If you or someone you know is a victim of financial fraud perpetrated by Ed Matthes of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, there is legal recourse that could lead to the recovery of those stolen funds.  According to published reports, Ed Matthes, who was a registered representative for Mutual of Omaha Investor Services until March 12, 2019, missappropriated and stole upwards of $1 million from his clients.  According to the cease and desist order entered by the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Matthes stole money from client annuities after convincing them to give him authority to enter transactions and withdraw funds on their behalf.  Providing this level of authority to a financial advisor is rarely a good idea, but Ed Matthes was able to elicit a substantial level of trust and confidence from his clients. He created fake account statements which masked the withdrawals he had been taking, hiding his misconduct for years.  Matthes was also barred by FINRA – the regulatory body charged with overseeing and disciplining financial advisors and their firms.

According to Matthes’s FINRA Broker/Check report, several customer complaints have been filed against Matthes’s former firm, Mutual of Omaha Investor Services. These claims were filed as arbitration actions through FINRA’s Dispute Resolution program. Mutual of Omaha is certainly a viable target for Matthes’s fraudulent scheme since at all times he was a registered representative of the firm and as such, Mutual of Omaha had a duty to supervise his activities.  Case law establishes that brokerage firms like Mutual of Omaha can be held liable for negligent supervision even when the activities of the schemer fall outside the scope of his employment with the firm.  See McGraw v. Wachovia Securities, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Iowa 2010). Here, Mutual of Omaha had an obligation to supervise the withdrawal of funds from Matthes’s clients’ annuities to ensure they were legitimate, as part of the firm’s anti-money laundering compliance apparatus mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act, and NASD Notice to Members 02-21 and NASD Notice to Members 02-47.

Similarly, the annuity companies from which these funds were converted could have liability to the victims too. Anytime investors withdraw substantial amounts of money from annuities, the annuity company should be on alert, and presumably Matthes had the funds directed to a third party, which is a serious red flag. Stoltmann Law Offices will pursue all viable options to recover our clients’ funds.

It is time for GPB Fund investors to seriously consider their legal options. Over the last year, the GPB Capital Funds have been beset by serious issues raising red flags for investors:

  • On April 30, 2018, GPB missed a mandatory filing date with the SEC
  • In August 2018, GPB announced that is was “overhauling” and restating its 2015 and 2016 financials

Have you or your child been injured by a vaccine? Many people do not realize this, but there is legal action that you can take and we can help! Importantly, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, your legal fees and costs are paid by the Program, so pursuing a legal action is risk free to you!

In the 1980s, as the number of vaccines grew, there was also an increase in vaccine injuries.  The vaccine companies were inundated with law suits, which threatened a vaccine shortage and an increase in vaccine refusal. In order to compensate victims without the backlash and expense of traditional civil litigation, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”), aka “Vaccine Court”.

Under the VICP, if you meet the criteria under the VICP, you can file a petition with the Vaccine Court, which is the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, for monetary compensation. The criteria includes 1) receiving a covered vaccine and 2) suffering an injury; 3) within a certain time period. The monetary compensation available to the victims of these injuries include compensation for pain and suffering and current and future medical expenses. Our firm will also petition the Court to pay fees and costs from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. However, unlike traditional personally injury cases, these fees and expenses are not deducted from your compensation or paid by you out of pocket – they are awarded directly to your attorneys from the vaccine compensation fund.  Thus, you do not have to worry about paying us out of pocket or losing a large percentage of your award to pay your legal fees.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP” aka “Vaccine Court”) is a streamlined litigation program run through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to award compensation to individuals injured by vaccines. In order to receive compensation through this Program, you or your loved one must meet the criteria discussed supra. However, do not let this criteria alarm or confuse you. We are here to provide you with a free evaluation, so please contact our office to help you navigate the VICP. Importantly, you need to contact an attorney sooner rather than later for your evaluation, as there are strict statute of limitations periods for filing a case.

The VICP Criteria

The VICP created the “Vaccine Injury Table”  to evaluate injury petitions. The table below lists the following criteria needed for a claim under the VICP: 1) the vaccine received; 2) the injury suffered; and 3) the time period during which the first symptom occurred.

The securities fraud attorneys at Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C. continue to investigate investor claims against brokerage firms that sold their clients investments in various GPB Capital Holdings offerings.  On March 22, 2019, attorney Joe Wojciechowski announced the filing of a Statement of Claim with FINRA Dispute Resolution for an investor who was sold units in GPB Automotive Fund, L.P. The claim was filed against NewBridge Securities and also includes allegations in connection with various non-traded REITs issued by American Realty Capital (ARC). The claim is for a retail investor whose financial advisor recommended she invest nearly 100% of her accounts in alternative investments offered by GPB Capital and ARC.  The claim alleges misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in violation of the Securities Act of Washington, consumer fraud in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, negligence for violating numerous regulatory rules including FINRA Rules 2111 (suitability) and 3110  (supervision), and breach of fiduciary duty. Our client seeks rescission of her GPB Automotive Fund investment and compensatory damages for her realized losses in the ARC REITs, plus attorneys fees, costs, interest, and punitive damages.

Investors who were solicited by financial advisors and brokers to invest in GPB Capital funds should consider their legal options to seek rescission of those investments.  Under the state securities laws (frequently referred to as the Blue Sky Laws), the primary remedy for investors is called rescission, which means the investor sues to force the brokerage firm to buy the investment back.  The rescission remedy seeks to put the investor back in the same place she was prior to purchasing the investment. This is important for investors who own alternative investments like GPB Capital Funds.  These are not liquid or tradable investments, meaning an investor cannot call their advisor and sell it and realize a gain or a loss. Essentially, the investor is stuck. Given the troubling news about GPB Capital over the last several months, something Stoltmann Law Offices has written about extensively, investors are correct to be wary and should consider an exit strategy. Unfortunately, because there is no way out of the GPB Funds, the only option for investors may be to pursue arbitration claims against the brokerage firm responsible for soliciting the investments in the first place.

In the last several years, as interest rates remained very low, it has been difficult for investors to find fixed income investments, like corporate and municipal bonds, that offered higher yields without exposing them to speculative risk. Likewise, due to the long term low interest rate environment, the principal value of the bonds begin to drop as interests rates have risen. The solution to these problems for brokerage firms has been to sell “alternative investments” that offer relatively high yields, but because they are non-traded and do not report any real market value, they have the appearance of a stable value for investors. The bonus for brokerage firms is that these alternative investments offer the advisors commissions they could never achieve by selling standard fixed income securities like corporate bonds or municipal bonds. Advisors sell the sizzle of a high yield and fixed prices and either gloss over or completely misrepresent the speculative risk being taken by investors who entrust their money to private entities like GPB Capital.

Investors who were solicited to invest in Direct Lending Investments (DLI) in Glendale, California by their financial advisor may have actionable claims to recover their money.  This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged registered investment advisor Direct Lending Investments LLC with a fraud spanning multiple years that caused an $11 million over charge of management and performance fees to its private funds https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2019/lr24432.htm.  The company allegedly fraudulently inflated it annual returns by 2 percent to 3 percent per year for multiple years.

According to the SEC:

Brendan Ross, DLI’s owner and then-chief executive officer, arranged with QuarterSpot to falsify borrower payment information for QuarterSpot’s loans and to falsely report to Direct Lending that borrowers made hundreds of monthly payments when, in fact, they had not. The SEC alleges that many of these loans should have been valued at zero, but instead were improperly valued at their full value, because of the false payments Ross helped engineer.

The securities fraud attorneys at Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C. are continuing to investigate due diligence and suitability claims against brokerage firms that sold their clients investments in various GPB Capital Holdings offerings.  The most recent news has to do specifically with the Waste Management Fund, which buys and sells private waste haulers and garbage collectors. Not exactly the most glamorous of funds certainly, but new allegations have surfaced that GPB Capital purchased a company called Five Star Carting in March 2017, which has been embroiled in litigation amid allegations of a poor safety record. To make matters worse for GPB Waste Management, according to an InvestmentNews report,  GPB’s director of waste strategy – that is seriously the reported title – is Rod Proto, formally of Waste Management. He was fired from his position as President and COO of Waste Management 1999 and then charged with insider trading in 2003 by the SEC for which he paid a $3.7 million fine and stipulated to a ban from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company for five years.  It is unknown at this time if the FBI search warrant or other searches conducted by the New York City Business Integrity Commission – which happens to regulate waste haulers in New York City – has anything to do specifically with the GPB Waste Management Fund. In any event, the continued bad press and regulatory pressure is not good for GPB Fund investors.

Almost weekly more negative news comes out about GPB Capital Holdings. We have written considerably about many of these issues.  Brokers sell private placements like GPB Waste Management Fund, or the more popular GPB Automotive Fund for one reason – commissions. There is no other logical reason and exposure to a particular sector is not an excuse. If an investor needs exposure to the automobile sector, there are hundreds of publicly traded, low-commission options, including common stocks of car companies  or the companies from the automotive supply chain. If an investor is seeking a high-income investment, there are literally thousands of publicly-traded corporate or municipal bond options available at a fraction of the cost of a private placement like the GPB Funds. These private placements offer investors a toxic cocktail of 1) illiquidity, meaning once your money goes in it does not come back out until GPB says it does, 2) speculative risk, meaning the highest risk investment product available, and 3) a poor risk/return profile, meaning the risk you are taking is not being compensated by some potential of a high return. GPB Funds  were simply bad deals for investors. The only people that make out in situations like this are the brokerage firms like NewBridge Securities, FSC Securities, Cetera Advisors, Royal Alliance, and many others, who sold an estimated $1.5 billion of these funds to their clients.  At a 10% commission rate, these brokerage firms generated approximately $150 million in revenue just from selling these speculative and opaque funds.

If you were sold investments in any of the GBP Capital offerings by your financial advisor and wish to know your legal options, please call 312-332-4200 for a no obligation free consultation with an attorney. Stoltmann Law Offices is a Chicago-based  contingency fee firm which means we do not get paid until you do.

Many retail investors who were recommended GPB Capital Holding related investments by their financial advisors are asking the question “What’s next”?  Unfortunately, the answer will likely be unpleasant.  GPB Capital Holdings, LLC is a New York-based issuer of private placements offered under the “GPB” moniker. Over the last several years, GPB has raised at least $1.3 billion dollars from mostly retail investors through eight separate private offerings. These offerings include the GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP along with the GPB Waste Management Fund, and GPB Holdings Fund, I, II, and III, GPB New York Development, LP, and GPB Cold Storage, LP.  The GPB Automotive Portfolio was organized as Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 with an expressed purpose to acquire, operate, and resell auto dealerships. The sale of these Class A units were expressly intended to be sold only to “accredited” investors, as that term of art is defined in Regulation D.

It was disclosed this week that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating GPB Capital and made an unannounced appearance at the headquarters last week.  As we have previously discussed , last year, the firm stopped taking in new investor money and ceased distributions.  It also restated its financial statements on top of an investigation by Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin.  While the company took great pains to point out that it has not been named in any action by any regulatory authority and it is not the target of any active investigation, the events of recent weeks gives all of the appearances that a major financial disaster is in store for investors in GPB.

Brokers at firms like Royal Alliance, FSC Securities, NewBridge Securities, and Cetera Advisors heavily peddled these high risk investors to investors.  Why?  Because of the fees and commissions. The GPB Fund paid out brokers between 8% and 11% of every dollar sold to clients. So for selling a $100,000 investment in the GPB Fund, brokers and their firms received between $8,000 and $11,000 for this one recommendation.  It is useful to put this extraordinary commission into context with those received for more standard, marketable securities like stocks, bonds, or mutual funds.  Financial Advisors in the traditional brokerage setting employed by an independent broker/dealer like NewBridge Securities, would earn between 0.5% and 1.5% on equity trades or corporate/municipal bonds trades.  Mutual funds, depending on share class, charge sales loaded and back-end fees that can be as high as 4.5%, but ETFs like those offered by Vanguard, are virtually fee-free. Moreover, many brokerage firms offer electronic trading for clients on a per trade basis as low as $4.95 per trade regardless of the amount of the transaction. Crucially, there are no break-point discounts available for private placements, meaning if an investor invests a million dollars, the broker gets the same commission rate. Publicly traded options like mutual funds and UITs, however, offer commission breakpoints; the more money an investor invests, the lower the commission rate. At 8%-11%, there is simply nothing that competes with this level of compensation, which is why many brokers spent their career selling “alternative investments” like GPB.

The investor advocate attorneys at Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C. view the latest news about GPB Capital Holdings as  potentially bad news for investors.  According to published reports, along with the SEC and FINRA, the FBI is now investigating GPB Holdings after an “unannounced” visit to GPB’s New York office last week. According to GPB Capital, along with the FBI, the New York City Business Integrity Commission also paid a visit.

We have written considerably about issues related to GPB Capital Holdings since December 2018 and it seems every month something else happens.  We also have since been retained by investors to pursue claims against the brokerage firms that sold these various GPB Capital funds to them. The one misnomer we continue to see published about clients who invested in GPB Capital Holdings offerings is that these investors were “accredited” or “sophisticated.” These labels are routinely bandied-about whenever an offering like GPB Capital Holdings burns investors.  The fact is, these labels are nothing more than defenses used by the brokerage firms that sell these exempt, private-placement securities to their clients. In fact, an investor usually must qualify as “accredited” to even participate in these offerings as an investor.  According to FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-22 and FINRA Rule 2111, these labels do not obviate the brokerage firm’s obligation to only recommend investments that 1) have been vetted by the firm prior to offering it and that 2) are suitable in light of the client’s investment objectives and risk tolerance. In order for the brokerage firm to adhere to this standard of care, it must satisfy both of these requirements. A brokerage firm cannot rely blindly on the representations made by an issuer like GPB Capital, nor is the disclosure of risks in an offering memorandum sufficient to satisfy the firm’s due diligence obligations which are intended to be gatekeeper in nature.

Our investigation has revealed that NewBridge Securities, FSC Securities, Cetera Advisors, Royal Alliance, and a cacophony of other FINRA registered brokerage firms sold investors units or shares in various GPB Capital offerings. If you were sold investment in any of the GBP Capital offerings and wish to know your legal options, please call 312-332-4200 for a no obligation free consultation with an attorney. Stoltmann Law Offices is Chicago-based  contingency fee firm which means we do not get paid until you do.

Stoltmann Law Offices and its securities arbitration practice group are investigating Jay Weiser of small-town Mendota, Illinois in LaSalle County in connection with serious allegations involving the sale of notes offered by Woodbridge and notes offered by Future Income Payments (FIP). Both of these entities have been exposed as Ponzi schemes. According to Mr. Weiser’s FINRA BrokerCheck Report, he was discharged with cause from DesPain Financial in connection with allegations he sold Woodbridge and FIP notes to investors. Mr. Weiser was then barred from the securities industry by FINRA on January 17, 2019 when he refused to provide information to FINRA pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210.  As we have discussed in previous blogs, there are various reasons why brokers refuse to provide “on the record testimony” (OTR) or provide documents in connection with a FINRA regulatory investigation pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. Sometimes it is because a broker simply is no longer interested in being licensed and is making a career change and does not want to go through the hassle or the expense of complying with FINRA’s requests. Other times it is because submitting information or testimony to FINRA may do the broker more harm than good.  Here, given the allegations made by two clients against Weiser that he sold them notes in Woodbridge and FIP, it is reasonable to conclude Mr. Weiser voluntarily submitted to a lifetime ban from the securities industry because his misconduct is serious.

According to a Notice of Hearing filed the the Illinois Securities Department on November 5, 2018, Mr. Weiser, while affiliated with Weiser Financial and DesPain Financial, sold at least $611,000 in investments in FIP to at least six Illinois residents. According to the publicly available Notice, Mr. Weiser also sold at least $795,000 in Woodbridge notes to at least seventeen Illinois investors. According to the Illinois Securities Department, by selling interests in FIP and Woodbridge, Mr. Weiser violated numerous provisions of the Illinois Securities Law, including Section 12.A, Section 12.F, Section 12.G, Section 12.H, and Section 12.I.

The Notice of Hearing, along with the FINRA action, both find that Weiser failed to disclose these activities to his broker/dealer firm, DesPain Financial. It is critical not to confuse Weiser’s failure to disclose certain activities as if it in any way disclaims potential liability of DesPain or any other entity responsible for supervising Weiser, his firm, and his dealing with investors, because it does not. This failure to disclose does not alleviate the  regulatory, statutory, and common law responsibility to supervise the conduct of Mr. Weiser and specifically, if there are “red flags” present that Weiser was conducting investor business with FIP or Woodbridge, the burden would be on DesPain Financial to establish reasonable measures taken in reaction to these “red flags” of potential misconduct.

CNBC
FOX Business
The Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg
CBS
FOX News Channel
USA Today
abc NEWS
DATELINE
npr
Contact Information