Voccia was a brokerage partner with another registered representative, shared clients and commissions and collaborated on outside ventures, including a private company they formed. Voccia and his partner orally informed their member firm they were involved in an outside business activity relating to their company, and the firm gave oral approval with the understanding they would only solicit one firm customer; however, the two partners solicited other investors, including firm customers, without the firm’s knowledge and approval.

Voccia made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact when he told prospective investors that the company and its related companies had good chances of success and would be able to sustain themselves even though he had insufficient knowledge of the companies’ finances, and his representations were misleading because he focused on the potential benefits of investing in the company without providing adequate disclosure about the risks. Voccia engaged in capital raising for his company and his related companies; individuals invested approximately $6 million dollars during a five-year period.

Voccia and his partner were able to sell investments without the firm’s knowledge because the investments were not held with their firm’s clearing firm but were held with firms that their firm allowed its brokers to use to maintain custody of illiquid investments such as their company.

Voccia did not provide the firm with written notice of any of the proposed offerings and did not inform the firm that he had received, or might receive, compensation for selling the offered securities. In addition, the firm did not approve the private securities transactions, did not record them on its books and records and did not supervise Voccia’s participation in the transactions. Moreover, Voccia failed to disclose numerous outside business activities unrelated to his company without prompt written notice to his firm. Furthermore, Voccia failed to amend his Form U4 to disclose material information and failed to respond to FINRA requests for information, documents and to timely appear for testimony.

Peck  engaged in a private securities transaction by participating in the sale of a $50,000 secured investment note from an entity to a current client of his firm. Peck failed to provide his firm with prior notice of his participation in this transaction.

Also, the SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the entity and related parties alleging that they were perpetrating an ongoing $216 million real estate investment fraud.

Ray solicited prospective investors to purchase promissory notes as a vehicle to fund the start up of a hedge fund and to pay the ongoing operations of the fund; investors purchased more than $675,000 in promissory notes from Ray. Ray represented he could pay above-U.S. market interest rates based in part on the fact he could obtain these rates by investing the funds in a foreign bank; Ray failed to invest the proceeds of the notes with the foreign bank, used some of the proceeds for personal expenses and used proceeds from later sales to pay interest and repay principal amounts due on notes earlier purchasers held.

Ray made materially misleading statements and omissions of fact, including misrepresenting the use of proceeds from the sale of the promissory notes, misrepresenting how and where the proceeds were to be invested, and failing to disclose he was using the proceeds from the sale of promissory notes to pay interest and principal amounts due to earlier note holders. Ray participated in private securities transactions through the sale of promissory notes without providing written notice to his firm describing in detail the proposed transaction, his role therein and stating whether he received, or would receive compensation, and without obtaining his firm’s approval.

FINRA received investors’ complaints alleging that Calhoun had solicited them to invest in a foreign currency exchange trading (FOREX) program a foreign entity, which operated with Calhoun's assistance/ The digrunteled investors invested a total of $150,000 in the FOREX program. Ultimately, the entity’s FOREX scheme was the subject of federal actions by both the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Calhoun solicited the investors to invest in the entity while he was employed as a registered representative with his member firm. alhoun’s participation in the private securities transactions was outside the regular course or scope of his employment with his firm; and he failed to provide prior written notice of his role in the transactions to his firm and did not receive the firm’s written approval or acknowledgement concerning his participation in the private securities transactions. Finally, he failed to appear for a FINRA on-the-record interview.

White recommended that a customer invest in non-listed real estate investment trusts (REITs) and a tenants-in-common (TIC) interest in undeveloped rural real estate without a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendations were suitable for the customer based on the customer’s financial status and investment objectives, and the customer’s need for liquidity, preservation of capital, ready access to cash, and safety of principal. The customer instructed White to sell the REITs and White acknowledged receipt of the sell instructions and informed the customer to expect to receive a check for the sale proceeds within one to two weeks, but later refused to process the sell orders.White participated in the sale of TIC interests totaling $3,700,000, outside the course or scope of his employment with his firm and collected selling compensation of approximately $1,653,958 but failed to provide his firm with prior written notice describing the proposed transactions. 

Slagter participated in private securities transactions without giving written notice to and receiving approval from his member firm before participating in the private securities transactions outside the regular scope of his employment with the firm.

Slagter introduced firm customers and another individual to a principal of a mortgage processing company and the individuals invested in what were purportedly high-yield corporate bonds issued by the company, which were not firm-approved investments; the individuals invested a total of $490,599 in the bonds and lost approximately $475,599. Slagter engaged in an unapproved business activity by working as a loan originator for the mortgage processing company without notifying or requesting approval from his firm.

Slagter trained mortgage representatives to use mortgage software that was owned by the company without requesting or receiving permission from his firm to engage in this outside business activity; Slagter earned $41,744 in compensation from the mortgage processing company while employed with his firm.

Bianculli entered into an informal agreement with brokers at his member firm to share in commissions relating to undisclosed private securities transactions in an entity, which purported to advance cash to merchants in exchange for the merchants’ future credit card receivable; the entity promised returns of 4 percent or more per month, but it was a Ponzi scheme.

Bianculli helped brokers with servicing a customer’s investment but failed to provide his firm with written notice of his involvement in an unapproved private securities transaction. Bianculli provided false and misleading information to FINRA during sworn on-the-record testimony.

Also, Bianculli provided false and misleading statements to his firm in response to a compliance questionnaire distributed by the firm inquiring into the scheme. Bianculli denied meeting any of the owners or principals of the entity and failed to disclose his participation in the customer’s investment.

Winter participated in private securities transactions without providing prior written notice to her member firm describing in detail the proposed transactions and her proposed role, and stating whether she had received, or might receive, selling compensation in connection with the transactions.

Winter solicited investments from customers of her firm on an entity’s behalf; these customers subsequently invested $750,000 in the entity, which pooled money from investors in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit derived from others’ efforts. Winter failed to disclose these private securities transactions to her firm. Winter recommended to firm customers that they invest funds in the entity, without having reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendations were suitable for such customers, based upon the facts disclosed by such customers as to their securities holdings, and financial situation and needs.

Baklenko engaged in private securities transactions without prior written notice to, and approval from, his member firm, in that he participated in the sales to firm customers of limited partnership interests in an entity he and a business associate had formed for a total of $1,095,000.

Baklenko and the business associate opened an account with another member firm in their entity’s name; Baklenko failed to notify his member firm in writing that he had established the account with the other firm and he failed to notify the other firm, with which he opened the account, in writing that he was associated with a firm. Baklenko effected trades in his entity’s account at the other firm, which included securities purchases totaling approximately $176,575 and securities sales totaling approximately $57,109.

Davis participated in private securities transactions by introducing customers of his member firm and another individual to a principal of a mortgage processing company without giving written notice to, and receiving approval from, his member firm before participating in the private securities transactions outside the regular scope of his employment with the firm.

Davis engaged in an unapproved outside business activity by working as a loan originator with the same mortgage processing company without notifying his firm or requesting its approval. Davis did not request or receive permission from his firm to engage in this outside business activity. Davis earned $12,500 in compensation from the company while employed at his firm.

Sabado offered and sold entities’ oil and gas investments to several of her clients without her member firm’s knowledge or consent.

The SEC filed a partially settled civil injunctive action alleging that the entities and an individual had fraudulently sold investments in Texas oil and gas projects, raising approximately $22 million from investors nationwide. As a result of Sabado’s recommendations, some of her current firm clients made investments with the entities totaling $491,880.

Sabado failed to provide her firm with prior notice of her participation in these securities transactions.

Camarillo entered into a contract with a company to sell its private placements, and sold approximately $370,000 of these private securities to his customers, receiving over $13,000 in commissions, without providing notice to, or receiving approval from, his member firm.

Camarillo’s firm’s written procedures, which he attested to reading and understanding, instructed employees to provide notice to the firm’s compliance department and to seek the firm’s written approval prior to engaging in any securities transactions not executed through the firm. The company provided Camarillo with sales literature, and without submitting the brochure to his firm for approval, he distributed the brochure to his customers; the brochure contained several unwarranted, exaggerated and misleading statements, omitted material facts and ignored risk while guaranteeing success.

Camarillo did not have a reasonable basis to recommend that his customers purchase the securities, had no experience selling these types of products and did not conduct proper due diligence. Camarillo did not sufficiently understand the products offered through the company or how the investments were managed; all of Camarillo’s customers who invested in the products informed Camarillo that they were seeking preservation of capital and viewed the investments as a retirement investment. Camarillo did not investigate the claims made in the sales literature that the returns were guaranteed, he had no basis to recommend the investment to customers seeking preservation of capital, and his recommendations to invest in the company were unsuitable.

Camarillo’s customers lost tens of thousands of dollars by relying on his recommendation, because even after partial reimbursement from the company’s court-ordered receivership, Camarillo’s customers only recouped 69 percent of their investment. Moreover, the products, as marketed, were securities, the sale of which required Camarillo to possess a Series 7 license; at the time he sold the securities, Camarillo held only a Series 6 license.

Christensen sold approximately $650,000 in a company’s promissory notes to customers without providing his member firm with written notice of the promissory note transactions and receiving the firm’s approval to engage in these transactions.

Based upon expected interest payments from the promissory notes, some of the customers also purchased life insurance policies from Christensen and another registered representative the firm employed. These customers expected to use the promissory note interest payments to pay for the life insurance premiums.

Christensen received direct commissions from the company related to the sale of the promissory notes to customers and received commissions from the sale of life insurance products to the customers, who intended to fund those policies with the interest payments from the promissory notes.

The company defaulted on its obligations and the customers lost their entire investment. The customers who also purchased life insurance based upon the expectation that they would receive interest payments from their investment relinquished their policies and the firm compensated them for the premiums paid, but the customers did not receive any reimbursement for the investments in the company that sold the promissory notes.

Christensen completed a firm annual compliance questionnaire, in which he falsely stated that he had not been engaged in any capital raising activities for any person or entity; had not received fees for recommending or directing a client to other financial professionals; had not been personally involved in securities transactions, including promissory notes, that the firm had not approved; and had not assisted a client with an application for investments not available through the firm or contracted or otherwise acted as an intermediary between a client and a sponsor of such investments without the firm’s prior approval.

Finally, Christensen failed to respond to FINRA requests for documents and testimony.

Acting through Locy, Brookstone Securities did not have WSPs addressing due diligence requirements for third-party placements.

Acting through Locy, Brookstone failed to conduct an adequate due diligence of a third-party private placement offering before Locy approved the offering of shares to customers. Locy’s due diligence efforts did not include any investigation into an equity fund, despite acknowledging that he knew very little about it or the third-party placement and could not get any solid information about the fund, including pending litigation or financial statements. Locy knew nothing about the fund that was not contained in a PPM the issuer prepared, but accepted that the firm representatives forming the offering had conducted due diligence and relied on their opinion of the fund. Locy acknowledged the representatives had limited, if any, experience forming a private placement.

The firm's representatives sold or participated in sales of shares to customers without notifying Locy or anyone else at the firm, which caused those sales to not be recorded on the firm’s books and records.

Brookstone Securities, Inc. and David William Locy: Censured; Fined $25,000 jointly/severally

Gelb solicited individuals, including customers at his member firm, to invest in entities that were purportedly engaged in the export and import business with a manufacturer based in China.

Gelb raised approximately $1.8 million from investors and received approximately $79,500 from the entities as compensation derived from his solicitation of, and directing investors to, the entities.

Private Securities Transaction

Gelb was aware of his firm’s policies and procedures, which specifically prohibited its registered representatives from participating in any manner in the solicitation of any securities transaction outside the regular scope of their employment without approval. Gelb signed annual certifications attesting to this knowledge and failed to notify his firm about his solicitation of investors for the entities because he did not expect the firm’s approval of the product.

Due Diligence

Gelb failed to obtain adequate information about the investment and instead relied upon unfounded representations, including guarantees that the investors’ principal would be protected despite the fact that, at no time, had Gelb seen any financial documentation for the entities. The information available on the Internet about the entities was limited to the companies’ own website.

Risk Disclosures

FINRA determined that despite the highly risky nature of the investment, Gelb led the customers to believe that the investment he was recommending was a safe and secure investment and, in some cases, Gelb was aware that customers were taking out home equity lines of credit on their homes to fund their investments in the entities. Customers who invested in the entities Gelb recommended had low risk tolerances and had investment objectives of growth and/or income, and Gelb did not have a reasonable basis for recommending the entities to the customers.

Outside email

Gelb utilized an outside email account, without his firm’s knowledge or consent, to conduct securities business.Although the firm was aware of the outside email account, Gelb had not been approved to utilize that email address to conduct securitiesrelated business and by operating an outside email account for securities-related business without the firm’s knowledge and consent, Gelb prevented his firm from reviewing his emails pursuant to NASD Rule 3010(d).

While registered at member firms, Kelly failed to provide written notice to each firm that he was employed by or accepted compensation from other persons as a result of business activities that were neither passive investments nor within the authorized scope of his relationship with his firms.

Kelly was primarily responsible for the operation of a company, having handled its formation, negotiated its loan agreements and controlled its finances, including investments and distributions and received direct and indirect compensation. Kelly formed additional entities, filed registration documents, served as their registered agent and took out loans on their behalf, which were business activities unrelated to his relationship with his member firms.

Kelly failed to disclose these companies to his member firms and falsely represented on his qualifying questionnaire for his most recent firm that he did not and would not engage in any outside business activities without prior notification to, and written consent from, the firm.

Kelly participated in private securities transactions without prior written notice to his firms describing in detail the proposed transactions, his proposed role therein, and stating whether he received, or might receive, selling compensation.

Campbell failed to enforce his member firm’s heightened supervisory procedures with respect to one of its representatives. 

According to those procedures, Campbell was responsible for determining the scope of the heightened supervision and ensuring that the representative’s supervisor was enforcing the heightened supervision plan. The firm required that the plan be individualized based on the representative’s disciplinary history. Campbell placed a representative on heightened supervision because of his disciplinary history, and the plan Campbell prepared was deficient because it was not tailored to that representative’s history of engaging in private securities transactions and did not provide for any material additional supervision beyond the usual steps that were taken to oversee other firm representatives. Campbell failed to ensure that the plan was implemented and, as a result,the following actions that were required pursuant to the plan were not undertaken:

• a log was not created of the representative’s trades,
• certifications were not made to the compliance department that the heightened supervision plan was implemented, and
• and an annual review of the plan did not take place.

Mehlman  facilitated securities investments away from his member firm and received compensation as a result of the sales.

Workikng with others through an entity, Mehlman distributed secured investment notes in a company to insurance agents who in turn marketed the notes, which were securities. The entity sold approximately $60 million in the notes and generated more than $6 million in gross commission revenues from which Mehlman received approximately $430,000 from the sales. The investments were not made through Mehlman’s firm and Mehlman did not provide written notice to, or obtain approval from, his firm prior to facilitating the investments.

Leon recommended that a couple invest $167,000 in a private securities transaction without providing notice of his proposed role in the transaction to his member firms.

Leon formed a company through which he sought to operate an independent branch of a broker-dealer and did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the recommended investment in the company was suitable for the couple in light of their investment objectives, financial situation and needs; the recommended investment was too risky for the customers, who were a retired couple of limited means. The recommendation led to most of their investable assets being overconcentrated in the security.

Prior to its dissolution, the company made interest and principal payments totaling approximately $26,000 to the couple, who lost approximately $141,000 on their investment in the company.

Leon failed to respond completely to FINRA requests for information and documents.

Sheedy engaged in private securities transactions without providing written notice to, or obtaining written approval from, his member firm.

Sheedy facilitated two firm customers’ investments in securities issued by an entity in the form of investment agreements.Sccording to the investment agreements the entity issued, the company invested in and brokered life settlement contracts. Sheedy participated in the customers’ investments by reviewing the customers’ investment agreements, providing the customers with wiring instructions for the issuer, providing status updates to the customers regarding their investments and telling the customers to call him if they had any questions about their investments.

Sheedy utilized an unapproved personal email account to communicate with the customers.

The customers invested a total of $350,000, and pursuant to the terms of the customers’ investment agreements, the customers were to receive return of their principals plus a total of $42,000 within five days of the end of their investment period for which certain life settlement contracts were invested. Neither of the customers received the return of their investment principal or the promised investment returns. All of their funds were lost all of their funds were lost.

Lichtenstein intentionally provided false testimony during a FINRA on-the-record interview regarding his knowledge of, and participation in, private securities transactions involving solicitation and sale of private placements within the branch for which he was employed as the branch manager. 

Lichtenstein participated in the sale of private securities in the total amount of $234,303.68 to customers without his member firm’s prior written approval.

Lichtenstein failed to reasonably supervise a branch office for which he acted as a branch manager. In response to a request to sell private placements at the branch, which Lichtenstein’s firm had specifically denied, stating that no one at the branch had approval to sell any private placements and Lichtenstein was aware of this prohibition, he learned of other private placements being sold by a branch registered representative and failed to inform the firm’s compliance department of the sales.

Because Lichtenstein was responsible for the review of electronic mail at the branch, he knew, or should have known through email review, of red flags indicating the sale of additional private placements but did not conduct additional investigation and did not inform the firm’s compliance department of the red flags.

Shankster failed to respond to FINRA requests for information and documents.

Shankster participated in private securities transactions without providing prior written notice to his member firm.

Respondents failed to put any heightened supervisory measures in place for a branch manager or to follow up on “red flags.” Notwithstanding the branch manager’s remote location, prior disciplinary history, outside business disclosures or his disclosure that he was potentially under financial stress and unable to meet financial obligations, the Firm and Long failed to put any heightened supervisory measures in place or to follow up on the red flags after he disclosed information on a compliance questionnaire, for which the affirmative answer required that he attach a separate sheet providing complete details about the disclosed activities, which Long did not complete or enforce. Also, the firm’s and Long’s heightened supervision of the branch manager was inadequate in that it consisted only of inspecting his office annually and speaking on the phone on a fairly regular basis. Long inspected the branch manager’s branch office, and although she was aware that the manager was involved in certain outside business activities, based on the disclosures that he made on his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4), she admitted that she did not inspect any files or financial records associated with his disclosed outside business activities and did not detect any undisclosed outside business activities or private securities transactions.During a subsequent inspection, Long again did not review documentation regarding the branch manager’s disclosed outside business activities and did not detect any undisclosed outside business activities or private securities transactions.

Additionally, the branch manager had participated in private securities transactions wherein he had raised more than $1.5 million from investors, many of whom were firm customers.

In addition, the firm and Long failed to review or retain email communications on the branch manager’s outside email account, and Long did not review his outside email account during her inspections of his branch office. Moreover, FINRA found that the firm did not have any supervisory procedures regarding the review and retention of email communications on outside email accounts.

Portfolio Advisors Alliance, Inc.: Censured; Fined $35,000

Marcelle Long: Fined $7,500; Suspended in Principal/Supervisory capacity only for 30 days

Blanchard participated in private securities transactions when a client of his accounting firm purchased promissory notes an individual issued. The findings stated that Blanchard failed to provide written notice to his firm describing in detail the proposed transactions with the individual issuing the promissory notes, his proposed role therein, and stating whether he had received or might receive selling compensation in connection with the transactions. Blanchard introduced the client to the individual, and the client invested a total of approximately $325,000 in the individual’s promissory notes as a result of Blanchard’s referrals.

The individual paid Blanchard about $16,434 in selling compensation for his referral. The customer lost approximately $290,000 as a result of the investment, and the firm made full restitution to Blanchard’s client even though he was not a customer of the firm.

McLean failed to provide written notice of his involvement in unapproved private securities transactions to his member firm and lied to his firm during monthly supervisory meetings. McLean’s member firm prohibited its registered representatives from engaging in any private securities transactions unless they were personal investments and only after obtaining the firm’s prior written approval, but McLean referred a customer and another individual to someone who was raising monies for real estate projects. These individuals invested approximately $75,000 in promissory notes with entities controlled by the individual to whom McLean referred them, and McLean received $1,500 in cash for the referrals. Because of concerns stemming from items reported on McLean’s personal credit report, his firm placed him on heightened supervision and, among other things, McLean was required to meet with his supervisor monthly to discuss securities-related and outside business activities; but not once during these meetings did McLean disclose his involvement with the individual. On seven separate occasions, he signed statements affirming that he was not engaged in outside business activity beyond those already disclosed and that it was unnecessary to update his Form U4.

While employed by another member firm, McLean acted as an agent for an entity not affiliated with his firm and over which his firm had no control, without providing written notice to his firm or receiving his firm’s approval to serve in this role. In addition, as an agent for the entity, McLean introduced individuals to an individual through whom they invested in a purported diamond mining operation. Moreover, these individuals entered into promissory notes, investing more than $40,000 with an entity the individual controlled. Furthermore, in addition to making referrals, as an agent for the entity, McLean was expected to provide financial and consulting advice to investors once their investments began earning profits, and in exchange, McLean stood to earn $2 million worth of shares in a company the individual controlled.

McLean failed to respond fully to FINRA requests for documents and information. 

Ivan executed an agreement purportedly on the firm’s behalf, in which a non-customer corporation agreed to pay the firm a $35,000 refundable deposit in exchange for the firm agreeing to act as an exclusive placement agent to assist the corporation in arranging for $8 million dollars in debt financing. Subject to the agreement, Ivan instructed the corporation to wire the $35,000 deposit to a personal brokerage account he controlled at another FINRA member firm. Instead of using the funds as he represented to the corporation and in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement, Ivan diverted the corporation’s funds by wiring $25,000 of the deposit to another business entity that was supposedly going to assist the corporation with arranging the financing and used the remaining $10,000 for his personal benefit. The debt financing for the corporation never materialized, and the corporation did not receive the return of its $35,000 deposit.

Ivan made untruthful statements and provided false documents to FINRA when he untruthfully represented in his written response to FINRA that he had forwarded the $35,000 from the corporation to a business entity assisting with the financing, and that he did not receive any compensation or payments relating to his participation in arranging the financing. Ivan provided FINRA a document purporting to be an account statement for his outside brokerage account, which falsely reflected a wire transfer of $35,000 out of his account to a business entity assisting with the arrangement of financing, when in fact, the wire transfer amount had only been $25,000. That brokerage account statement had false entries for the figures representing the total amount of checks written and the total amount of checking, debit card and cash withdrawals.

Moreover, Ivan held a financial interest in a brokerage account maintained at another FINRA member firm without giving prompt written notification to the firm that he had such an account, and without notifying the other brokerage firm of his association with his member firm. Furthermore, Ivan falsely answered “N/A” on the firm’s outside brokerage account new hire certification form when requested to list every brokerage account over which he had full or partial ownership.

Adler participated in private securities transactions when customers of his accounting firm and customers of his member firm purchased promissory notes an individual issued. Adler failed to provide written notice to his firm describing in detail the proposed transactions with the individual issuing the promissory notes, his proposed role therein, and stating whether he had received or might receive selling compensation in connection with the transactions.

Adler introduced his clients to the individual and they invested a total of approximately $2.5 million in the individual’s promissory notes as a result of Adler’s referrals. The individual paid Adler approximately $16,434 in selling compensation for his referral. The customers and the investors lost a total of approximately $2,103,375 and the firm made full restitution to Adler’s clients even though some were not customers of the firm.

Sibert failed to provide written notice to, and receive written approval from, his member firm for his participation in private securities transactions, and lied to his firm about his activities in these transactions. Sibert’s firm prohibited its registered representatives from participating in any manner in the sale of any security, registered or unregistered, not processed through the firm, without prior written approval, but Sibert solicited his firm’s customers and potential customers to invest in his company, which was purportedly raising monies to invest in real estate developments and gold-mining operations. Some of these individuals invested over $1 million with Sibert’s company and some invested over $800,000 in promissory notes.

Sibert signed an annual compliance questionnaire falsely stating that he was not engaging in private securities transactions.Sibert failed to fully respond to FINRA requests for information and documents, and failed to respond to a FINRA request to appear for testimony.

Mata participated in private securities transactions without prior written notice to, and prior written approval or acknowledgment from, his firm for these activities. Mata participated in outside business activities and failed to provide prompt written notice to his firm regarding these activities, for which he received compensation totaling $21,417.44.

Mata participated in numerous sales seminars with customers in which he failed to obtain prior written approval from a firm principal for the sales literature used in his seminars; failed to file the sales literature used in his seminars, which included information on variable contracts, with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department; and used sales literature in his seminars that was not fair and balanced, contained exaggerated or unwarranted claims, and contained predictions of performance.

McRoberts effected private securities transactions without requesting and receiving her member firms’ permission. McRoberts sold $142,128 in promissory notes secured by pooled life settlements. Prior to engaging in these transactions, while associated with one of the firms, McRoberts had signed an Acknowledgement of Receipt and Review of Compliance Procedure Manual which stated that no private securities (or other investment or insurance) transaction may in any way be participated in by a representative unless the compliance director approves it in advance. Despite McRoberts’ acknowledgement of the firm’s procedures, she failed to give written notice of her intention to participate in the sale of the securities to, and failed to obtain written approval from, her firm prior to the transactions. McRoberts effected private securities transactions while registered with another member firm and also failed to give written notice of her intention to participate in the sale of the securities, and failed to obtain her firm’s written approval prior to the transaction. McRoberts received $9,600 in commissions from the transactions. In addition,

McRoberts failed to conduct adequate due diligence and thus had no reasonable basis to determine whether the investments were suitable for her clients.

Adler participated in private securities transactions when customers of his member firm and his accounting firm purchased promissory notes an individual issued. Adler failed to provide written notice to his firm describing in detail the proposed transactions with the individual issuing the promissory notes, his proposed role therein, and stating whether he had received or might receive selling compensation in connection with the transactions.

Adler introduced the customers to the individual and they invested a total of about $700,000 in the individual’s promissory notes as a result of Adler’s referrals. The individual paid Adler approximately $16,434 in selling compensation for his referral. The customers lost approximately $630,000, and the firm made full restitution to Adler’s clients even though one was not a customer of the firm.

The sanctions were based on findings that Alvin and Donna Gebhart engaged in private securities transactions without prior written notification to, or prior approval from, their member firm. The findings stated that Alvin and Donna Gebhart sold unregistered securities that were not exempt from registration, and recklessly made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of securities. Donna Gebhart’s suspension is in effect from June 7, 2010, through June 6, 2011.

Alvin Waino Gebhart Jr.: Barred

Donna Traina Gebhart: Fined $15,000; Suspended 1 year; Must requalify by exam in all capacities.

Contreras engaged in private securities transactions by recommending that customers invest in promissory notes, which were not approved investments of his member firm. Contreras failed to provide written notice to his firm describing in detail the proposed transactions and his proposed role therein, and stating whether he had received, or might receive, selling compensation in connection with the transactions.

The company that issued the promissory notes filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, and all of Contreras’ customers lost their entire investment.

Contreras borrowed approximately $65,000 from his customers, contrary to his firm’s written procedures prohibiting registered representatives from borrowing money or securities from any prospects or customers, including non-firm prospects/customers, and Contreras failed to pay back any of the money he borrowed.

Contreras failed to respond to FINRA requests for information and testimony.

In connection with the sale of investments in a film production company, Flowers made fraudulent misrepresentations and omitted to disclose material information. Flowers collected at least $92,000 from investors, falsely representing that he would use their funds to finance a film production business and promising exorbitant, guaranteed returns. Instead of investing the funds, Flowers misused $30,498 to repay other investors and pay for personal expenses without the investors’ knowledge, consent or authorization.

Flowers made recommendations to a customer to invest in private placement offerings that were unsuitable in light of the customer’s financial situation, investment objective and financial needs.

Flowers attempted to settle away customers’ complaints without his member firm’s knowledge or consent.

Flowers signed an attestation form for a firm acknowledging that email communications with the public must be sent through the firm’s email address and copied to the compliance department, but Flowers communicated with customers via unapproved, outside email accounts without his member firms’ knowledge or consent, and as a result of his outside communications, his member firms were unable to review his emails to firm customers. In addition, Flowers engaged in private securities transactions without providing prior written notice to, and receiving prior written approval from, his member firms.

Chew engaged in a

• private securities transaction, by purchasing shares of stock via subscription agreement, outside the regular scope of his employment with his member firm and without providing prior written notice of this private securities transaction to the firm; and
• outside business activity, as the president and sole owner of an entity, without providing prompt written notice to his firm.

Chew made false statements and attestations to his firm when he completed compliance questionnaires and annual attestations on which he declared to the firm that he had not personally invested in any private security transaction outside of the firm, that he was not “engaged in any outside activity either as a proprietor, partner, officer, director, trustee, employee, agent or otherwise,” and that he did not participate in any outside business activities except for those previously disclosed to, and approved in writing by, the firm.

Niederkrome authorized an associated person’s participation in private securities transactions primarily involving the sales of hedge fund interests to investors, but failed to supervise the sales for suitability, or to review and retain monthly performance statements that were sent to hedge fund investors as required by NASD Rule 3040.

Niederkrome and Rodgers, as principals responsible for the review and approval of all new account applications, approved the opening of the accounts for prospective hedge fund investors without inquiring into whether the intended investment was actually suitable for them.

David Eric Niederkrome: Fined $15,000; Suspended 6 months in Principal capacity only

Stephen Rudolph Rodgers: Fined $5,000; Suspended 60 days in Principal capacity only

Meckenstock failed to reasonably supervise a registered representative at his member firm in that the registered representative participated in sales of stock that were outside the course or scope of the registered representative’s employment with the firm. Meckenstock participated in certain sales of the stock himself, and failed to record the sales on the firm’s books and records as required by NASD Rule 3040(c).

Meckenstock failed to submit a written request to participate in the sale of stock, failed to receive written approval to participate in the transactions and failed to provide written approval to the registered representative to participate in the sales.

Meckenstock failed to conduct sufficient due diligence on the offering, failed to investigate the nature of the individual with the issuer, failed to investigate his relationship with the issuer, failed to question him about any additional sales he may have made to firm customers, and failed to investigate compensation that the registered representative was promised or received from the sale of the interests in the company.

Meckenstock failed to adequately supervise the resale of stock through a registered investment adviser (IA) the representative owned, and failed to review the IA’s books and records, which would have disclosed the representative’s sale of his shares of the stock to public customers.

Meckenstock reviewed a private placement memorandum and offering for his firm and approved it as a suitable investment, but failed to ensure that the issuer had established an escrow account, thereby failing to adequately supervise the sale of the offering and causing his firm to violate Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-4. In addition, Meckenstock failed to evidence his supervisory review and approval of customers’ purchases of interests in numerous offerings.

Reinhard participated in private securities transactions without providing prior written notice to, and/or obtaining prior written approval from, his member firm. The findings stated that Reinhard sold at least $869,000 in stock and warrants to investors, including firm customers, and sold the securities, which a publicly traded company issued, as part of a private securities offering by hedge funds. Reinhard falsely represented on annual compliance questionnaires that he had not engaged in private securities transactions.

Reinhard failed to respond to FINRA requests for documents.

Kennebeck sold to four customers securities in the form of installment plan contracts offered by a Tennessee non-profit corporation without first providing written notice of his participation in these sales to his member firm or receiving its written approval; the Tennessee non-profit corporation promised a tax deduction and fixed deferred payments at an unspecified rate of return, in exchange for each customer’s transfer of ownership of existing annuities to the non-profit corporation.

Kennebeck’s customers exchanged existing annuities with a combined accumulated value of $1,078,428.10 for installment-plan contracts. Although the non-profit corporation applied for tax-exempt status, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) never approved its application, and consequently, customers who purchased installment-plan contracts were unable to claim a tax deduction in connection with their investments.

Kennebeck obtained information from non-profit corporation personnel, which he accepted at face value and failed to independently verify, including the non-profit corporation’s representation that it had been granted tax-exempt status as a charitable organization, and that investors could avail themselves of the touted tax deduction in connection with their investment. Kennebeck negligently misrepresented to his customers that they could take charitable tax deductions in connection with their respective investments, which was not true. In connection with his sale of the installment plan contracts, Kennebeck provided the customers with illustrations and other sales materials he received from the non-profit corporation that contained misleading and incomplete information without first presenting them for review and approval to a registered principal of his firm.

Wright engaged in private securities transactions when he participated in the sale of private placements related to telephone equipment and leasing agreements offered through various businesses connected to a company. Wright received no selling compensation, agreed to provide restitution of $1,617,485 to the customers by entering into purchase agreements with each customer and has commenced payment.

Wright’s member firm suspended him for 10 business days and placed him on heightened supervision for one year.

Takeuchi participated in private securities transactions by selling a viatical settlement company’s viaticals to outside investors while he was registered with his member firm. Takeuchi did not provide notice to, and receive approval from, the firm before participating in these private securities transactions; the firm also prohibited the sales of viaticals. Takeuchi earned approximately $4,400 as a result of his viatical sales and never gave the firm any notice, written or otherwise, that he had sold viaticals to outside investors.

Takeuchi repeatedly misrepresented and omitted material information to the firm concerning his sales of viaticals when he completed the firm’s annual compliance meeting questionnaires and checked “No,” implying that he had not engaged in any activity involving viatical contracts.Takeuchi made false attestation to the firm when he executed a firm document that he had not participated in the sale or solicitation of viaticals. Takeuchi knew that his written statements to the firm regarding his viatical sales were inaccurate or incomplete.

Mailloux participated in private securities transactions without prior written notice to, or prior written approval from, his member firm. Mailloux referred customers to another registered representative of the firm, who executed promissory notes, called “private investor agreements,” with the customers on a corporation’s behalf. The findings also stated that the promissory notes, which were securities, indicated that the corporation promised to pay 10 percent and 12 percent annual interest, respectively, in return for the loans. The corporation subsequently defaulted on its payment obligations to Mailloux’s customers, who incurred significant losses, and Mailloux did not inform his firm about his customers’ investments.

Mailloux received a finder’s fee of $500 from the firm’s other registered representative for the investment one of the customers made.

Spomer engaged in an outside business activity without prior permission of his member firm by distributing unregistered securities through a non-FINRA regulated entity, and received in excess of $100,000 in compensation. Without his new member firm’s knowledge or authorization, Spomer distributed correspondence to non-firm customers who had bought the unregistered securities because the State of Texas ceased the business operations of the issuer and placed the issuer into receivership. Spomer’s letter used firm disclosure language at the bottom of the letter that gave the erroneous impression that the firm, with Spomer as agent, had issued the correspondence. Spomer failed to submit the letter to his member firm’s principal for prior approval, and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the security by promoting the “similar program,” and used improper promissory language to describe the product.

Spomer failed to respond to FINRA requests for information.

NEXT Financial Group did not have a reasonable system for reviewing its registered representatives’ transactions for excessive trading. The firm relied upon its OSJ branch managers to review its registered representatives’ transactions and home office compliance personnel to review its OSJ branch managers’ transactions, but the firm failed to utilize exception reports or another system, and the supervisors and compliance personnel only reviewed transactions on weekly paper blotters or electronic blotters.

The monthly account statements and contingent deferred sales charge reports for mutual fund activity were also available for review and could be indicators of excessive trading, however, given the volume of trading certain principals reviewed, and in certain cases, the large number of representatives for which the principal was responsible, it was not reasonable to expect principals to be able to track excessive trading on a weekly sales blotter, let alone through monthly account statements or mutual fund sales charge reports.

Due to the lack of a reasonable supervisory system, the firm failed to detect a registered representative’s excessive trading, which resulted in about $102,376 in unnecessary sales charges; the firm failed to identify or follow up on other transactions that suggested other registered representatives’ excessive trading in additional customer accounts. 

The Firm did not have a reasonable system for ensuring that it obtained and documented principal review of its registered representatives’ transactions, including sales of complicated products such as variable annuities, and the firm should have been particularly attentive to maintaining books and records that established that the transactions had been properly reviewed. The firm failed to provide reasonable supervision of municipal bond markups and markdowns to ensure that its registered representatives charged its customers reasonable markups and markdowns. In addition,  the firm’s branch office examination program was unreasonable because it was not designed to carry out its intended purpose of detecting and preventing violations of, and achieving compliance with, federal, state and FINRA securities regulations, as well as its own policies.

The firm failed to have a reasonable supervisory system to oversee implementation of its heightened supervision policies and procedures for its registered representatives as it failed to comply with the terms of its heightened supervision for its registered representatives regarding client complaints, regulatory actions or internal reviews, therefore it had a deficient implementation of heightened supervision policies and procedures.

The firm failed to have a reasonable supervisory control system or to have in place Supervisory Control Procedures as required by FINRA Rule 3012, and it failed to perform adequate 3012 testing or prepare adequate 3012 reports. Moreover,the firm failed to have a reasonable system and procedures in place to review and approve investment advisors’ private securities transactions.

Furthermore, the firm filed inaccurate and late Rule 3070 reports relevant to customer complaints, and did not file or amend Form U4 and Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) reports in a timely manner.

The Firm's AML systems and procedures were unreasonable, as the firm failed to establish and implement an AML Compliance Program reasonably designed to achieve compliance with NASD Rule 3011. Although the firm utilized a money movement report, its supervisors did not detect red flags involving numerous instances of potentially suspicious activities relating to the trading of a company’s stock and the transfers of proceeds relating to the trading of a stock, and thus failed to investigate and report these activities in accordance with its own procedures and the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and the implementing regulations.

In addition, over 1.3 million shares of a company’s stock were traded in customer accounts a registered representative serviced; during a one-week period, the firm’s only AML exception report that monitored large money movement flagged the customer’s account, but the firm took no action and failed to file any SARs as appropriate.

Zamecki was the registered principal at his member firm responsible for reviewing and approving the firm’s registered representatives’ private securities transactions and outside business activities. Zamecki failed to supervise a registered representative’s private securities transactions. The registered representative disclosed his outside business sales of secured real estate notes to the firm and discussed them with Zamecki, at which time the representative stated that attorneys for the note issuer had determined that the notes were not securities; in reality, the notes were securities. Zamecki allowed the registered representative to continue selling the notes without inquiring further into the matter and thereby failed to enforce the firm’s written supervisory procedures.

The representative made numerous sales of the notes to various investors, and Zamecki did not review, approve or otherwise supervise these sales. The representative completed an Outside Business Questionnaire in which he disclosed his sales of the notes; after reviewing the form, Zamecki questioned the representative in detail about the nature of the notes, determined that the notes could be securities and prohibited the representative from engaging in any further sales of the notes.