Most people think, or should think to ask the question, why do you need a stock broker fraud attorney to resolve claim? In fact you don't. Over 60% of the claims that are resolved through arbitration ultimately are won by the claimant. So why do you need a stockbroker fraud lawyer? The question becomes an especially financially painful one when you realize that the lawyer will be paid from the proceeds of your award. So why should you share your money with the lawyer? The answer is you don’t have to share, you shouldn’t have to share, and your recovery will most likely be greater: dollar for dollar. There are several ways to understand the question: first one is probably you will need some help in the arbitration proceeding, but they are relatively simple and you can do it without a lawyer. Another reason is that you will often get a larger recovery with a skilled litigator than you will without one. It may be true that most claimants have valid claims, but the extent that you can get a significant portion of your losses back depends on the method and content of presentation. A poorly prepared presentation can result in a less than complete recovery. A well grounded and complete presentation can get you a larger award. In a practical sense the portion of the recovery which goes to pay the lawyer may be insignificant compared to the greater amount you can recover by using a skilled and seasoned stockbroker fraud attorney. Remember reading in the paper that someone got a million dollars for a broken arm? Most people get $500. Why the difference? Ask the person who won the million dollar judgment and they’ll tell you it was the lawyer’s skill that won the award. Sharing a portion of the million leaves the litigant with more than $500.00 doesn’t it? Call a lawyer for a consultation; it will not be a waste of your time.
It's never too late to start all over... That's the good news for Florida residents because a 77year-old Florida resident was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for allegedly cheating investors out of more than $168 million. Our near-octogenarian was also ordered to forfeit $162 million to compensate the victims of his fraud. The fraudster allegedly raised money from investors by claiming he was a successful attorney and trader. His greatest success was scheming and stealing….which he was very skillful at. Most of his victims knew him well and in fact trusted him, which is quite often the case in these situations. Being alert to fraudsters means asking the right questions of the right people. In an abundance of caution it is often a good idea to consult a securities fraud lawyer before entering into a major financial transaction which could put your assets at risk. Hindsight is not insight. Seeing ahead, around corners, is what experience means: your South Florida securities fraud lawyer on a daily basis lives and breathes among the work of these fraudsters. Especially in Florida, where we've seen these things again and again. If you have a question about a financial transaction, or you're concerned that your financial advisor may be acting in his interest ahead of yours, call for a free consultation. It's always better to have a story about the near miss them to try to recover from a total loss.
A fiduciary duty imposes a very high level of responsibility. A fiduciary must act in the best interest of the person to whom they owe that duty. Think of a parent: good parenting requires that one always protect and act in the best interest of the child. Think of a doctor: she/he must act always in the best interest of the patient. Think of the stockbroker? They have a duty to always act in the best interest of the client. If they fail to act in the best interest of the client; or they compromise their judgment to balance other interests…. they have crossed the line. The line between malfeasance and acting as a fiduciary is often easy to see. It is also often missed. If you believe that a financial advisor or stockbroker has acted against your interests in presenting and executing a financial transaction with your money then you have a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. These claims are arbitrated in the securities industry, they rarely go to court. If you believe you have been the victim contact your South Florida securities fraud attorney and ask for a consultation.
STRUCTURED notes were a major component of profitability for some of the banks that were too large to fail. The Bank of America became the poster boy for this problem in October when it was reported in a New York newspaper that some of his employees were allegedly overselling complex derivative products. Structured notes can be very profitable to the dealers who market and remarket those notes. It became a major problem when Bank of America reportedly told investors that the products were of lesser risk than they turned out to be. Structured notes are derivatives, which are financial contracts which have sometimes been referred to as “bets”; on the volatility or sales price of stocks and bonds or other securities. Structured notes are usually for a specific period of time. The problem for Bank of America was the accusation that they aggressively pushed some of these derivative products on their own customers. It gets worse: the period in question is right in the middle of the great financial problems of 07 and 08, and the allegation is that the warnings were not commensurate with the risk involved in the purchase of those derivatives.
We see them lining up at teller’s windows to make their deposits. Small deposits into low yield accounts for the backbone of America: working folk. But the “too big to fail” banks can stoop almost below the lowest of ethical windows….read this. FINRA had to implement a rule (Rule 3160) to stop tellers from diverting depositors to bank owned stock brokers haunting lobbies at bankers’ desks. Even I was surprised at this one! The rule goes somewhat (not far) to curb the abuse of tellers directing depositors into risky stock market investing to increase their yield. Bank depositors are risk avoiders and often unsophisticated. Preying on them in the inner sanctum of a conservative bank is bottom fishing raised to a new low. The rule only requires boilerplate risk disclosures. We need to return to the days when bankers banked and brokers broked instead of bankers diverting window depositors into inappropriate risk investments.