FINRA terminated default proceedings against them. Respondents Williams, North Global, and North Wealth, and Asset Management generally denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Discovery Sanctions

On June 11, 2010, Claimants filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions for failure of the answering Respondents to comply wtth the FINRA Arbitration Panel's  Chairperson's Discovery Order of May 21, 2010. Respondents did not file papers in opposition to that motion. On July 7, 2010, Claimants filed a motion to renew the June 11, 2010,  Motion for Discovery Sanctions. On July 14, 2010, Respondents filed responsive correspondence and on July 15, 2010, the Panel conducted a pre-hearing conference to hear oral argument concerning the requested sanctions. On July 7,2010, the Panel granted Claimants' Motion, ordered Respondents to produce documents in compliance with the Chairperson's May 21st Order, and imposed sanctions of $1,000 payable to Claimants.

Panel's Rulings:

The FINRA Arbitration Panel found that all investments of Claimant's IRA were unsuitable in view of Claimant's age, lack of financial knowledge, and financial needs.

With regard to the Land Entitlement and Opportuntities Fund, LLC, the Panel found that fraud, gross misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and/or gross negligence were committed by Respondents by way of

(a) Taking undue advantage of an older, retired, financially unsophisticated, and financially-limited client for Respondents' own financial interests;

(b) Placing Respondents.' own needs and interests above Claimant's needs and interests, thereby violating Respondents' fiduciary duty to Claimant; and

(c) Misusing Claimant's IRA savings through, among other things, deceit and misleading and reckless behavior.

The Panel found Respondents Williams, North Global, North Wealth Management, and Asset Management Strategies jointly and severally liable and ordered them to pay

  • $397,034.00  in compensatory damages (subject to Claimants giving up all rights to the Land Fund); and
  • $75.000.00 in punitive damages pursuant to Hobbs v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Inc., 164 Cal. App. 3d 174 (Ct App. 1985).
  • $165.211.90 in attorneys' fees, pursuant to Land Fund Operating Agreement;
  • $3,806.02 for costs.

If the Award is not paid within 30 days, the Panel ordered the subject Respondents to pay (on a joint and several basis) the sum of $472,034.00 at the interest rate of 6% per annum until full payment is made.

Bill Singer's Comment: An impressive win for the Claimant, replete with over $200,000 in punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  Tack on to that the Panel's biting commentary about taking advantage of an older, retired, unsophisticated client through deceit, and this one has to sting.

Separately, if you are unfamiliar with the Hobbs case that the Panel cited in support of its award of punitive damages, you should read it HERE at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=46826640791542154&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

In the Summary of Hobbs, the Court explains the essence of the case as follows:

Plaintiff and respondent Mittie F. Hobbs, individually, and Mittie F. Hobbs, trustee of that trust agreement dated December 23, 1974 (Mrs. Hobbs), was awarded $96,000 in compensatory damages against defendants and appellants Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Incorporated and Alan Ravenscroft (individually, Bateman Eichler and Ravenscroft and, collectively, appellants) and $220,000 in punitive damages against Bateman Eichler by a jury which determined that appellants had breached their fiduciary duties to Mrs. Hobbs. Mrs. Hobbs showed that appellants had made unsuitable investments for her, had "churned" her account, had made transactions without obtaining her permission and had failed to advise her of substantial losses in her account. The trial court denied appellants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial and entered judgment on the verdicts. Appellants appealed. We affirm the judgment and orders of the trial court.

In the relevant portion of the Hobbs' Decision cited by the FINRA Arbitration Panel, the Court noted that:

Again, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find that Bateman Eichler's conduct amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty to its client, which is precisely the type of tortious conduct that an award of punitive damages is designed to deter. The $220,000 award of punitive damages against Bateman Eichler was not excessive.

Hobbs was decided by the California Court of Appeal in 1985 -- some 25 years ago. At the time, I was a young regulatory lawyer charged with prosecuting industry respondents who were violating the rules and regulations of Wall Street.  I remember how dramatic Hobbs was when first announced. Sadly, in reading the "Conclusion" to that decision, I see that little has changed in the span of a generation.  The fraud persists. The regulators fail to regulate. Inexorably, things continue to go from bad to worse:

CONCLUSION

The supreme irony in this case is that Ravenscroft testified he told Mrs. Hobbs that her stated objectives would have to change because he could not generate $15,000 a year income for her on an $80,000 portfolio. Yet Ravenscroft did exactly that for Bateman Eichler, generating a $15,000 a year income in commissions. This is a classic example of the conflict of interest which exists in the securities industry and is at the heart of the circumstances which resulted in the "hobbling" of Mrs. Hobbs. On the one hand, brokers act as investment advisors to their clients. On the other hand, they are salespersons, dependent upon their brokerage commissions for a livelihood. Commissions are received only when customers engage in transactions. Individual brokers employed by a brokerage firm normally obtain as their sole compensation between 30 and 40 percent of the commissions they produce.

"Under this compensation system, `few brokers are immune to the temptation to consider their financial interest from time to time while they are advising clients. Being at once a salesman and a counselor is too much of a burden for most mortals.'" (Poser, Options Account Fraud: Securities Churning in a New Context (1984) 39 Bus. Law. 571, 573 (hereinafter cited as Securities Churning); see also Mundheim, Professional Responsibilities of Broker-Dealers: The Suitability Doctrine (1965) Duke L.J. 445, 447.)

Sadly, the Securities and Exchange Commission, while prosecuting numerous churning cases, has not seen its way to correct the abuse. (See Securities Churning, supra, at p. 574.) Under these circumstances, it is our view that the imposition of substantial punitive damages against a predatory broker will serve to curb the appetite of others similarly inclined.

=================================================================

 

NEW FINRA MONTHLY DISCIPLINARY CASES
NOW ONLINE AND ANALYZED BY BILL SINGER

 

http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1

Regulatory lawyer Bill Singer has analyzed and posted the latest crop of FINRA disciplinary cases

  • One enterprising industry Principal falsified journal requests for customersí accounts without their knowledge or authorization and then submitted the falsified journal requests to his member firm as authentic. This subterfuge caused securities to be journaled from the customer accounts to his personal account. This scamster then sold the securities that had been falsely journaled to his account and converted the proceeds. The truly breathtaking aspect of this case is that the amount of the converted proceeds was $1,054,440.97.
    READ HERE at
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2009016922701
  • Then there was the unfortunate story of the FINRA member firm that engaged a third-party vendor to preserve its electronic communications, but the vendor did not properly retain them and ultimately purged virtually all of the electronic communications it had initially captured for the firm. FINRA did not look upon the victimized member with much compassion. 
    READ HERE at
     http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2009011683801
  • This one is a bit of an oddball. You understand FINRA's point but you worry whether the precedent will prove troubling. A broker used a a firm-approved presentation during retail seminars with customers -- unfortunately, FINRA determined that the presentation contained misleading, exaggerated and unwarranted statements. Subsequently, the firm received a Letter of Caution from FINRA regarding the presentation.  Notwithstanding, the broker joins a new firm and proposes to use his former firm's non-compliant presentation, albeit in modified form. As you likely suspect, this doesn't turn out particularly well. 
    READ HERE at  
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2008013152301
  • Although this con artist did not have authority or approval to sign or issue Letters of Credit,  he still went ahead and signed a Letter of Credit on the letterhead of the firmís predecessor in the amount of $55,000 and gave it to a customer without the firmís knowledge or authorization. Not feeling too intimidated, he then signed another Letter of Credit on the firmís letterhead in the amount of $75,000 and gave it to the customer without the firmís knowledge or authorization. The beneficiaries of these Letters of Credit presented them to a bank, an affiliate of the firm, for payment. Uh oh!!!
    READ HERE at
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2008015794901
  • Acting with others, a fraudster participated in a fraudulent scheme to solicit investments in an unregistered hedge fund and its general partner, all of which was furthered by a variety of fraudulent and deceptive sales practices.  Seems that the hedge fund was engaging in a highly speculative trading strategy involving futures contracts and there was this nasty pending Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fraud action against the hedge fund manager.
    READ HERE at 
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2005001398602
  • One enterprising individual misappropriated member firm funds by using expense reimbursements for personal expenses, charging personal expenses to her corporate credit card and failing to pay the bills on the card. The employee's firm had previously sent her a memorandum about deficient and late payments on her corporate credit card, reminding her that she had agreed to use the card only for corporate expenses and to pay the balance in full each month. 
    READ HERE at
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2008015708701
  • It is with great sadness that I inform you about the registered representative for several burial associations for which the investment objectives were income and the risk factors were conservative, investment-grade or moderate. I come here today not to praise this broker, who engaged in unsuitable and excessive trading in the accounts, resulting in significant commissions for him and losses for the customers. On the other hand, you really have to read my riff on this case -- you know me, I just couldn't resist taking some funny shots.
    READ HERE at
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2007009413701
  • What can I say about the talented gent who falsified a clientís insurance policy application and related documents without the clientís knowledge, submitted the documents to his member firmís insurance company affiliate and subsequently denied to his firm that he had falsified signatures or submitted falsely signed documents. Flush with his exploits, this character then took an online computer examination on his office managerís behalf that his firmís insurance company affiliate required, and falsely denied to his firm that he did so. He also denied in writing and during sworn testimony to FINRA that he took any test posing as his office manager.
    READ HERE at
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2008013450201
  • The way FINRA called it, a registered person misappropriated $10,000 from the vault of his member firmís bank. You really should read my pithy diatribe about this seemingly innocuous case.
    READ HERE at 
    http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1#2010021601801

http://www.rrbdlaw.com/enforcement-actions/index.php?cid=1

=================================================================

 
 

In exchange for a fee, CallService provided the services of English- and German-speaking individuals to persons who had stolen account and biographical information. The identity thief would provide to CallService the name of the bank to be contacted; the stolen account information and biographical information; and instructions from the identity thief as to what to say or how the fraudulent transaction was to be conducted. Thereafter, appropriate individual employed by CallService -- namely someone who was the same gender and spoke the same language as the authorized account holder -- would pose as the authorized account holders and would then telephone financial institutions and other businesses in order to conduct or confirm fraudulent account activity on behalf of the identity thieves. If successful, the CallService employees would successfully confirm unauthorized withdrawals or transfers from bank accounts, unblock accounts, change the address or phone number associated with an account, and engage in other fraudulent activity.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS ONLINE IDENTITY THEFT BUSINESS AT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-singer/caught-in-the-spiders-web_b_733244.html


 
[^top^]

Previous Entries
October 31, 2014
On June 3, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced the second-largest trading suspension in its history as part of its "Operati... Read On
October 31, 2014
For one reason or another, stockbrokers may not want to maintain their personal accounts at their employer's brokerage firm. Some of the reasons often... Read On
October 30, 2014
As with virtually every job, the practice of law often becomes mind-numbingly boring. Every so often, however, the profession presents you with a fasc... Read On
October 29, 2014
When it comes to in-house compliance and industry regulatory matters, a loan is a loan and a gift is a gift -- and the two have very different meaning... Read On
October 28, 2014
Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory JobsEmployment Page BrokeAndBroker.com Jobs#wallstreetjobs @brokeandbrokerNOTICE TO EMPLOYERS... Read On
October 27, 2014
They got a name for it: padding the old expense account. The way I see it, whenever some misconduct has an acronym or generally accepted term, it mean... Read On
October 25, 2014
Merrill Lynch, Edward Jones, Large Hotel Man, And Double Charges For A Few Glasses Of WineOctober 24, 2014Voices were raised, a waitress was upset, an... Read On
October 24, 2014
Voices were raised, a waitress was upset, and large man with hotel bar intervened. Now if that doesn't pique your interest, I might as well get m... Read On
BrokeAndBroker.com Job Search
Related Topics
Tag Cloud
Internet FINRA Bear Stearns Bloomberg SEC NASD NYSE Money Laundering Due Diligence Waiver Forbes China Chepucavage Broy Woody Allen Madoff NAC NPR Marketplace Stanford UBS Ketchum Antitrust NASDAQ RRBDLAW Schapiro Bill Singer BrokerAndBroker USERRA Brokeandbroker.com Morgan Keegan Arbitration Counterclaim BrokeAndBroker.com Khuzami BrokeAndBroker Aleynikov Goldman Sachs brokeandbroker Promissory Note U4 Bill SInger EFL CFTC Huffington Post Flash Crash arbitration RBC RRBDLAW.com Ponzi Affinity Fraud Wachovia Raymond James BrokeandBroker.com Expungement Fraud Securities Fraud Outside Business Activity Registered Rep Magazine FOREX BrokerAndBroker.com FBI Banc of America Pro Se Supreme Court Morgan Stanley Smith Barney E*Trade Margin email Galleon Penson U5 Defamation Protocol Wells Fargo Punitive Damages Citigroup Merrill Lynch ARS Employee Forgivable Loan Street Legal Morgan Stanley AWC Fidelity Bankruptcy Broke And Broker HFT David Sobel Day Trading Ameriprise Commissions Spouse Schwab Commission CRD Kenneth Starr IRS CNBC Complaint ATM Skimming Hacking Phishing Malware Naskovets Poteroba Koval Lincoln Financial Selling Away Outside Business Activities Rakoff 2nd Circuit Second Circuit IRA 401k Forgery Tax RRBDlaw.com Email Netschi Moore Whistleblower Street Sweeper Tran Bharara Facebook Online Severance Bonus Eligibility Rule TD Ameritrade Hedge Fund SAC 1099 Smith Barney Lehman Brothers SIPC IC3 Scottrade Lehman JPMorgan Chase Hertz Insider Trading Bank of America Department of Justice Elles Bribe Auction Rate Securities Raiding Spam Edward Jones Medicare Diabetes Dow Schumer Thain Walter Bid Rigging Real Estate Discrimination Wall Street Statutory Disqualification Form U4 Form U5 Indictment Boyland DOJ Corruption bill singer FTC Do Not Call FINRA Arbitration Costa Rica Settlement LIBOR Varney Plea Rule 8210 Eligibility RRBDlaw Appeal Fowler LPL Johnson US Airways Reg D MSSB Vault Loan SunTrust Discovery Employment Rosenthal Recruiting Lawyer Trading Platform JP Morgan Employment Tuesday Wrongful Termination Bank Guarantee WaMu Solicitation REIT Martin Credit Cards Rule 3050 Away Account Credit Repair PN Advisor Placement Group Forex Mortgage Private Placement Moon Merrill Anderson Exam Lee Borrowing Tax Lien Conversion Oppenheimer Wedbush Felony Misdemeanor Expenses ING Lien OTR Estate Jobs Florida Credit Card Elderly Flash Drive Annuity Expense Reimbursement FNMA BrokeAndBroke TIC DWI Promissory Notes Suitability Will POA Power of Attorney Casino NSF MF Global Counterfeit Preet Bharara Corzine Hacker RIA Prison Disclosure NASAA Aguilar FCPA Subway Identity Theft Gold Dell Bar Injunction Bank Deutsche Bank Hospital God HSBC Private Placements Eric Stein Wire Fraud CCO Joshua Brown Backstage Wall Street Obstruction of Justice Reuters Retaliation Variable Annuity Arbitraiton Outside Account Options Telephone Wine Social Media ADA Pacifico Non-Prosecution Agreement Confirm Tax Fraud Retirement OBA Equity Indexed Annuities EIA MetLife Continuing Education OIP Tax Liens Willful CE Unregistered Impersonation Annuities BBVA Business Expenses ETF JOBS Act Mail Fraud Parking Variable Annuities Signatures BitTorrent Impersonator Wire Transfer Wire Crowdfunding Nasdaq Away Accounts WSP Laptop Dodd Frank Checks RMBS AML PST Solicited Unsolicited Congress SRO Wife Discretion Non-Solicitation Restaurant Commodities Private Securities Transaction Offer of Settlement Money Market employment jobs Great Recession Chase Investment Services Arrest Barclays Liens Failure To Supervise Apple Time And Price T&P Willfully Husband Letter of Authorization LOA Sexism Debit Card Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Charge Sexist NML Argentina Embezzlement Silver Investor Alert Judgment Bank Fraud Deceased TSSB Mary Jo White Trustee Motion To Dismiss Frumento Conspiracy 6th Circuit Proctor Rule 3040 Class Action Beneficiary NYAG Schneiderman Gallagher White Self Regulation Short Sale Compromise Website TRO Supervision Vacatur SDNY BrokeAndBroker Bill Singer Piwowar Stifel Rule 1122 Article V signature Inside Information VA Regulation SP Customer Rule 3270 Rule 3240 OWB 2Cir Stockbrokers
 
Email Bill Singer Connect with Bill Singer on Facebook Follow Bill Singer on Twitter Link up with Bill Singer on LinkedIn Join Bill Singer on Google+