Posts

SEC and FINRA Issue Year End Investment Alert

/in /by

The “fiscal cliff” may be of concern to individual investors as the end of 2012 rapidly approaches, according to a new investor alert. If not resolved, the fiscal cliff could result in increased capital gains and dividend income tax rates. Potential changes in these tax rates could result in year-end sell-offs as some investors may seek to take advantage of current capital gains and dividend income tax rates.

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have issued a new Investor Alert called Year-End Investment Considerations for Individual Investors to help investors navigate the fiscal cliff and other end-of-year planning considerations. This new alert provides individual investors with a few suggestions for year-end investment planning as the year draws to a close.

“The end of the year is a great time to take stock of your financial situation and make sure your investment plan is meeting your needs,” said Gerri Walsh, FINRA’s Vice President for Investor Education. “Taking some time to carefully manage your investment portfolio can pay dividends in the coming year.”

Year-End Investment Considerations outlines five key areas investors should focus on when making investment decisions:

Asset Allocation. The end of the year is a reasonable time to review your overall investment portfolio and evaluate your existing asset allocation.

Consider Rebalancing. Some of your investments will grow faster than others. Rebalancing allows you to adjust your investment portfolio so as not to overemphasize one or more asset categories.

Tax Considerations. Investors who are interested in learning what impact tax rates, including potential changes in the tax laws, may have on their investments under different financial scenarios should consult their tax adviser or visit the IRS website for more information.

Check Out Your Investment Professional. Many investors do not realize that they can check the background of a broker or investment adviser by using FINRA Broker Check or the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website.

Locate Your Financial Records. Consider preparing a list identifying your financial records, including a list of financial accounts and all user names and passwords.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Guggenheim Securities Fined $800,000 by FINRA

/in /by

Failure to supervise two collateralized debt obligation (CDO) traders who engaged in activities to hide a trading loss resulted in a $800,000 FINRA fine for Guggenheim Securities, LLC of New York.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) also sanctioned the two traders: Alexander Rekeda, the former head of Guggenheim’s CDO Desk, was suspended for one year and fined $50,000; Timothy Day, a trader on Guggenheim’s CDO Desk, was suspended for four months and fined $20,000.

The traders deceived their customer and supported their scheme through the use of inaccurate books and records, all of which went undetected by the firm, according to FINRA.

In October 2008, as the result of a failed trade, Guggenheim’s CDO Desk acquired a €5,000,000 junk-rated tranche of a collateralized loan obligation (CLO). After unsuccessful attempts by Guggenheim’s CDO Desk to sell the position, Rekeda and Day persuaded a hedge fund customer to purchase the CLO for $950,000 more than it had previously agreed to pay by falsely presenting the CLO as part of a package of securities a third party offered for sale.

FINRA found that in an attempt to hide the trading loss on the CLO position, the traders provided the customer with order tickets that increased the price for the CLO position and decreased the price of the other positions that were part of the transaction. When the customer inquired about the pricing adjustments, Day, at Rekeda’s direction, lied and said a third-party seller of the CLO position had already settled the trade at a higher price and requested the customer pay this higher price.

The customer agreed to overpay for the CLO and in return, Day and Rekeda agreed to compensate the customer through other transactions, including pricing adjustments on six other CLO trades, a waiver of fees the customer owed in connection with resecuritization transactions, and a cash payment to the customer. The records created to document the transactions did not indicate any connection to the overpayment for the CLO.

FINRA found Guggenheim failed to conduct adequate review of the CDO Desk’s trades, documentation concerning transactions by traders on the desk, and the traders’ email communications.

In concluding the settlement, Guggenheim, Rekeda, and Day neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings. As part of the settlement, Guggenheim must retain an independent consultant to review and make recommendations concerning the adequacy of its supervisory procedures.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Biremis Corp. & CEO Peter Beck Barred by FINRA

/in /by

Biremis, Corp., formerly known as Swift Trade Securities USA, Inc., was recently expelled by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Biremis President and Chief Executive Officer, Peter Beck, was barred by FINRA. The disciplinary actions resulted from supervisory violations related to detecting and preventing manipulative trading activities such as “layering,” short sale violations, failure to implement an adequate anti-money laundering program, and financial, operational and numerous other securities law violations.

Thomas Gira, FINRA Executive Vice President and Head of Market Regulation, said, “In creating a business that allowed a significant volume of overseas day trading to pass through its systems on a regular basis, Biremis and Mr. Beck needed to devote the appropriate level of resources and personnel to ensure that this business was properly supervised, yet failed on both accounts. Biremis’ inadequate supervisory system resulted in the firm violating multiple rules designed to protect the integrity of the markets and to ensure that member firms adhere to the high standards required of the brokerage industry.”

FINRA found that during various periods from June 2007 to June 2010, Biremis and Mr. Beck failed to establish a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable laws and regulations prohibiting manipulative trading activity. Among other things, Biremis’ supervisory system failed to include policies and procedures designed to detect and prevent layering on U.S. markets. Layering involves the placement of non-bona-fide orders on one side of the market in order to cause market movement that will result in the execution of an order entered on the opposite side of the market, after which the non-bona-fide orders are then canceled. Biremis also failed to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and prevent manipulative activity designed to affect the closing price of a security. As a result, Biremis failed to detect and prevent potential layering activity and potential manipulation of the closing price of equity securities on U.S. markets.

FINRA found that despite the fact Biremis’ only business was to execute transactions on behalf of day traders around the world, Biremis and Mr. Beck failed to implement an adequate anti-money laundering (AML) program to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. Among the violations related to its AML program, Biremis failed to properly detect suspicious activities and file suspicious activity reports (SARs) when appropriate. Also, Mr. Beck appointed an unqualified and untrained individual to supervise Biremis’ AML compliance program and Biremis failed to provide adequate AML training to employees.

Biremis and Mr. Beck also violated a number of additional securities laws and rules. Biremis failed to maintain a margin system and margin accounts, and did not have policies and procedures in place related to the use of margin. The firm also failed to prepare customer reserve computations and failed to maintain a special reserve bank account for the exclusive benefit of customers. In addition, Biremis placed thousands of short sale orders, which was in violation of an emergency order issued by the SEC that temporarily banned short selling in certain securities. Also, between at least April 2008 and May 2009, Biremis improperly calculated its net capital, operating in net capital deficiency by up to $25 million. Additionally, the firm failed to maintain all required emails and instant messages over a five-year period.

In concluding this settlement, Biremis and Mr. Beck neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

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 or broker 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.

Investors Warned about Exchange-Traded Notes

/in /by

An Investor Alert titled Exchange-Traded Notes—Avoid Unpleasant Surprises was issued today by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Exchange-traded notes (ETNs) are a type of debt security that trade on exchanges and promise a return linked to a market index or other benchmark. However, unlike exchange-traded funds (ETFs), ETNs do not buy or hold assets to replicate or approximate the performance of the underlying index.

Some of the indexes and investment strategies used by ETNs can be quite sophisticated and may not have much performance history. The return on an ETN generally depends on price changes if the ETN is sold prior to maturity (as with stocks or ETFs)—or on the payment, if any, of a distribution if the ETN is held to maturity (as with some other structured products).

As FINRA’s Investor Alert explains, an ETN’s closing indicative value is computed by the issuer and is distinct from an ETN’s market price, which is the price at which an ETN trades in the secondary market. Investors should understand that an ETN’s market price can deviate, sometimes significantly, from its indicative value.  If the ETN is trading at a significant premium to its closing or intraday indicative value, investors might want to consider similar products that are not trading at a premium.

“ETNs are complex products and can carry a raft of risks. Investors considering ETNs should only invest if they are confident the ETN can help them meet their investment objectives and they fully understand and are comfortable with the risks,” said Gerri Walsh, FINRA’s Vice President for Investor Education.

Exchange-Traded Notes describes the specific risks associates with ETNs, including:

  • Credit Risk. ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer.
  • Market Risk. As an index’s value changes with market forces, so will the value of the ETN in general, which can result in a loss of principal to investors.
  • Liquidity Risk. Although ETNs are exchange-traded, a trading market may not develop.
  • Price-Tracking Risk. Investors should be wary of buying at a price that varies significantly from closing and intraday indicative values.
  • Holding-Period Risk. Some leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged ETNs, are designed to be short-term trading tools, and the performance of these products over long periods can differ significantly from the stated multiple of the performance (or inverse of the performance) of the underlying index or benchmark during the same period.
  • Call, Early Redemption and Acceleration Risk. Some ETNs are callable at the issuer’s discretion.
  • Conflicts of Interest. The issuer of the notes may engage in trading activities that are at odds with investors who hold the notes (shorting strategies, for instance).

FINRA’s new Investor Alert also contains a step-by-step checklist to help investors determine if an ETN is right for them. Click on the link to read the full ETN investor alert.

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.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $2.8 Million for Overcharging Customers

/in /by

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.

Investor Alert: Nutraceutical Stock Scams

/in /by

Nutraceutical Stock Scams—Don’t Supplement Your Portfolio With These Companies is the title of a new alert issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to warn investors about stock scams related to companies selling everything from fortified foods and energy drinks to “natural” medicines.

Like many investment scams, pitches for nutraceutical stocks may arrive in a variety of ways—from cold calls to email, tweets, blogs or message board posts.

Nutraceuticals are products that claim to help people to lose weight, get an energy boost, live longer or fight the common cold, and can include dietary supplements and food and drink products that contain additives purporting to provide health benefits. While some nutraceutical companies are legitimate, others could be bogus operations with the potential to harm unsuspecting investors.

The con artists behind nutraceutical stock scams may try to lure in investors with optimistic and potentially false and misleading information that in turn creates unwarranted demand for shares of small, thinly-traded companies that often have little or no history of financial success. The con artists behind these “pump and dump” scams can then sell off their shares, leaving investors with worthless stock.

One company claimed to have acquired rights to “all-natural” medicines that treat maladies ranging from the common cold to kidney disease. The company claimed it had “the potential to capture 3 percent of the US market within a 3 year period” and “potentially generate “$100,000,000 in revenues.” Investors who took a look at the company’s unaudited financials would have found a firm with almost no cash on hand and no track record of sales.

“While nutraceuticals claim to help people become healthy, investing in some of the companies associated with these products can make investors’ portfolios sick,” said Gerri Walsh, FINRA’s Vice President for Investor Education. “The best way investors can inoculate themselves against investment scams is to ask and check. Find out whether the promoter is licensed using FINRA BrokerCheck, and check out the investment using the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database of company filings.”

The Alert warns investors to ignore unsolicited investment recommendations and to question the source of investment information. Investors should also be wary of investments that promise fantastic growth and check out the person promoting the stock or investment. Nutraceutical Stock Scams also includes detailed information to help investors spot potential scams and distinguish frauds from legitimate investment opportunities.

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.

FINRA Sanctions Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley & UBS

/in /by

Sales tactics for leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds draw fines and client restitution requirements from FINRA.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it has sanctioned Citigroup Global Markets, Inc; Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC; UBS Financial Services; and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC a total of more than $9.1 million for selling leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs) without reasonable supervision and for not having a reasonable basis for recommending the securities. The firms were fined more than $7.3 million and are required to pay a total of $1.8 million in restitution to certain customers who made unsuitable leveraged and inverse ETF purchases.

FINRA sanctioned the following firms:

  • Wells Fargo – $2.1 million fine and $641,489 in restitution
  • Citigroup – $2 million fine and $146,431 in restitution
  • Morgan Stanley – $1.75 million fine and $604,584 in restitution
  • UBS – $1.5 million fine and $431,488 in restitution

Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “The added complexity of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded products makes it essential that brokerage firms have an adequate understanding of the products and sufficiently train their sales force before the products are offered to retail customers. Firms must conduct reasonable due diligence and ensure that their representatives have an understanding of these products.”

ETFs are typically registered unit investment trusts (UITs) or open-end investment companies whose shares represent an interest in a portfolio of securities that track an underlying benchmark or index. Leveraged ETFs seek to deliver multiples of the performance of the index or benchmark they track. Inverse ETFs seek to deliver the opposite of the performance of the index or benchmark they track, profiting from short positions in derivatives in a falling market.

FINRA found that from January 2008 through June 2009, the firms did not have adequate supervisory systems in place to monitor the sale of leveraged and inverse ETFs, and failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding the risks and features of the ETFs. As a result, the firms did not have a reasonable basis to recommend the ETFs to their retail customers. The firms’ registered representatives also made unsuitable recommendations of leveraged and inverse ETFs to some customers with conservative investment objectives and/or risk profiles. Each of the four firms sold billions of dollars of these ETFs to customers, some of whom held them for extended periods when the markets were volatile.

Leveraged and inverse ETFs have certain risks not found in traditional ETFs, such as the risks associated with a daily reset, leverage and compounding. Accordingly, investors were subjected to the risk that the performance of their investments in leveraged and inverse ETFs could differ significantly from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark when held for longer periods of time, particularly in the volatile markets that existed during January 2008 through June 2009. Despite the risks associated with holding leveraged and inverse ETFs for longer periods in volatile markets, certain customers of these firms held leveraged and inverse ETFs for extended time periods during January 2008 through June 2009.

In settling these matters, the firms neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

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.

Pinnacle Partners Financial Corp. Expelled by FINRA

/in /by

A FINRA hearing officer has expelled Pinnacle Partners Financial, Corp., a broker-dealer based in San Antonio, TX, and barred its President, Brian Alfaro, for fraudulent sales of oil and gas private placements and unregistered securities. In addition, Brian Alfaro was found to have used customer funds for personal and business expenses. As restitution, Pinnacle and Alfaro are ordered to offer rescission to investors who were sold fraudulent offerings and refund all sales commissions to those customers who do not request rescission.

On the day Alfaro and Pinnacle Partners were to appear before the hearing panel, Alfaro decided not to attend the hearing. As a result, the hearing officer issued a default decision.

The hearing officer found that from August 2008 to March 2011, Alfaro and Pinnacle operated a boiler room in which approximately 10 brokers placed thousands of cold calls on a weekly basis to solicit investments in oil and gas drilling joint ventures Alfaro owned or controlled. Alfaro and Pinnacle raised over $10 million from more than 100 investors, and that Alfaro diverted some of the customer funds for unrelated business and personal expenses.

The hearing officer also found that Pinnacle and Alfaro included numerous misrepresentations and omissions in the investment summaries for 11 private placement offerings, including grossly inflated natural gas prices, projected natural gas reserves, estimated gross returns and estimated monthly cash flows. Pinnacle and Alfaro deliberately attempted to mislead investors by deleting material, unfavorable information from well operator reports and providing investors with maps that omitted numerous dry, plugged and abandoned wells near their projected drilling sites. In addition, Pinnacle and Alfaro distributed an offering document claiming that a previous venture had distributed more than $14 million to its investors when the actual distribution was less than $1.5 million.

The hearing officer decision also notes that from January 2009 to March 2011, Alfaro misused customer funds entrusted to him with the belief that the funds would be used for drilling and production in the wells in which their ventures invested. The funds were used for Alfaro’s personal expenditures and for business purposes that were not related to the purposes of the customers’ investments. When projects failed or were failing, Alfaro concealed his misuse of customers’ funds by persuading them to transfer their investment to his other oil and gas ventures. In one instance, Alfaro collected more than $500,000 in subscription costs for a well that was never drilled, and used those funds for unrelated personal and business expenses.

In April 2011, FINRA had suspended indefinitely Pinnacle and Alfaro for failure to comply with a FINRA Temporary Cease and Desist Order prohibiting their fraudulent misrepresentations. The suspension resulted from FINRA’s Notice of Suspension, which alleged that Pinnacle and Alfaro had continued to make fraudulent oral and written misrepresentations and omissions in connection with their offer and sale of certain oil and gas joint interests, and had otherwise failed to comply with the terms of the Temporary Order FINRA issued on January 21, 2011.

FINRA was represented at the hearing by Mark Dauer, Enforcement Deputy Chief Litigation Counsel, and Robert Long, Enforcement Senior Regional Counsel.

With a default decision, unless the hearing officer’s decision is appealed to FINRA’s National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) or is called for review by the NAC, the hearing officer’s decision becomes final after 25 days.

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.

Pay Disclosures May Await Brokers Switching Firms

/in /by

Industry observers expect FINRA may soon begin requiring that highly-paid brokers who are lured from one financial services firm to a competitor must disclose any “enhanced compensation” that sweetened the employment offer. The Wall Street Journal reported on the expected move recently in an article titled “Brokers Face Pay Disclosures.”

FINRA closed comments in March on a proposed rule to require disclosure of conflicts of interest relating to recruitment compensation practices (Regulatory Notice 13-02).

At issue is what brokers must disclose when clients naturally follow them to a new firm on the basis of personal relationships, or when the broker attempts to encourage a client to move their account to the broker’s new place of employment.

The term “enhanced compensation” means compensation paid in connection with the transfer of securities employment to the recruiting firm, other than the compensation normally paid by the recruiting firm to its established registered persons. Enhanced compensation includes but is not limited to:

  • Signing bonuses
  • Upfront or back-end bonuses
  • Loans
  • Accelerated payouts
  • Transition assistance
  • Other similar payments

Investor protection is behind FINRA’s initiative. Many member firms offer significant financial incentives to recruit registered representatives to join their firms, according to FINRA, yet these compensation arrangements are not disclosed to customers when they are asked to transfer their accounts to a representative’s new firm.

Morgan Stanley, with 17,000 financial advisors, “fully supports the uniform disclosure of firms’ recruiting compensation arrangements as outlined in the Rule Proposal,” according to a firm comment letter submitted to FINRA. The University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic “supports the aims of transparency and disclosure … but would suggest certain modifications.” Click on the link to read all FINRA comment letters.

The proposed FINRA rules are intended to apply to financial services companies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), state securities authorities, and related firms.

Exemptions are provided for compensation under $50,000 or institutional customer accounts.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

FINRA Board Authorizes Arbitration Panel Changes

/in /by

The FINRA Board of Governors authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 12403 to simplify the panel selection rules.

Rather than requiring the customer to elect a panel selection method, parties in all customer cases with three arbitrators would have the same selection method.

Under this method, all parties would see lists of 10 chair-qualified public arbitrators, 10 public arbitrators and 10 non-public arbitrators. The rules would permit four strikes on each of the public arbitrator lists. However, any party could select an all-public arbitration panel by striking all of the arbitrators on the non-public list.

Alternatively, if the parties leave on the non-public list one or more of the same non-public arbitrators, the parties could have a majority public panel—that is two public and one non-public arbitrator.

Other actions from the FINRA Board’s April 18th meeting include:

  • Beginning with the next FINRA Board meeting in July, designated Board members will host a webcast immediately following the meeting to share key points with investors.
  • The Board authorized FINRA to file with the SEC proposed amendments to the Discovery Guide used in customer arbitration proceedings to provide general guidance on e-discovery issues and product cases, and to clarify existing provisions relating to affirmations.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.