Archive for the ‘Securities Litigation’ Category:

Video: What are the typical causes of action in securities law cases?

Written on March 27th, 2011 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts


Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv
In this video, Jason M. Kueser discusses typical causes of action in securities cases. These typical actions are: (1) fraud, (2) securities fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) breach of contract, (5) violation of state securities laws, (6) violation of federal securities laws, and (7) negligence.

This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet.
The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely upon advertisements such as this website. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. *Any information submitted via this website may not be secure and/or confidential. Merely contacting this firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Technorati : , , , , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , , , , ,
Flickr : , , , , , , ,

Share

What is Investment Fraud

Written on March 27th, 2011 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts


Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv

This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet. All content provided on this blog are subject to the Disclaimer at the bottom of the page.


Technorati : , , , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , , , ,
Flickr : , , , , , ,

Share

Video: How do attorneys decide which securities fraud cases to pursue?

Written on March 26th, 2011 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

How do attorneys decide which securities fraud cases to pursue?

Also available at KansasCityLaw.tv
In this video, Jason M. Kueser discusses factors that securities fraud attorneys often evaluate in determining which cases to pursue. This often includes a number of factors, including (1) individual aspects of the customer and the customer’s situation; (2) the amount of investment loss suffered by the investor; (3) the type or types of investments involved; and (4) whether the stockbroker, adviser, or brokerage firm has previously regulatory issues. There are other factors that are involved, as well.

If you feel you have been the victim of investment fraud or securities fraud, please contact an attorney. If you would like to speak with The Kueser Law Firm, please call the firm at (816) 374-5865 or send us an href=”mailto:jason@jmkesquire.com&subject=Contact from Kueser Law Firm blog”>e-mail.


This video is provided for informational purposes only and nothing contained herein is or should be constituted as legal advice. If you have questions related to any legal topic, you should consult with an attorney and should not rely solely upon information provided via the internet.
The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely upon advertisements such as this website. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. *Any information submitted via this website may not be secure and/or confidential. Merely contacting this firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Technorati : , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , ,
Flickr : , , , ,

Share

FINRA Arbitration Statistics – December 2010

Written on February 1st, 2011 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

FINRA recently released its arbitration statistics for the month/year ended December 2010.

For the year, there were 20% fewer cases filed (5,680 v. 7,137 in 2009) and there were 6,241 cases closed (a 37% increase over 2009). Of these cases, 22% were resolved by arbitration hearing, 52% were resolved by direct settlement between the parties, 10% were resolved through mediation, and 16% of cases were either withdrawn or resolved through “other” method.

Results for investors also improved in 2010, as 47% cases that were decided by an arbitration panel resulted in an award of damages to the customer. This reflects a 2% increase over the results in 2009, and a 10% increase compared to arbitration claims decided by arbitration panels in 2007 — the worst year, for investors, in arbitration claims over the past six years.

The overall turnaround time for cases closed during the year also increased to 12.7 months (from 11.5 months in 2009). For cases that are resolved after an arbitration hearing, the turnaround time increased to 15 months (from 14 months in 2009).

The most common claims in arbitration were: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Negligence; (3) Fraud/Misrepresentation; (4) Failure to Supervise; and, (5) Breach of Contract. The most common type of securities involved in arbitration claims were mutual funds and common stocks.

The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you feel that your investments have been mismanaged, please contact the firm to discuss your rights.

Share

SEC joins FINRA In Cautioning Investors About Risks of Leveraged ETFs

Written on August 21st, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

Earlier this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a joint warning cautioning investors on the dangers in investing in leveraged ETFs and inverse ETFs. The two regulators issued the warning because they “believe individual investors may be confused about the performance objectives of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs).”

The warning also notes that leveraged ETFs are designed to achieve their investment performance objectives on a daily basis, rather than a long-term basis as with typical exchange-traded and mutual funds. In fact, the performance of these funds can vary significantly from their stated objectives over long-term periods. The joint warning contains a detailed description of leveraged and ETFs, as well as examples of how the funds generally operate. The SEC also included a link to a NYSE “Informed Investor” Bulletin entitled “What You Should Know About Exchanged Traded Funds.”

While this warning is welcome, it unfortunately has come after many investors have sustained significant losses in these risky and unsuitable investments. As previously discussed in this blawg, FINRA has already declared that leveraged ETFs are typically unsuitable for retail investors. The most popular of these investments are managed by Rydex, Direxion, and ProShares. If your stockbroker or financial advisor has sold you any leveraged ETFs, or purchased any leveraged ETFs in your accounts, and you have lost money on these investments, you may be entitled to recover these losses. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors who were sold leveraged and inverse ETFs. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.

Technorati : , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , ,

Share

New York Attorney General Sues Charles Schwab Over Auction Rate Securities (ARS) Sales

Written on August 18th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

Yesterday, August 17, 2009, the Attorney General of the state of New York announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Charles Schwab & Co. for its sales of auction rate securities. According to the press release, the Complaint charges Schwab with violations of the Martin Act for:

falsely representing auction rate securities as liquid, short-term investments without discussing the risks. These representations gave investors a false sense of security that their investments would always be liquid when auction rate securities, in fact, faced significant, inherent liquidity risks.

This is another action by Mr. Cuomo’s office to remedy the massive fraud perpetrated by Wall Street firms relating to auction rate securities. In fact, late last month, the Attorney General announced a $456 million settlement with TD Ameritrade related to its sales of auction rate securities.

Auction rate securities, which are also referred to as auction rate preferred shares, ARS, ARPS, and MARS, to name a few, have been at the epicenter of regulatory investigations across the country. Auction rate securities are long-term (or perpetual) investments that traded in periodic “auctions.” They are designed to allow companies, mutual funds, municipalities, and other organizations to borrow money for a long-term period while paying short-term rates of interest, which were reset during the periodic auctions. It was in these auctions that investors who held the securities could also sell their holdings if they needed to have access to cash. Because these auctions occurred on a relatively frequent basis (i.e., weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly), investors had the ability to sell their positions and obtain cash in a relatively short period of time.

For years, Wall Street firms sold auction rate securities as short-term, cash equivalent investments that paid marginally higher rates of interest as compared to other short-term investments. What these firms did not tell their customers was that the liquidity of the auction rate securities markets was entirely dependent on the ability and willingness of these same firms to participate in the auctions — in other words, these firms had to be willing and able to purchase the securities that were not purchased by the other auction market participants. In most cases, these firms were purchasing more securities than the other market participants. The firms (and their representatives) did not disclose these critical facts, but rather, only disclosed that the interest rates paid on the securities was reset at the auctions. In addition, these firms generally failed to inform investors that they would not be able to access their invested capital if the auctions froze.

In 2007, these Wall Street firms came under massive liquidity problems. As a result, these firms made a decision to cease participation in the auction rate markets, leaving investors across the country with illiquid investments that typically paid short-term rates of interest. In some cases, the auction rate securities paid no interest for months at a time. Therefore, investors were left holding a bag of illiquid long-term securities that paid little, if any interest.

Several class actions have been filed across the country on behalf of auction rate securities investors. In addition, numerous securities arbitration claims have been filed by investors. Some of these cases, as well as action by state regulators, has resulted in redemption of some investors’ auction rate securities. However, many investors remain stuck with these illiquid investments.

If you own auction rate securities that have not been redeemed, you may want to contact an attorney to discuss your rights. The Kueser Law Firm is a boutique legal practice that focuses its practice on protecting the rights of investors and recovering investment losses for companies and individuals. You may contact us by completing the form to the right, or by visiting our website.

Technorati : , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , ,
Zooomr : , , ,

Share

Message to Investors: Don’t Ignore Losses in Your Investment Accounts

Written on August 12th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

According to a recent article on InvestmentNews.com, a study commissioned by Charles Schwab revealed that a significant percentage of investors are unaware of the losses sustained in their accounts. To make matters worse, more than one-third of the investors surveyed did not know which mutual funds they owned and less than one-third spoke with their financial advisor or stockbroker on a regular basis.

In the article, a Charles Schwab executive was quoted as stating that “some investors tend to be overwhelmed or intimidated by investing.” This is interesting because it confirms the important role that stockbrokers and financial advisors play in investors’ financial decisions. While this seems elementary, it astonishes me as to how many broker-dealers take the position in arbitration cases that the stockbroker or financial adviser played a passive role in the losses sustained in the investor’s accounts.

The survey also reported that 60% of the investors surveyed do not plan to make any changes to their investment allocations following the stock market’s rapid post-September descent. Stockbrokers and financial advisers often tell their clients to “stay the course.” In addition (or alternatively), many advisers and stockbrokers will show their clients charts or other documents that show how following a decline in the stock market a large portion of the recovery often occurs on select days — thus reinforcing their recommendation to stay the course, otherwise taking the risk that the investor will miss those few opportunities to participate in the recovery. Following this recommendation, clients feel forced to hold the same investments that created their losses.

It is important not to ignore losses in your investment accounts for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

1. It is more difficult to recover from a significant loss than it is to sustain the loss in the first place. For example, if you start with $100,000 in an investment account and you sustain losses of 50%, the value of your account would be $50,000. Therefore, you would need a gain of 100% of this reduced amount ($50,000) in order to recover from the 50% loss you sustained.

2. If you are sustaining losses that cause you to lose sleep (or suffer other emotional distress), your investment accounts are probably invested in an unsuitable manner. This is something that you need to discuss with your stockbroker or financial adviser. If your adviser is unwilling to make significant changes to the accounts, or worse yet, if the stockbroker tries to reassure you that the investments are appropriate, you should seek a second opinion. In addition, you may want to consult with a securities attorney to discuss whether you have a legal claim.

3. If you decide to file a claim related to your losses, any failure to act could reduce or diminish your ability to succeed in arbitration or litigation. Whenever legal action is initiated, there are several issues related to the timing of the investor’s actions and the claim itself that must be considered (including statutes of limiations, equitable defenses, and arbitration eligibility rules).

When a stockbroker or financial adviser makes a recommendation to his or her client, they (and the firms they represent) may be liable for losses resulting from the recommendation. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration. If you are concerned that your investments have been mismanaged, contact us to learn more about your rights.

Technorati : , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , ,

Share

SEC Charges Morgan Keegan for Fraudulent Marketing and Sales of Auction Rate Securities

Written on July 27th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

On July 21, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Morgan Keegan & Company. In its Complaint, the SEC seeks an injunction for violation of the federal securities laws, as well as equitable relief for Morgan Keegan investors. Included in this equitable relief is a request for a court order requiring Morgan Keegan to repurchase illiquid ARS from its customers. More about the SEC’s case, including a link to the Commission’s Litigation Release and Complaint can be found here.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges that Morgan Keegan misled thousands of investors about the liquidity risks related to auction rate securities (ARS). This is another example of the massive fraud related to Auction Rate Securities that was perpetrated by financial services firms across the country. To date, several firms, including UBS, Wachovia, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, and Stifel Nicolaus have entered into settlements with federal and/or state securities regulators. Some of these settlements have broader relief for investors, while others have left many investors still holding onto these illiquid investments.

If you were sold Auction Rate Securities and your positions have not been redeemed or repurchased, you should contact an attorney to discuss your rights. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors in securities arbitration and litigation. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Share

Another day, more advisers alleged of fraud

Written on June 13th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

On June 11, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed two fraud actions against different financial/investment advisers.

Morgan European Holdings ApS, et al.

On June 11, the SEC obtained an emergency court order and asset freeze to shut down a fraudulent prime bank scheme. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Flordia against Morgan European Holdings ApS, a/k/a Money Talks, Inc. ApS, John Morgan, Marian Morgan, Bowman Marketing Group, Inc., Stephen E. Bowman, and Thomas D. Woodcock, Jr.

According to the Litigation Release, the SEC has alleged that the Defendants solicited investments in fictitious prime bank trading programs. As noted in the Release,

the Complaint alleges that, during 2006 and 2007, the defendants raised millions of dollars from investors to participate in a fictitious investment program involving the trading of financial instruments among top financial institutions. The defendants told investors that their principal was guaranteed or never placed at risk. However, according to the Complaint, the defendants used investor funds for various undisclosed purposes, including Bowman’s gambling expenses, mortgage payments by the Morgans, and Ponzi payments to some investors. The SEC claims that John Morgan, Marian Morgan, and Stephen Bowman have continued to lull investors into remaining complacent by promising the imminent payment of their principal and returns. None of the relevant offerings was registered with the Commission, nor were any of the defendants registered as a broker-dealer or associated with a registered broker-dealer.

The SEC claims that the Defendants’ actions violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition the individual defendants were charged with violation of Section 15(a) of the 1934 Act. A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for June 25.

Aura Financial Services, Inc.

The SEC also charged an Alabama Broker-Dealer, Aura Financial Services, Inc., with engaging in fraudulent sales practices and high pressure sales tactics to convince customers to open an account and invest money with the firm. The SEC alleges that the firm and six of its representatives unfairly enriched themselves by more than $1 million in commissions and fees. At the same time, the customers’ accounts were largely depleted “through trading losses and excessive transaction costs.”

More information about this matter can be found by reading the SEC’s Litigation Release.

Share

What Guidance Will SCOTUS Give on the Statute of Limitations in Securities Cases?

Written on June 12th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

In a recent article published on Law.com, Sarah S. Gold and Richard L. Spinogatti conduct a thorough analysis of the issues in In re Merck & Co. Secs. Deriv. & ERISA Litig.., a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in In re Merck to resolve when an investor is on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim for purposes of determining when the statute of limitaions begins to run..

The authors note that in In re Merck, the Third Circuit held that “an investor is not on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim until the investor has knowledge of a possible fraud, including scienter.” The authors also note that the Ninth Circuit recently came to a similar conclusion in Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., for which a certiorari petition is currently pending.

The article is a good read for anyone interested in securities fraud litigation.

Share
Older Posts »