Fiduciary Duty Category Archives — Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog Published by Securities Fraud Attorneys

Has Your Stockbroker Defrauded You?

Published on: October 10, 2022 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Even a well-trusted investment advisor can take advantage of their client relationships, as illustrated by a recent lawsuit brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Per the SEC’s September 29, 2022 complaint, Bradley Goodbred, a registered investment adviser based in Illinois, misappropriated a total of $1,295,000 from a 97-year-old client between 2012 and 2021. [1] While the defendant, Goodbred, returned a portion of this money, his client still lost more than half a million dollars as a result of his fraudulent actions. [2]

According to the SEC’s complaint, Goodbred became the client’s investment adviser sometime before 2006, when the client and her husband were searching for a trusted, long-term financial adviser to help guide financial decisions in the event that the client’s husband passed away. [1]

SEC Report Weighs in on January Meme Stock Frenzy

Published on: October 25, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) released its long-awaited report formally debriefing the events that transpired during the January and February 2021 meme stock craze. The 44-page report, titled “Staff Report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021” provides SEC staff’s analysis of the mechanisms behind the meme stock phenomenon, ultimately debunking a few theories made popular over social media and other media outlets as the events unfolded.

By way of a brief overview, in January 2021 a group of about 100 stocks experienced monumental price and trading volume fluctuations. These stocks, many of which were consumer-centered companies with high brand awareness, gained rapid attention over social media platforms like Reddit and YouTube.

While the SEC’s report addresses the events and impacts of the meme stock phenomenon broadly, it focuses the bulk of its analysis around GameStop Corp (“GME”), arguably the most famous of the meme stocks.

As Margin Debt Reaches Record-Highs, Does Market Downturn Loom?

Published on: July 26, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Margin debt levels within the market are on a meteoric rise, with June 2021 finishing out at a record-high $882 Billion. [1] But such an intense rise in margin debt may not be much cause to celebrate; instead, history tells us that this trend may indicate an imminent market downturn.

Margin debt can be simply understood as debt taken on by an investor in order to extend their buying, and earning, power in the market. In essence, an investor borrows money to increase their initial investment and, hopefully, to supercharge their eventual profit.

For example, an investor might borrow $10,000 from their broker on margin in order to increase their initial investment from $20,000 to $30,000. If the shares they’ve purchased increase by 10%, the investor stands to make 50% more than they would have with only their own $20k.

FINRA Orders Record-High Financial Penalty Against Popular Stock-Trading App, Robinhood

Published on: July 12, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

On June 30, 2021, FINRA ordered an approximately $70 Million financial penalty against Robinhood Financial LLC, the highest such penalty ever levied by the regulatory organization.[1] Through its investigation of the firm, FINRA charged Robinhood with numerous violations which had resulted in significant losses to their customers. While Robinhood neither confirmed nor denied the validity of FINRA’s charges, they ultimately agreed to settle with these massive sanctions. [1]

FINRA noted three major violations from its investigation into Robinhood’s conduct and operations as a stock-trading app, each of which merited its own penalties.

First, FINRA found that Robinhood has pervasively and negligently provided false or misleading information to its customers. [1] This false information was circulated in spite of Robinhood’s core mission to “de-mystify finance for all” and “democratize finance,” and ranged from misrepresenting customer account balances and buying power, to erroneous communication about customers facing margin calls. [2]

FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration: An Investor’s Guide

Published on: April 26, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

FINRA Dispute Resolution arbitration offers a fair and expedited dispute resolution pathway for investors looking to resolve a dispute with their broker or securities firm. The arbitration process works as an alternative to traditional litigation and operates completely independent of the court system. As a result, this process often allows parties to save on both cost and time in the process of resolving a dispute.

There are some situations in which FINRA arbitration is required, such as when a written agreement between the parties mandates it. In order to be eligible for FINRA arbitration, an investor must be seeking to file a claim stemming from the business activities of their broker or brokerage firm, and the event in question must have taken place within the last six years (in most states). [1]

Generally, FINRA arbitration allows an investor to seek either monetary or securities damages resulting from the business activities of their broker or brokerage firm. To get the filing process started, an investor must submit a Statement of Claim, a FINRA Submission Agreement, and related filing fees, all of which are available to view on FINRA’s website. [2]

Margin Investing with Robinhood – Do the Risks Outweigh Rewards?

Published on: April 12, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Margin investing offers the opportunity to super-charge investments, but it also holds quite a bit of risk. Recent market volatility has shed a light on some of these risks, particularly for users of app-based platforms like Robinhood.

Let’s consider an example of margin investing with Robinhood. An investor deposits $5,000 cash into a margin account, and Robinhood lends another $5,000 to allow the investor $10,000 worth of securities. The “margin” is the difference between the value of the securities and the loan from Robinhood. This type of investing increases both purchasing power and financial leverage. [1]

If the securities in the margin account increase in value, the investor has the opportunity for a higher profit than they would have had they invested $10,000 of their own.

Thoughts on the Risk of Fraud in Cryptocurrency Investments

Published on: February 9, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

As they begin to move into the mainstream, it has become clear that cryptocurrencies pose a unique set of regulatory and legal challenges for investors and regulation agencies alike. In the past week alone, two high-profile securities fraud cases tied to cryptocurrency have come to light, and the total number of enforcement actions by the SEC on similar schemes has risen sharply over the past five years. In 2016, the SEC filed only one “Digital Assets/Initial Coin Offerings” enforcement action – in 2020, they filed 23.

The first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was introduced in 2009, and it has since been joined by over 1,900 competitors. Cryptocurrencies operate in a decentralized, purely digital block-chain network. Within the network, a supply cap on “coins” exists, and coin production is left in the hands of collective members of the system through a process known as “mining.” In Bitcoin’s case, there can only ever be 21 million coins mined, of which over 18 million have been mined thus far. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin derive their value largely from their limited supply, overall market demand, the cost to produce a bitcoin via mining, and competition from other cryptocurrencies.

Recently, Bitcoin’s price has been on the rise, stirring up a good deal of interest from prospective investors. As of February 6, 2021, one bitcoin is worth $39,255.90 –up about 300% year over year, and 34% year to date. But an investment in Bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies like it, is unique in its risks. Experts caution that because cryptocurrency is a relatively new technology, and is not yet well understood by the public, prospective investors are at an increased risk of falling victim to fraudulent schemes.

GameStop Short Squeeze: Legal and Regulatory Implications?

Published on: February 1, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

It has been a tumultuous week in the investment world, with rallies among a gaggle of unlikely stocks, spurred on by a group of even more unlikely investors – retail investors who have banded together on the popular social media site, Reddit.

As has been widely reported this week, when Reddit retail investors discovered that hedge fund managers were widely shorting GameStop, AMC, and others, they urged fellow users to begin buying up these stocks. This frenzy of investment activity resulted in a short squeeze, sending GameStop’s stock price soaring, causing hedge funds to incur huge losses on their short positions, and placing popular online trading platforms in a precarious financial situation. GameStop shares closed the week of January 25, 2021 up 400% in spite of market volatility and restrictions, and without any material change to the prospects of company.

But how did we get here?

Proposal to Let Hedge Funds Hide Their Holdings Likely Going Down in Flames

Published on: October 23, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

In July 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission made a proposal to vastly change the reporting requirements of hedge funds. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal would permit hedge funds with less than $3.5 billion in assets to stop reporting their holdings in quarterly reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. At this time, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires quarterly disclosure of stock positions held by hedge funds that have more than $100 million in assets under management.

According to the Financial Times, during the ‘consultation period’ when the Securities and Exchange Commission considers comments made about their proposed changes, 2.262 letters were submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the proposed change to the disclosure rules. Of these 2,262 comment letters, 99% were against the proposed rule, according to Financial Times. The result of such a large number of letters opposing the rule change is that the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to withdraw its proposal and keep the current disclosure threshold of $100 million.

The $100 million threshold has been in place since 1975 and it requires hedge funds to file a “13-F” report each quarter to disclose their holdings. The Securities and Exchange Commission looked at the fact that the US equity market capitalization has grown from $1 trillion to an $35 trillion and decided that it was time to raise the disclosure limit. The Securities and Exchange commission also claimed that the disclosure requirements at $100 million were a burden to the smaller hedge funds. This reasoning leaves out the impact that its actions would have on the transparency of the markets. The Financial Times reports that hedge fund managers were skeptical of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reasoning. The smaller hedge fund managers and even the CFA Institute noted that the costs to file the 13F are negligible and the process was mostly automated by today’s portfolio accounting software programs.

Financial Advisers Fail (Again) In Protecting Individual Investors.

Published on: September 1, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

The Wall Street Journal published an article by Jason Zweig and Andrea Fuller on August 31, 2020 explaining their analysis of how financial advisers fell short in meeting their obligations to disclose important information to individual investors like you.[1] The Wall Street Journal analyzed the filings made by investment advisers on the SEC Form CRS. The article and analysis revealed what seems to be disturbing lack of candor by investment advisers.

It is fundamental to full and fair disclosure that if an individual investor wants to know whether their financial adviser, or a financial adviser they want to hire, has any legal or regulatory problems, that this information is easy for an investor to obtain. To that end, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sought to simplify the process by which an individual investor can access this information. The result of the SEC’s efforts was the “Form CRS.” “CRS” stands for customer (or client) relationship summary.

This information has been available. However, for the average “Main Street” individual investor, the information was not easy to find. And when the customer complaint and regulatory history was found, the disclosures were difficult to understand. The Form CRS[2] was intended to address this complexity and difficulty through simplification. Thus, the SEC created what SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said in November 2018 would be a “clear and concise” document. I think they succeeded. Wall Street, however, failed.