Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

The collapse of FTX, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, has reverberated throughout the investment community, leaving many investors facing substantial losses. Notably, the endorsements of high-profile figures like Tom Brady and Kevin O’Leary lent credibility and legitimacy to FTX, attracting a significant number of investors. Even though there are no known assertions that Tom Brady’s or Kevin O’Leary’s endorsements were somehow faulty, as an investment loss attorney, it is important to explore the legal complexities surrounding the responsibilities and potential liabilities of spokespeople in such situations and as an investor, it is interesting to know more about potential spokesperson liability.

Background:

FTX emerged as a prominent player in the cryptocurrency exchange market, offering innovative features and aggressive marketing strategies. Founded in 2017 by Sam Bankman-Fried and Gary Wang, FTX quickly gained traction with its wide array of trading products and sophisticated trading tools. The platform’s user-friendly interface and competitive fee structure appealed to both novice and experienced traders, contributing to its rapid growth and expansion.

LPL Financial, a prominent financial firm based in Fort Mill, South Carolina, recently faced regulatory scrutiny resulting in significant consequences. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued an Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) on December 27, 2023, shedding light on various lapses in the firm’s supervision and reporting processes.

Here are the key findings of which investors should be aware:

• LPL Financial received a censure and a substantial $5.5 million fine.

By Alfred Villoch, III

The issue of unpaid arbitration awards issued by FINRA against FINRA registered representatives is a growing concern in the financial industry, and it has garnered attention from organizations like PIABA (Public Investors Advocate Bar Association). Many investors who have been wronged by FINRA registered stockbrokers rely on FINRA arbitration to seek restitution, but the enforcement of these awards can be problematic, especially when FINRA representatives refuse to pay them. To address this issue, one proposed solution is to mandate that all FINRA-registered individuals carry insurance as a safeguard against unpaid awards.

The concept of mandatory insurance for FINRA registered representatives has its merits, as it could potentially reduce the risk of investors being left without recourse. However, this solution isn’t without its complexities and potential downsides.

Prohibiting Time and Price Discretion – A Case Study of Dominic Joseph Carlo

Introduction

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a self-regulatory organization that oversees the conduct of broker-dealers and their associated persons. One of the key principles that FINRA enforces is the prohibition of time and price discretion in customer accounts. In this article, we will delve into the specifics of this rule and its implications by using a real-life example involving Dominic Joseph Carlo, a financial professional based in North Bellmore, New York.

Christopher F. Harrington Jr., a financial advisor based in New York, finds himself in the spotlight as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issues an Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) order. The order comes after a series of troubling allegations involving Harrington’s financial advice and its impact on a vulnerable investor.

The Allegations

The heart of the matter revolves around allegations that Harrington recommended transactions within a customer’s account that not only served to inflate his own compensation but also inflicted undue financial burdens on the customer. The allegations suggest that these transactions were made without a reasonable basis to believe they were suitable for the customer’s financial situation and investment objectives.

Trust and transparency are the cornerstones upon which clients rely in the financial services industry. Financial advisors are expected to adhere to these principles and maintain the highest ethical standards. However, in a recent matter involving Jermaine K. Benjamin, formerly registered with Raymond James Financial Services, questions about compliance have arisen.

The Allegations

Jermaine K. Benjamin has come under scrutiny due to allegations of unauthorized transactions and misappropriation/defalcation. These serious allegations were brought to light when the FINRA member firm filed an amended Form U5, disclosing a written customer complaint related to these issues.

El auge de las criptomonedas ha sido una de las noticias más importantes del mundo financiero en los últimos años. A medida que las criptomonedas como Bitcoin y Ethereum se han vuelto más populares, muchas personas se han preguntado si deberían invertir en ellas. En este blog, discutiremos los pros y los contras de las criptomonedas desde la perspectiva de un abogado especializado en reclamos de pérdidas de inversión.

Pros de las criptomonedas

1.  Potencial de ganancias significativas: Uno de los mayores atractivos de las criptomonedas es su potencial de ganancias significativas. Desde su creación, Bitcoin ha experimentado un crecimiento fenomenal, con un aumento de más del 900% en solo un año. Aunque el crecimiento pasado no garantiza el crecimiento futuro, el potencial de ganancias sigue siendo atractivo para muchos inversores.