FINRA Launches Large Arbitration Case Pilot Program

Large arbitration cases involving claims of $10 million or more are the focus of a new pilot program recently launched by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

The program enables parties to customize the administrative process to better suit special needs of a larger case and allows them to bypass certain FINRA arbitration rules. Participation in the pilot program, which begins today, is voluntary and open to all cases. In order to be eligible, however, all parties will be required to pay for any additional costs of the program and must be represented by counsel.

Linda Fienberg, President of FINRA Dispute Resolution, said, “In response to the increasing number of very large cases, we wanted to introduce a more formal approach to give parties greater flexibility and more control over the administration of their case.”

Examples of how parties may customize the process include having the option to:

  • Have additional control over the method of arbitrator appointment and the qualifications of arbitrators;
  • Hire non-FINRA arbitrators for their case;
  • Develop their own procedures for exchanging information prior to the hearing;
  • Have expanded discovery options such as depositions and interrogatories; and
  • Choose from a wider selection of facilities.

All parties must agree and will be required to pay for any additional costs of the program such as costs for enhanced facilities or additional arbitrator honorariums. FINRA will send a letter to parties in cases involving claims of $10 million or more to solicit participation in the pilot.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation Attorney and FINRA Arbitrator

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Home Preservation Forum, Saturday June 30

Florida homeowners in danger of default or mortgage foreclosure will have a chance to speak directly with lenders at a “Home Preservation Forum” being sponsored by the Broward Housing and Community Development Task Force and the City of North Lauderdale.

Date and Place:
Saturday, June 30, 2012
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
City of North Lauderdale’s Municipal Complex
701 SW 71st Avenue
North Lauderdale, FL 33068
For more information, call 1-877-686-0623

Participating lenders include Bank of America, SunTrust, Chase, Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Homeowners should bring current copies of their pay stubs, bank statements, income tax returns, mortgage statement, utility bill, and any hardship letter they might have.

Homeowners will meet with lenders on the spot and decisions will be made that day.

Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Defense Attorney

If you are at risk of losing your home to mortgage foreclosure, there is action you can take. Contact Fort Lauderdale mortgage foreclosure attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss how you can defend your legal rights in a foreclosure. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $2.8 Million for Overcharging Customers

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. was fined $2.8 million by FINRA for supervisory failures that resulted in overcharging customers $32 million in unwarranted fees, and for failing to provide certain required trade notices. Merrill Lynch has provided $32 million in remediation, plus interest, to the affected customers.

Brad Bennett, FINRA’s Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “Investors must be able to trust that the fees charged by their securities firm are, in fact, correct. When this is not the case, investor confidence is threatened.”

FINRA found that from April 2003 to December 2011, Merrill Lynch failed to have an adequate supervisory system to ensure that customers in certain investment advisory programs were billed in accordance with contract and disclosure documents. As a result, the firm overcharged nearly 95,000 customer accounts fees of more than $32 million. Merrill Lynch has since returned the unwarranted fees, with interest, to the affected customers.

Merrill Lynch also failed to provide timely trade confirmations to customers in certain advisory programs due to computer programming errors. As a result, from July 2006 to November 2010, Merrill Lynch failed to send customers trade confirmations for more than 10.6 million trades in over 230,000 customer accounts. In addition, Merrill Lynch failed to properly identify whether it acted as an agent or principal on trade confirmations and account statements relating to at least 7.5 million mutual fund purchase transactions. At various times, Merrill Lynch also failed to deliver certain proxy and voting materials, margin risk disclosure statements and business continuity plans.

In concluding this settlement, Merrill Lynch neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Charges Orlando Buddy Persaud, White Elephant Trading in Ponzi Scheme

Gurudeo “Buddy” Persaud of Orlando, Fla. lured family, friends, and others into investing in his firm, White Elephant Trading Company LLC, by falsely guaranteeing their money would be safe and yield lofty returns ranging from 6 to 18 percent, according to SEC charges.

Persaud told investors he would invest in the debt, stock, futures, and real estate markets, but did not reveal that his trading strategy was based on his belief that markets are affected by gravitational forces.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Persaud used investors’ money to make payments to other investors, the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme. Persaud also lost $400,000 of investor funds through his trading and diverted at least $415,000 to pay for his personal expenses, the SEC alleged. The same month Persaud began receiving investor money, he started using some of that money for his personal expenses. The SEC said that Persaud created phony account statements to hide his trading losses and give investors a false sense of security.

“Persaud preyed on people who trusted him by promising high and steady returns while hiding his unconventional trading strategy,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office. “When Persaud blatantly lied to investors and hid their losses through a Ponzi scheme, he should have known that an SEC enforcement action was in the stars.”

Persaud was a registered representative at a Florida-based broker-dealer but separately operated the now-inactive White Elephant, starting in mid-2007. In all, Persaud raised more than $1 million from at least 14 investors between July 2007 and January 2010.

The SEC alleges that in making trading decisions, Persaud chiefly relied on an Internet service that provided directional market forecasts based on lunar cycles and gravitational pull. Persaud’s strategy was premised on the idea that gravitational forces affect mass human behavior, and in turn, the stock market. For example, Persaud believed that when the moon exerts greater gravitational pull on the Earth, people feel dejected and are more inclined to sell securities.

The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and injunctive relief against Persaud to enjoin him from future violations of the federal securities laws.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Florida Court Enters Final Judgment against James Clements & Zeina Smidi

A Ponzi scheme that offered investors guaranteed monthly returns ended in a court judgment. Defendants Clements and Smidi first told investors they would use investor proceeds to trade in foreign currencies and later stated they would use proceeds to invest in Swiss high-yield, fixed-rate savings accounts. In reality, however, Clements and Smidi siphoned approximately $3 million of investors’ money to their personal bank accounts, and paid out approximately $3 million for travel, expenses, and luxury items. [SEC v. Clements, Civil Action No. 11-60673-CIV- Dimitrouleas/Snow (S.D. Fla.)]

The Commission announced that on May 21, 2012, a District Judge in the Southern District of Florida entered Final Judgments Ordering Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest and a Civil Penalty against Defendants James Clements and Zeina Smidi. Pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 21(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas ordered Defendant Clements to pay disgorgement of $339,451, prejudgment interest of $88,975.66, and a civil penalty of $339,451, and ordered Defendant Smidi to pay disgorgement of $2,492,000, prejudgment interest of $611,837.60, and a civil penalty of $2,492,000.

The District Court previously entered by consent permanent injunctions against Clements and Smidi on February 6 and 17, 2012. The permanent injunctions enjoined Clements from future violations of Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a), and Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 15(a), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and enjoined Smidi from future violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. Clements and Smidi neither admitted nor denied the allegations of the complaint in their consents.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Charges Anthony Massaro of Boynton Beach in Agape Ponzi Scheme

A $415 million Ponzi scheme by Agape World Inc. of Long Island in New York is the basis for SEC charges against 14 sales agents, including one in South Florida, who misled investors and illegally sold securities to 5,000 investors nationwide.

The SEC alleges that the sales agents – which include four sets of siblings – falsely promised investor returns as high as 12 to 14 percent in several weeks when they sold investments offered by Agape World Inc. They also misled investors to believe that only 1 percent of their principal was at risk.

The Agape securities they peddled were actually non-existent, and investors were merely lured into a Ponzi scheme where earlier investors were paid with new investor funds. The sales agents turned a blind eye to red flags of fraud and sold the investments without hesitation, receiving more than $52 million in commissions and payments out of investor funds. None of these sales agents were registered with the SEC to sell securities, nor were they associated with a registered broker or dealer. Agape also was not registered with the SEC.

“This Ponzi scheme spread like wildfire through Long Island’s middle-class communities because this small group of individuals blindly promoted the offerings as particularly safe and profitable,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Acting Regional Director for the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “These sales agents raked in commissions without regard for investors or any apparent concern for Agape’s financial distress and inability to meet investor redemptions.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, more than 5,000 investors nationwide were impacted by the scheme that lasted from 2005 to January 2009, when Agape’s president and organizer of the scheme Nicholas J. Cosmo was arrested. He was later sentenced to 300 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $179 million in restitution.

The SEC alleges that the sales agents misrepresented to investors that their money would be used to make high-interest bridge loans to commercial borrowers or businesses that accepted credit cards. Little, if any, investor money actually went toward this purpose. Investor funds were instead used for Ponzi scheme payments and the agents’ sales commissions, and Cosmo lost $80 million while trading futures in personal accounts.

Meanwhile, the sales agents assuredly offered and sold Agape securities to investors despite numerous red flags of fraud including Cosmo’s prior conviction for fraud, the too-good-to-be-true returns, and the incredible safety of principal promised to investors. The sales agents also ignored Agape’s relatively small and unknown status as a private issuer of securities, Agape’s series of extensions and defaults, and other dire warnings about Agape’s financial condition. None of the Agape securities offerings were registered with the SEC.

The SEC’s complaint charges the following sales agents:

  • Brothers Bryan Arias and Hugo A. Arias of Maspeth, N.Y., who offered and sold Agape securities to at least 195 and 1,419 investors respectively. They received more than $9.5 million combined in commissions and payments.
  • Brothers Anthony C. Ciccone of Locust Valley, N.Y. and Salvatore Ciccone of Maspeth, N.Y., who offered and sold Agape securities to at least 535 and 348 investors respectively. They received more than $17 million combined in commissions and payments.
  • Brothers Jason A. Keryc of Wantagh, N.Y. and Michael D. Keryc of Baldwin, N.Y. Jason Keryc offered and sold Agape securities to at least 1,617 investors and received at least $16 million in commissions and payments. He also paid sub-brokers, including his brother, at least $7.4 million to sell Agape securities for him. Michael Keryc offered and sold Agape securities to at least 177 investors and received more than $1 million in commissions and payments.
  • Siblings Martin C. Hartmann III of Massapequa, N.Y. and Laura Ann Tordy of Wantagh, N.Y. Hartmann enlisted his sister in his sales effort while he worked as a sub-broker for Jason Keryc. Hartmann and Tordy offered and sold Agape securities to at least 441 investors and received more than $3.5 million in commissions and payments.
  • Christopher E. Curran of Amityville, N.Y., who worked as a sub-broker for Keryc. Curran offered and sold Agape securities to at least 132 investors and received at least $531,890 in commissions and payments.
  • Ryan K. Dunaske of Ronkonkoma, N.Y., who worked as a sub-broker for Keryc. Dunaske offered and sold Agape securities to at least 70 investors and received more than $700,000 in commissions and payments.
  • Michael P. Dunne of Massapequa, N.Y., who worked as a sub-broker for Keryc. Dunne offered and sold Agape securities to at least 99 investors and received more than $1.5 million in commissions and payments.
  • Diane Kaylor of Bethpage, N.Y., who offered and sold Agape securities to at least 249 investors and received at least $3.7 million in commissions and payments.
  • Anthony Massaro of Boynton Beach, Fla., who offered and sold Agape securities to at least 826 investors and received more than $5.9 million in commissions and payments.
  • Ronald R. Roaldsen, Jr. of Wantagh, N.Y., who worked as a sub-broker for Keryc. Roaldsen offered and sold Agape securities to at least 159 investors and received more than $600,000 in commissions and payments.

The SEC’s complaint charges Bryan and Hugo Arias, Anthony and Salvatore Ciccone, Jason and Michael Keryc, Dunne, Hartmann, Kaylor, Massaro, and Tordy with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint charges all 14 defendants with violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Antenuptial Agreement Guides Court in Broward Divorce Terms

Alimony, an antenuptial agreement, real estate appreciation in non-marital assets, and income calculations were among the items addressed in Weymouth v. Weymouth, Case No. 4D10-873 (FL Dist. 4 Ct. App., Apr. 11, 2012).

Highlights of the Appeals Court ruling include:

  • Passive appreciation of the Broward County home was marital property subject to equitable distribution, even though the home remained titled in the husband’s name alone prior to and during the marriage.
  • The parties should equally split the proceeds of the sale of a North Carolina property acquired during the marriage.
  • The Appeals Court agreed that adultery was the basis for the dissolution.
  • The trial court will need to reconsider the issue of the wife’s needs for purposes of alimony in light of the fact that she will need to secure alternative housing in Broward County.

Case Background

The parties were married in 1993. Shortly before their marriage, the parties executed an Antenuptial Agreement prepared by the husband’s attorney. The Antenuptial Agreement contained a schedule of all the husband’s assets and liabilities prior to the execution of the agreement.

Paragraph 3 of the Antenuptial Agreement provided that the wife would “hereby forever remise, release and quit claim all right, title and interest she might have or otherwise could have . . . to any property owned prior to marriage . . . by Michael and specifically waives any and all claim or claims which she might have in and to the real and personal property of Michael, owned prior to marriage . . . .”

Paragraph 4 provided that all “property acquired by either of them during the marriage (other than property acquired by either of them by gift or inheritance)” is marital property. The Antenuptial Agreement did not, however, contain an express waiver of growth or appreciation of pre-marital or non-marital assets.

Paragraph 11 of the Antenuptial Agreement provided that the parties “specifically waive any claims against the other for alimony . . . unless the basis for the dissolution is adultery, physical abuse, mental or emotional abuse.” Furthermore, “[i]n the event of adultery, physical abuse, or mental or emotional abuse, either party shall be able to seek alimony and support from the other pursuant to Florida law; except that adultery or abuse may not be used against the party obligated to pay alimony or support.”

A full copy of the ruling in Weymouth v. Weymouth is available on request from attorney Marcy Resnik, Esq.

Contact a Fort Lauderdale Divorce Attorney

If you have questions about a divorce or dissolution of marriage, contact Fort Lauderdale divorce attorney Marcy Resnik. You can contact her online or call her at 954-321-0176.

OppenheimerFunds to Pay $35 Million to Settle SEC Charges

Oppenheimer used derivative instruments known as total return swaps (TRS contracts) to add substantial commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) exposure in a high-yield bond fund called the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund and an intermediate-term, investment-grade fund known as the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, according to an SEC investigation.

The 2008 prospectus for the Champion fund didn’t adequately disclose the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage in using derivative instruments. When declines in the CMBS market triggered large cash liabilities on the TRS contracts in both funds and forced Oppenheimer to reduce CMBS exposure, Oppenheimer disseminated misleading statements about the funds’ losses and their recovery prospects.

Oppenheimer agreed to pay more than $35 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

“Mutual fund providers have an obligation to clearly and accurately convey the strategies and risks of the products they sell,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Candor, not wishful thinking, should drive communications with investors, particularly during times of market stress.”

Julie Lutz, Associate Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office, added, “These Oppenheimer funds had to sell bonds at the worst possible time to raise cash for TRS contract payments and cut their CMBS exposure to limit future losses. Yet, the message that Oppenheimer conveyed to investors was that the funds were maintaining their positions and the losses were recoverable.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings against OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor Inc., the TRS contracts allowed the two funds to gain substantial exposure to commercial mortgages without purchasing actual bonds. But they also created large amounts of leverage in the funds. Beginning in mid-September 2008, steep CMBS market declines drove down the net asset values (NAVs) of both funds. These losses forced Oppenheimer to raise cash for month-end TRS contract payments by selling securities into an increasingly illiquid market.

According to the SEC’s order, the funds’ portfolio managers under instruction from senior management began executing a plan in mid-November to reduce CMBS exposure. Just as they began to do so, however, the CMBS market collapse accelerated, creating staggering cash liabilities for the funds and driving their NAVs even lower.

The SEC’s order found that continued CMBS declines forced the funds to sell more portfolio securities in order to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments. This task became increasingly difficult for the Champion fund, ultimately prompting Oppenheimer to make a $150 million cash infusion into the fund on November 21. Over the next two weeks, the funds continued to reduce their CMBS exposure to avoid further losses.

According to the SEC’s order, Oppenheimer advanced several misleading messages when responding to questions in the midst of these events. For instance, Oppenheimer communicated to financial advisers (whose clients were invested in the funds) and fund shareholders directly that the funds had only suffered paper losses and their holdings and strategies remained intact. Oppenheimer also stressed that absent actual defaults, the funds would continue collecting payments on the funds’ bonds as they waited for markets to recover.

These communications were materially misleading because the funds were committed to substantially reducing their CMBS exposure, which dampened their prospects for recovering CMBS-induced losses. Moreover, the funds had been forced to sell significant portions of their bond holdings to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments, resulting in realized investment losses and lost future income from the bonds.

The SEC’s investigation found that the Champion fund’s 2008 prospectus was materially misleading in describing the fund’s “main” investments in high-yield bonds without adequately disclosing the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage on top of those investments. While the prospectus disclosed that the fund “invested” in “swaps” and other derivatives “to try to enhance income or to try to manage investment risk,” it did not adequately disclose that the fund could use derivatives to such an extent that the fund’s total investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and, therefore, that its investment returns could depend primarily upon the performance of bonds that it did not own.

The SEC’s order finds that OppenheimerFunds violated Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 205(4)-8 promulgated thereunder. The order finds that OppenheimerFunds Distributor violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, OppenheimerFunds agreed to pay a penalty of $24 million, disgorgement of $9,879,706, and prejudgment interest of $1,487,190. This money will be deposited into a fund for the benefit of investors. OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor also agreed to provisions in the order censuring them and directing them to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of these statutes and rules.

Florida Securities Litigation and FINRA Arbitration

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities dispute. In addition to being an experienced securities litigation attorney, Mr. Kahn also serves as a FINRA arbitrator for individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

First District Court of Appeal addresses “as is” language in Commercial Real Estate Contract

In the recent decision styled Thomas J. Duggan, LLC v Peacock Point, LLC, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1206 (Fla. 1st DCA May 23, 2012), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a claim for rescission involving an auction sale of subdivision lots under a contract containing an “as is” provision.

The parties had entered into a contract to sell a six-lot waterfront subdivision in Destin, Florida for $3.2 million. The sale arose from an auction and the contract contained an “as is” provision. The buyer sought to rescind the contract because the lots were not as the seller had represented, immediately ready for residential construction. The city would not issue building permits until the development obtained a certificate of completion.

Ruling against the buyer, the trial court found that although the parties made a mutual mistake of fact, that at the time of the auction, the houses could not be constructed on the lots, the buyer had failed to establish that the contract did not put the risk of mistake on him.

On appeal, the buyer argued the the trial court erred by failing to rescind the contract based upon either a fraudulent or innocent mistake and the seller’s failure to make full disclosure despite the “as is” provision or mutual mistake of fact. The court on appeal found that the evidence did not support fraud in that neither the seller nor the auction house knowingly made a false statement of material fact.

The court on appeal also rejected the argument based upon innocent mistake because the buyer failed to show that the seller possessed superior knowledge over the buyer, a sophisticated developer. Since the issue was a matter of public record, the buyer had the same access to the information and the alleged representation did not pertain to some latent defect in the land.

The appellate court also stated that the duty to disclose imposed on sellers in residential real estate transactions does not similarly apply to commercial property sellers. Under the ‘as is” provision, the buyer disclaimed any warranties or representations of any kind or character made by the seller and its agent, the auctioneer.

Finally, the appellate court concluded that to prevail on a claim for mutual mistake, the plaintiff not only must prove the mutual mistake but that the contract did not place the risk of mistake on the party seeking rescission. In this case, the court on appeal concluded that the ‘as is’ language placed the risk of mutual mistake on the buyer.

Florida Real Estate Litigation Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale real estate litigation attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a real estate or business contract dispute. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Female Entrepreneurs and Professionals Lack Disability Insurance

Women are most at risk both physically and financially when it comes to disability, according to a new study released by The State Farm® Center for Women and Financial Services at The American College.

Data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows women are increasingly more likely to experience a disabling condition during their working and senior years. Arthritis, the leading cause of disability among adult Americans, is more than twice as likely to affect women as men. The incidence of disability for females has risen at a disproportionate rate relative to males, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

Employer-sponsored plans are the most common means of disability insurance, however less than half have this benefit with women less likely than men (45 percent vs. 51 percent) to be covered. Female entrepreneurs are at even greater risk.

Another survey released by The American College in January 2012, focused on small business owners, found that only 22 percent of women small business owners own, and offer their employees, short and long-term disability coverage.

Even when professionals have disability insurance, a commonly held myth is that the insurance policy will cover all conditions and health care costs. The truth is that even when you have disability benefits, the insurance company may try to deny or discredit valid claims.

Read more about Women and the Risk of Disability.

Fort Lauderdale Disability Lawyer for Professionals

If you are a business professional who has suffered an unexpected disability through illness or injury, contact Fort Lauderdale disability lawyer Howard Kahn if your disability benefits are at risk. We can help you understand and protect your legal rights to disability benefits. Contact us onlineor by phone at 954-321-0176.