breach of contract - Iorio Law PLLC

Navigating Finra Arbitration: A Closer Look at Securities Dispute Resolution

Iorio Law PLLC — Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:22:25 GMT

Introduction

When disputes arise between investors and brokerage firms, they are usually resolved through arbitration. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) offers a streamlined and cost-effective dispute resolution forum for resolving disputes in the securities industry. In this blog post, we’ll take a deep dive into FINRA arbitration, its key features, benefits, and what you should know if you find yourself involved in a securities-related dispute.

Understanding FINRA Arbitration

What is FINRA?

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a self-regulatory organization authorized by the United States Congress to oversee and regulate the securities industry. One of FINRA’s essential functions is to provide a forum for resolving disputes between investors, brokerage firms, and individual brokers.

Arbitration vs. Lawsuits: The Key Differences

Unlike traditional litigation, where disputes are resolved through the court system, FINRA arbitration is a private, alternative dispute resolution process. There are several key differences:

- Speed and Efficiency: FINRA arbitration typically resolves disputes more quickly than litigation, which can drag on for years. Arbitration cases often conclude within 12-18 months, allowing parties to move on with their lives and investments more quickly.
- Cost-Effective: Litigation can be expensive due to legal fees, court costs, and other expenses. In contrast, FINRA arbitration tends to be more cost-effective, as it has lower filing fees and streamlined procedures.
- Less Burdensome Discovery: Discovery is the exchange of relevant documents and information. In a lawsuit, discovery consists of depositions, interrogatories, and the exchange of documents. In FINRA arbitrations, depositions and interrogatories are generally not allowed. As a result, the discovery process is more streamlined, less burdensome, and less costly.
- Confidentiality: FINRA arbitration proceedings are generally confidential, whereas court proceedings are a matter of public record.

Who Can Initiate FINRA Arbitration?

Parties who can initiate FINRA arbitration include investors, brokerage firms, and individual brokers. Many arbitrations arise over investment losses. Investors often file arbitration claims against their brokerage firms when the firm or its agent broker recommends investments that are not suitable and in the best interest of the investor. Investors also file arbitration claims when their brokers misrepresent or omit material information at the time of the recommendation. Common claims brought by investors include unsuitability, violation of Regulation Best Interest (RegBI), misrepresentation or omission of material information, unauthorized trading, churning, breach of fiduciary duty, and financial elder abuse.

The FINRA Arbitration Process

Filing a Claim – The process begins with the filing of a Statement of Claim by the aggrieved party. The respondent (the party against whom the claim is filed) is then given the opportunity to respond
Arbitrator Selection – The parties select arbitrators from FINRA’s roster of arbitrators using a strike and rank system. The number of arbitrators that serve on an arbitration panel varies depending on the size of the complaint.
Discovery – The exchange of relevant documents and information.
Hearing – A hearing is held where both parties present their cases, including evidence and witnesses. The arbitrators evaluate the evidence and arguments presented.
Award – The arbitrators deliberate and issue a written decision. This decision is final and binding. Parties are generally required to abide by the decision, and there is limited scope for appeal.

Settlement

At any time during the arbitration process, the parties can resolve their dispute by entering into a settlement. Approximately 69 – 70% of all FINRA arbitrations are resolved through settlement instead of a hearing.

Conclusion

Investors who have suffered investment losses should be aware of their rights to pursue arbitration when disputes arise. Legal representation is often advisable to navigate the complexities of the process effectively.

Investors involved in a securities-related dispute are encouraged to consult with attorneys who have vast experience in FINRA arbitration to help them navigate the process and ensure that their rights and interests are protected throughout the proceedings.

About Iorio Altamirano LLP

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm located in New York, NY. We represent investors nationwide and vigorously pursue FINRA arbitration claims on behalf of investors to recover investment losses.

We have over 20 years of combined experience as securities arbitration lawyers and have helped investors recover investment losses in over 1,000 cases. Our firm will file a FINRA securities arbitration claim on your behalf on a contingency fee basis to try to recover your losses. If we do not obtain a recovery, you do not owe us a legal fee.

If you have suffered investment losses, contact securities arbitration lawyers August Iorio at august@ia-law.com or Jorge Altamirano at jorge@ia-law.com. Alternatively, call the firm toll-free at (646) 330-4624.

What L Bondholders Need to Know About GWG Holdings, Inc. ’s Chapter 11 Plan

Iorio Law PLLC — Sat, 22 Apr 2023 16:48:52 GMT

On April 21, 2023, United States Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur approved GWG’s Disclosure Statement that will be sent to creditors to vote on GWG’s Chapter 11 Plan (the “Plan”). The approval of the Disclosure Statement comes one year and one day after GWG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Plan will now be sent to creditors, including L Bondholders, to accept or reject the Plan. GWG’s Plan is essentially an “orderly” liquidation. If the Plan is accepted, GWG will be liquidated in accordance with the terms of the Plan. If the Plan is rejected, GWG will likely be liquidated in accordance with Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Either way, GWG will be liquidated and will not continue as a business. Creditors will need to decide which path of liquidation will be more favorable to them.

We believe that it is highly unlikely that L Bondholders will obtain a quick and full recovery through either the Chapter 11 Plan or a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Accordingly, Iorio Altamirano LLP encourages L bondholders to contact the firm to evaluate their other legal options to recover their investment losses.

L bondholders with meritorious claims may also be able to obtain some relief and recovery by filing a claim against their brokerage firm. These claims are separate and in addition to GWG’s bankruptcy proceeding. Nothing prevents an investor from filing a claim against their brokerage firm for breaching their duties and also collecting through the bankruptcy proceeding.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents GWG L Bondholders throughout the country in FINRA arbitration claims against the brokerage firms and financial advisors that recommended and sold the L Bonds to retail investors.

GWG sold the L bonds through Emerson Equity LLC and a network of regional broker-dealers, including Centaurus Financial, Inc., Great Point Capital LLC, National Securities Corporation, Western International Securities, Inc., Aegis Capital, LLC, Newbridge Securities Corporation, Dempsey Lord Smith LLC, Coastal Equities, Inc., International Assets Advisory, LLC, Arete Wealth Management, LLC, Westpark Capital, Incl, Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., Moloney Securities, Center Street Securities, NI Advisors, Inc., Intervest International Equities Corporation, Cabot Lodge Securities, LLC, Portsmouth Financial Services, Capital Investment Group, Inc., Lifemark Securities, Corp., American Trust Investment Services, Inc., IFP Securities, LLC, Kingswood Capital Partners, LLC, SW Financial, Paulson Investment Company LLC, Ages Financial Services, Ltd., Independence Capital, Co., Inc., Landolt Securities, Inc., JRL Capital Corporation, TFS Securities, and American Equity Investment Corporation.

What’s in GWG Holding, Inc.’s Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan?

Under the Plan, GWG will be liquidated through an “orderly wind-down.”

Two liquidating trusts will be established: (i) a Wind-Down Trust and (ii) a Litigation Trust.

The Wind Down Trust will issue trust interests (the New WDT Interests) to creditors. L Bondholders will exchange their current L Bonds for New Series A1Trust interests.

A Wind-Down Trust will be established to take all necessary steps to wind down GWG’s business affairs and monetize GWG’s non-litigation assets. The term of the Wind-Down Trust will be three (3) years. The term may be extended by court approval for up to two (2) additional years.

GWG’s primary non-litigation assets are its (i) portfolio of life insurance policies (the “Policy Portfolio”); and (ii) passive non-controlling equity interest in The Beneficient Company Group, L.P. (“Ben LP” and, together with its subsidiaries, “Beneficient”) and FOXO Technologies, Inc. (“FOXO”).

The Litigation Trust will receive all of GWG’s litigation claims and all of GWG’s interests in the D&O Liability Insurance Policies. The Litigation Trustee will pursue legal claims or settlements for the benefit of the estate. The potential claims and causes of action arise under or relate to transactions, relationships, or conduct involving GWG and third parties, including, without limitation, Beneficient and current and former directors and officers of GWG that occurred prior to the filing of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

The Plan is a “waterfall” plan, which means that, in general, the L Bondholders are first in line to receive distributions from the Wind Down Trust (subject to certain limited exceptions), and the L Bondholders and general unsecured creditors, pro rata, are first in line to receive distributions on account of the success of monetizing the litigation assets.

How and when will L Bondholders be paid?

GWG currently does not have cash available to make L Bondholders whole or close to whole. The financial situation of GWG is bad, which is why it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

L Bondholders will receive senior-most interests in the Wind Down Trust (called “New Series A1 WDT Interest.” Those interests will entitle each L Bondholder to future cash distributions if GWG can monetize its assets.

L Bondholders will receive payments over time. The timing and amount of the cash distributions remain extremely uncertain and will likely take multiple years to be settled.

The uncertainty and long wait period are due to the type of assets held by GWG. GWG does not have significant tangible assets that it can sell to raise cash and return to creditors, including L Bondholders.

GWG’s assets consist of the following: (i) the portfolio of life insurance policies owned by GWG, (ii) GWG’s equity interest in Beneficient, (ii) GWG’s equity in interest in FOXO, and (iv) GWG’s potential legal actions against third parties.

The portfolio of life insurance policies owned by GWG that will be sold will not lead to a significant recovery of capital to L Bondholders. The net residual equity interest in the Polity Portfolio has a present value ranging from approximately $0 to $78 million. That means that L Bondholders will receive anywhere from $0 to $78 million from the sale of the life insurance policies. If GWG is able to distribute $78 million to L Bondholders, that would likely lead to a return of 4-6% to L Bondholders.

The equity interest in FOXO is nominal ($3.3 million) compared to GWG’s outstanding obligations owed to L Bondholders ($1.6 billion).

For L Bondholders to receive significant cash distributions, they depend on either Beneficient’s business success or GWG’s ability to monetize its legal claims against third parties, including Beneficient (a catch-22 with inherent conflicts of interest).

The ability of the Wind Down Trust and Litigation Trust to receive cash for these assets, and the amount of cash that may be received and distributed to Bondholders, is subject to the risks set forth below and others discussed in greater detail in the revised Disclosure Statement. The following is a summary of some of those risks:

Asset	Risks Associated with the Asset
Life Policy Portfolio	· Although the Policy Portfolio has a face amount of approximately $1.6 billion as of December 31, 2022, (i) premium payments must be made to maintain the Policy Portfolio, (ii) the timing of maturities of the Policy Portfolio is uncertain, and (iii) the Policy Portfolio will be collateral for a loan that must be repaid before the Wind Down Trust can receive value for the Policy Portfolio.
GWG’s Interests in Foxo	· The Wind Down Trust’s ability to sell the Debtors’ interests in FOXO depends upon the market value of those interests and finding a buyer for those interests. The valuation of the Debtors’ interests in FOXO is based on market data as of April 14, 2023, but such value changes on a daily basis.
GWG’s Interests in Beneficient	· The Debtors cannot independently verify or determine the value of Beneficient because the Debtors do not have a business plan for Beneficient or other information needed to do so. · Based upon all currently available information, the Bondholder Committee believes that no weight should be given to the high end of the value range of the Debtors’ interests in Beneficient. · The stated value of the Debtors’ interests in Beneficient is based entirely upon the announced terms of the potential “SPAC merger” with a third party called Avalon (the “SPAC Transaction”). In order for the Debtors’ interests in Beneficient to be worth the high end of the value range of $1.4 billion after completion of the SPAC Transaction, the Beneficient share price must be $10 per share. The only current basis known to the Debtors at this time for valuing the Debtors’ interests in Beneficient using a price of $10 per share for Beneficient shares is the public disclosure that Avalon and Beneficient have negotiated that Avalon shareholders may elect to participate in the SPAC Transaction at that price. · Avalon public shareholders, unlike GWG, will have the option either to receive shares in Beneficient at $10 per share or full repayment in cash of their investment. Based upon current information, it is reasonable to expect that at least a substantial portion of the Avalon shareholders will not invest in Beneficient and instead will elect to receive cash. However, the Debtors cannot control or predict whether any Avalon shareholder will exercise their right to acquire Beneficient shares at the $10 per share price. · The sponsor investors in Avalon (the “Avalon Sponsors”) who negotiated the deal with Beneficient do not have the right to get their money back and will receive shares in Beneficient. However, as is common in SPAC transactions, the Avalon Sponsors purchased their Avalon shares at a significant discount. Based on the amount the Avalon Sponsors paid for their Avalon shares and warrants, the Avalon Sponsors will profit if the Beneficient shares are worth greater than $1.57 per share, as compared to the approximately $10 per share required for the other Avalon shareholders to profit. In addition, if the SPAC Transaction is not completed, the Avalon Sponsors will lose their full investment in Avalon (approximately $8 million). · The Debtors are unaware of any third party that has agreed to make a material investment in Beneficient that would provide independent validation of the value of Beneficient. · It is uncertain whether the SPAC Transaction will be completed. · If the SPAC Transaction is completed, (i) the value of Beneficient may be significantly less than the value purportedly implied by the SPAC Transaction for the reasons noted above and others, and (ii) Beneficient may not be successful in executing on its business plan for a number of reasons. Moreover, if the SPAC Transaction closes, the equity interests will be subject to constant public market valuation and re-valuation after the consummation of the SPAC Transaction as a result of such equity interests being listed on a national stock exchange and could be worth significantly less than implied by the current valuation. It is important to note that market prices associated with equity interests issued in connection with the consummation of SPAC transactions have been particularly volatile over the last twelve months. · If the SPAC Transaction is completed, it is proposed that Beneficient will be under the control of many of the same individuals that were in control of the Debtors when the Debtors engaged in the transactions with Beneficient that the Bondholder Committee believes harmed the Debtors’ estates. · Regardless of the value of the Debtors’ interests in Beneficent, those interests will be subject to restrictions on transferability and it may be challenging to find a buyer for such interests. This could delay and/or impede the conversion of the interests into cash for distribution to Bondholders. · The value of the Debtors’ interests in Beneficient could be negatively impacted by litigation against Beneficient.
GWG’s Retained Causes of Action	· Defendants are likely to vigorously defend any claims brought against them and will assert defenses to the causes of action. · Litigation may take at least several years. · Litigation is risky. It may be unsuccessful, resulting in no recovery on certain claims. · Any judgments achieved in litigation may not be collectible. The high end of the range noted above for litigation assumes that any judgments will be collectible. The Debtors and the Bondholders Committee have not determined the extent to which any judgments will be collectible. · Any settlements will take time to negotiate and consummate. · Legal counsel for the Litigation Trust will be paid a percentage of any recoveries on account of the Retained Causes of Action before those recoveries are distributed to Bondholders. · In addition to attorney’s fees, there are other costs associated with litigation, including expert witness costs.

GWG estimates that the total amount that L Bondholders will recover will be between 3.9% and 100%. The very broad range is due to the nature of GWG’s assets and the uncertainty as to whether GWG will be able to monetize its equity interest in Beneficient or its litigation assets.

The truth is, no one knows the exact amount that L Bondholdres will receive through the liquidation process, and it’s going to take a long time for that to be settled.

Upcoming Deadlines

As part of the Court’s order on April 21, 2023, the following confirmation deadline has been set:

April 28, 2023: Solicitation Deadline. Deadline for GWG to distribute “Solicitation Packages” to creditors, including L Bondholders. The Solicitation Packages will include links to GWG’s Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement, which explain the Chapter 11 Plan in detail. L Bondholders will also receive a plain-English summary of the treatment of L Bondholder claims.
May 31, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. CT: Voting Deadline. Deadline for Donlin, Recano, & Company, Inc. to actually receive probably executed and completed ballots from all eligible creditors, including L Bondholders.
June 12, 2023: Deadline to file Voting Report. Deadline for GWG to file a report tabulating the voting of the Plan.
June 15, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. CT: Confirmation Hearing. Date of the Confirmation Hearing at which the Court will consider Confirmation of the Plan.

All L Bondholders can vote on the Plan by submitting a ballot that they will receive along with the other solicitation materials. Each ballot will state the principal amount of the L Bonds that the bondholder owned as of February 24, 2023, based on GWG’s records.

The voting deadline is May 31, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. CT.

L Bondholders can vote for acceptance or rejection of the Plan. If the Plan is approved, the Court will have a hearing on June 15, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. CT to confirm the Plan. It will likely take an additional two to three months for GWG to exit bankruptcy.

If the Plan is not accepted, the most likely outcome is that GWG’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding (restructuring) will be converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding (liquidation), and GWG’s assets will be liquidated under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

GWG believes that less money would be available for distribution to L Bondholders under Chapter 7 liquidation, as opposed to the “orderly liquidation” proposed in the Plan.

Can L Bondholders do anything else?

Yes. Many L Bondholders have filed separate, independent arbitration claims against their broker-dealer, who received a large commission for selling the L Bonds to retail investors. These arbitration claims are in addition to the GWG bankruptcy proceeding.

When a broker makes an investment recommendation, the broker must make a recommendation that is suitable and in the customer’s best interest. When brokers make a recommendation, they must also be truthful and disclose all material information, which they must learn through reasonable due diligence. When a firm or advisor fails to meet these standards of conduct, they can be held liable for damages.

Based on the law firm’s investigation, there appears to have been widespread negligence and misconduct connected with the sale of GWG L Bonds to retail investors, specifically related to what was and was not disclosed to investors at the time the broker made the recommendation to purchase the L Bonds.

For more information about potential broker-dealer liability, you may wish to read these recent blog posts:

Investors who purchased GWG L Bonds through a financial advisor are encouraged to contact Iorio Altamirano LLP (gwglawyer.com) for a free and confidential consultation and to review their legal rights. We can review and analyze potential claims and advise individuals of their legal rights without obligation or cost.

How much does it cost to hire a securities arbitration attorney?

Nothing, there is no up-front cost. We represent individuals on a contingency fee basis. That is, our fee is contingent upon getting you a monetary recovery. If we do not obtain a recovery, we do not collect a fee.

Further, there is no out-of-pocket cost to clients to initiate an arbitration claim to recover GWG L Bond losses.

Helping investors recover investment losses is our primary focus. We have already helped GWG L Bond investors recover their losses and continue to do so. You can read more about how we helped a 75-year-old retiree recover her losses here: GWG L Bond Investor Recovers Losses After Filing a FINRA Arbitration Claim.

If you have already retained legal counsel or would prefer not to receive future correspondence from our law firm related to GWG L Bonds, please let us know, and we will be happy to comply with your request.

About Iorio Altamirano LLP

If you have invested in L Bonds offered by GWG Holdings, contact securities arbitration lawyers August Iorio at august@ia-law.com or Jorge Altamirano at jorge@ia-law.com. Alternatively, call the firm toll-free at (646) 330-4624.

When to Consult a Lawyer After Sustaining Investment Losses

Iorio Law PLLC — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:18:10 GMT

In an annual report more than two decades ago, Warren Buffett dispensed some wise words of knowledge: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.” Reportedly, Mr. Buffett was referring to knowing what risks a company is taking until it faces adverse conditions. Mr. Buffett used the same phrase again in 2008 about the foolishness of large financial institutions exposed by falling home prices.

Mr. Buffett’s words of wisdom can also be applied to investment recommendations made by a financial advisor in a bull market. Almost everyone looks like a genius in a booming market, including financial advisors. However, when the stock market enters into a correction, or something even more dreadful, the real risks of an investment or investment strategy are exposed, often leaving a trail of investment losses in their wake.

Investors who have suffered investment losses due to unsuitable or misleading investment recommendations by brokers or brokerage firms should consult with a lawyer to review their legal rights.

Fresh off its historic arbitration award against Robinhood, New York securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP offers free and confidential consultations to investors who may have been financially harmed.

Who Should Consult a Lawyer?

Brokerage firms and financial advisors are required to have a customer’s best interest in mind when they make investment recommendations or offer investment advice. This obligation is mandated by the SEC.

Specifically, when a financial advisor makes an investment recommendation, it must be in the investor’s best interest and must not place the interest of the financial professional or brokerage firm ahead of the interests of the retail investor. This standard of care, which is commonly referred to as “Regulation Best Interest” or “Reg BI,” applies to recommendations to purchase securities, sell or hold securities, implement an investment strategy, or open a specific type of account.

Financial advisors must also be truthful and disclose all material facts and risks to the customer when making an investment recommendation. If the financial advisor omits or misrepresents material facts or risks, they could be liable for investment losses.

Investors who have suffered financial losses due to investment recommendations that were not in their best interest, or misleading investment advice, may be able to file a lawsuit, in the form of a FINRA arbitration, to recover losses.

About Iorio Altamirano LLP

We have nearly 20 years of combined experience as securities arbitration lawyers and have helped investors recover investment losses in over 1,000 cases. Our firm will file a FINRA securities arbitration claim on your behalf on a contingency fee basis to try to recover your losses. If we do not obtain a recovery, you do not owe us a legal fee.

If you have suffered investment losses, contact securities arbitration lawyers August Iorio and Jorge Altamirano of Iorio Altamirano LLP at august@ia-law.com, jorge@ia-law.com, or toll-free at (646) 330-4624 for a free and confidential consultation and review of your legal rights.

Breaking News: Robinhood Ordered to Pay $70 Million, the Largest Financial Penalty Ever Ordered by Finra

Iorio Law PLLC — Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:50:28 GMT

On June 30, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) announced that it ordered Robinhood Financial LLC to pay approximately $70 million for systemic supervisory failures and significant harm suffered by millions of customers. The sanctions included an order to pay a $57 million fine and $12.6 million in restitution, plus interest, to thousands of harmed customers. According to the FINRA press release, the sanctions represent the largest financial penalty ever ordered by FINRA and reflect the scope and seriousness of the violations.

Robinhood agreed to the sanctions to settle broad regulatory allegations that the firm misled customers, approved ineligible traders for risky strategies, and did not supervise technology that failed and locked millions out of trading.

In determining the appropriate sanctions, FINRA stated that it “considered the widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm’s systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so.”

The enforcement action is another hit for Robinhood, which has faced scrutiny, lawsuits, and securities arbitration complaints, after it restricted customers from purchasing “meme stocks,” such as GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), Nokia (NYSE: NOK), Koss Corporation (NYSE: KOSS), and Express, Inc. (NYSE: EXPR), on January 28, 2021.

As the trading restrictions were put into place by Robinhood, retail investors watched helplessly as the value of their positions plummeted with no potential to remediate the positions given the wrongful sale pressure initiated by Robinhood and others.

Many retail investors felt cheated and wronged by the actions of these brokerage firms and are filing lawsuits in the form of securities arbitration complaints to recover losses from Robinhood as a result of its unprecedented decision to place trading restrictions on stocks of publicly traded companies on January 28, 2021, amid a rise in stock prices.

Recently, a 26-year-old truck driver from Connecticut, represented by Iorio Altamirano LLP, filed a securities arbitration claim alleging that Robinhood’s decision to halt the purchase of securities by retail investors caused the share prices of the publicly traded companies to fall, resulting in losses.

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2020066971201

FINRA and Robinhood Financial LLC entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 202006671201 on June 30, 2021, after FINRA alleged widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm’s systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so. Specifically, FINRA alleged:

Despite Robinhood’s self-described mission to “de-mystify finance for all,” during certain periods since September 2016, the firm has negligently communicated false and misleading information to its customers. The false and misleading information concerned a variety of critical issues, including whether customers could place trades on margin, how much cash was in customers’ accounts, how much buying power or “negative buying power” customers had, the risk of loss customers faced in certain options transactions, and whether customers faced margin calls.
For instance, one Robinhood customer who had turned margin “off,” tragically took his own life in June 2020. In a note found after his death, he expressed confusion as to how he could have used margin to purchase securities because, he believed, he had not “turned on” margin in his account. As noted in the settlement, Robinhood also displayed to this individual (and certain other customers) inaccurate negative cash balances.
Additionally, due to Robinhood’s misstatements, thousands of other customers suffered more than $7 million in total losses.
Since Robinhood began offering options trading to customers in December 2017, the firm has failed to exercise due diligence before approving customers to place options trades. The firm relied on algorithms—known at Robinhood as “option account approval bots”—to approve customers for options trading, with only limited oversight by firm principals. Those bots often approved customers to trade options based on inconsistent or illogical information. As a result, Robinhood approved thousands of customers for options trading who either did not satisfy the firm’s eligibility criteria or whose accounts contained red flags indicating that options trading may not have been appropriate for them.
From January 2018 to February 2021, Robinhood failed to reasonably supervise the technology that it relied upon to provide core broker-dealer services, such as accepting and executing customer orders.
Between 2018 and late 2020, Robinhood experienced a series of outages and critical systems failures. The most serious outage occurred on March 2 and 3, 2020, when Robinhood’s website and mobile applications shut down, preventing Robinhood’s customers from accessing their accounts during a time of historic market volatility. Although the firm had a business continuity plan at the time of the March 2-3 outage, it did not apply it because the plan was unreasonably limited to events that impacted the firm’s physical location. Robinhood’s inability to accept or execute customer orders during these outages resulted in individual customers losing tens of thousands of dollars.
Between January 2018 and December 2020, Robinhood failed to report to FINRA tens of thousands of written customer complaints that it was required to report. Robinhood’s reporting failures included complaints that Robinhood provided customers with false and misleading information and that customers suffered losses as a result of the firm’s outages and systems failures. Robinhood’s reporting failures were primarily the result of a firm-wide policy that exempted certain broad categories of complaints from reporting, even though those categories fell within the scope of FINRA’s reporting requirements.

The settlement also resolved numerous other charges against Robinhood, including the firm’s failure to have a reasonably designed customer identification program and its failure to display complete market data information.

The settlement terms also call for Robinhood to hire a consultant to review the brokerage company’s compliance systems within six months. Robinhood would then have another three months to implement any recommendations made by the consultant.

Iorio Altamirano LLP

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY, representing investors in securities arbitrations against Robinhood.

Iorio Altamirano LLP pursues individual FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses from brokerage firms’ wrongful conduct.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a bilingual law firm, fluent in both English and Spanish.

See also:

Takeaways from Robinhood’s IPO Filing

Investor Alert: Iorio Altamirano LLP Investigates Robinhood for Failing to Exercise Due Diligence Before Approving Options Accounts

26-year-old Truck Driver from Connecticut Files Securities Arbitration Claim Against Robinhood for Placing Trade Restrictions on certain “Meme Stocks”

Retail Investors Fight Back Against Robinhood for Its January 28, 2021, Trading Restrictions on “Meme Stocks,” Such as GameStop, AMC, Koss Corporation, and Express, Inc.

Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. Broker Carl Antaki (formerly of First Standard Financial Company Llc) Suspended by Finra for Excessive and Unsuitable Trading

Iorio Law PLLC — Fri, 21 May 2021 15:45:52 GMT

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) has suspended financial advisor Carl Antaki from the securities industry for three months. Mr. Antaki consented to the suspension after FINRA alleged that he excessively and unsuitably traded a customer’s account. FINRA also fined Mr. Antaki $5,000 and ordered him to pay $22,865 in restitution to the customer.

The alleged conduct occurred while First Standard Financial Company LLC employed Mr. Antaki in Melville, New York. Since September 2019, Mr. Antaki has been registered with Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. in Syosset, New York.

As discussed more fully below, Mr. Frey has a long history of customer complaints, associations with disreputable firms, and at least one employment termination.

If you have suffered financial losses investing with Carl Antaki, First Standard Financial Company LLC, or Network 1 Financial Securities Inc., or suspect that Mr. Antaki did not have your best interest in mind when recommending investments or making account transactions, contact New York securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of your legal rights.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents investors that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as First Standard Financial Company LLC and Network 1 Financial Securities Inc.

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2019063601401

FINRA and Mr. Antaki entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2019063601401 on May 20, 2021, after FINRA alleged that during the period August 2017, through June 2019, while associated with First Standard Financial Company LLC, Mr. Antaki excessively and unsuitably traded a customer’s account. Specifically, FINRA alleged:

Antaki engaged in quantitatively unsuitable trading in a customer’s account.
The customer was a 52-year-old executive at a manufacturing company who relied on Mr. Antaki’s advice and accepted his recommendations.
Between August 2017 and June 2019, Mr. Antaki recommended that the customer place frequent trades in his account.
Although the account had average monthly equity of approximately $55,000, Mr. Antaki recommended and executed trades in the customer’s account with a total principal value of more than $1 million over the relevant period, resulting in an annualized turnover rate of more than eight.
Collectively, the trades that Mr. Antaki recommended caused the customer to pay $22,865 in commissions and other trading costs, which resulted in an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of more than 30 percent—meaning that the customer’s account would have had to grow by more than 30 percent annually just to break even.
Antaki’s recommended securities transactions in the customer’s account were excessive and unsuitable given the customer’s investment profile.
Accordingly, Mr. Antaki violated FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010.

Excessive trading occurs when a financial advisor makes many trades in a customer’s account, not to benefit the customer but to generate commissions for the broker.

There are two primary indicators used to evaluate whether a financial advisor excessively traded an account. The first is turnover rate, which represents the number of times a portfolio of investments is replaced for another portfolio of investments. Generally, a turnover rate of six suggests excessive trading, but a turnover rate below four can be excessive in some cases. The accounts at issue had a turnover rate of eight.

The second indicator used to assess whether trading is excessive in an investment account is its cost-to-equity ratio. The cost-to-equity ratio measures the amount an account must appreciate to cover commissions and other expenses. That is, how much the account needs to grow just to break even. A cost-to-equity ratio of 20% generally indicates excessive trading has occurred. The accounts at issue had cost-to-equity ratios of 30%.

Excessive trading is an unethical and illegal practice. It is also a violation of securities rules and regulations and can cause enormous harm to customers.

Financial Advisor Carl George Antaki (CRD No. 4177543)

Carl George Antaki, who has 21 years of experience in the securities industry, has a long history of customer complaints, associates with disreputable brokerage firms, and at least one employment termination.

Mr. Antaki has been associated with seven different brokerage firms throughout his career, including two firms that FINRA has expelled. On at least one occasion, his employment was terminated after allegations of misconduct. Mr. Antaki has been associated with the following firms:

Network 1 Financial Securities, Inc. in Syosset, New York, from September 2019 to the present.
First Standard Financial Company LLC in Melville, New York, from November 2015 to September 2019.
Rockwell Global Capital LLC in Melville, New York, from April 2008 to November 2015.
Empire Financial Group, Inc. (expelled by FINRA) in Uniondale, New York, from November 2005 to April 2008.
Ehrenkrantz King Nussbaum, Inc. (expelled by FINRA) in Melville, New York, from December 2001 to November 2005.
Ehrenkrantz King Nussbaum in New York, New York, from October 2001 to December 2001.
Weatherly Securities Corporation in New York, New York, from May 2000 to October 2001.

In 2008, Mr. Antaki’s employment was discharged by Empire Financial Group. In connection with the employment termination, Empire Financial Group alleged that Mr. Antaki failed to follow a customer’s instructions to place a stop loss.

Throughout his career, Mr. Antaki has also been the subject of at least six customer disputes:

Customer Dispute (January 2021): A customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging $278,633 in damages due to unauthorized trading, unauthorized use of margin, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The dispute is pending.
Customer Dispute (October 2017): A customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging $82,699 in damages as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, churning, and commission abuses. Antaki settled the matter for $8,750.
Customer Dispute (June 2017): A customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging $25,068 in damages due to excessive trading and unsuitable investment recommendations. Antaki denied wrongdoing, and an arbitration panel dismissed the claim.
Customer Dispute (September 2015): A customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging $300,000 in damages as a result of excessive commissions, unsuitable investment recommendations, and use of margin. Antaki settled the matter for $62,500.
Customer Dispute (March 2008): A customer filed a written complaint with Empire Financial Group, Inc. alleging that Mr. Antaki failed to follow instructions to place a stop-loss order on a position in the customer’s account, as well as a failure to disclose all material details of the transaction. Although the firm terminated Mr. Antaki, it offered no compensation to the customer, and the matter was closed.
Customer Dispute (November 2001): A customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging $200,000. The complaint alleged that Mr. Antaki failed to follow instructions, placed unauthorized trades, breached his fiduciary, and acted negligently. The case proceeded to an arbitration hearing, where the arbitration panel found in favor of the customer. The customer was awarded $20,000.

First Standard Financial Company LLC and Network 1 Financial Securities Inc.– A Duty to Supervise

Financial institutions like First Standard Financial Company LLC and Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. must properly supervise financial advisors and customer accounts. Brokerage firms must establish and maintain a reasonably designed system to oversee account activity, such as excessive trading, to ensure compliance with securities laws and industry regulations. When a brokerage firm fails to supervise its financial advisors or the investment account activity sufficiently, it may be liable for investment losses sustained by customers.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

If you have suffered investment losses with Carl Antaki, First Standard Financial Company LLC, or Network 1 Financial Securities Inc., contact New York securities arbitration attorney August Iorio of Iorio Altamirano LLP. August Iorio can be reached at august@ia-law.com or toll-free at (646) 330-4624 for a free and confidential review of your legal rights.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. Iorio Altamirano LLP pursues FINRA claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses arising out of wrongful conduct by stockbrokers and brokerage firms.

How to Recover Investment Losses: Frequently Asked Questions

Iorio Law PLLC — Tue, 11 May 2021 20:35:17 GMT

You worked hard, opened a brokerage or retirement account, and invested your savings with a financial advisor or stockbroker, only to suffer financial losses due to bad investment advice, misleading sales pitches, or brokers that were driven by commissions. Now what?

Can I Sue My Financial Advisor Over Losses?

Yes, you can sue your financial advisor or broker to recover investment losses if the broker did not have your best interest in mind when they made an investment recommendation or offered investment advice. You can also sue your financial advisor or broker if the financial advisor misrepresented or omitted material facts that an investor should have known about the security or investment strategy.

However, the dispute likely will not be litigated in a court of law. Instead, it will be contested in arbitration.

What is Securities Arbitration?

When an investor suffers investment losses due to misconduct by a financial advisor or broker-dealer, the investor can file a securities arbitration claim against their financial advisor and/or broker-dealer in an effort to be compensated. Arbitration, an alternative dispute resolution process, is the primary forum for resolving disputes between investors and brokerage firms because the client agreement, which the customer signs at account opening, contains a mandatory arbitration clause. To read more about securities arbitration, click here.

Securities arbitration is a unique and complex practice area. Investors should seek out experienced counsel who understands the FINRA forum and can navigate the arbitration process to effectively advocate on their behalf.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. We pursue individual FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses from brokerage firms’ wrongful conduct.

Can You Sue Someone for a Bad Investment?

The short answer is “yes” if your advisor did not act in your best interest connected with an investment-related recommendation.

When a broker-dealer makes an investment recommendation, or a registered investment adviser provides investment advice, the investor is entitled to a recommendation (from a broker-dealer) or advice (from an investment adviser) that is in the best interest of the investor, and that does not place the interest of the financial professional or financial institution ahead of the interests of the retail investors.

The “best interest” standard is not limited to “recommendations” to purchase a security. It also applies to recommendations to sell or hold a security. Additionally, it applies to recommendations to purchase, sell, or hold an investment strategy. Finally, the “best interest” standard also explicitly applies to recommendations of types of accounts, including brokerage accounts and investment advisory accounts.

What is Excessive Trading or Churning?

Excessive trading occurs when a financial advisor makes many trades in a customer’s account, not to benefit the customer, but to generate commissions for the broker.

Churning is a more egregious variation of excessive trading. Churning refers to a situation where the broker executed an excessive number of trades and did so with the intent to defraud or reckless disregard for the customer’s interest. Churning is an unethical and illegal practice. It is also a violation of securities rules and regulations and can cause enormous harm to customers.

Excessive trading and churning are unethical and illegal practices. They are also violations of securities rules and regulations and can cause enormous harm to customers.

How Do I Sue an Investment Firm?

Brokerage firms must properly supervise financial advisors and customer accounts. Brokerage firms must also establish and maintain a reasonably designed system to oversee account activity to ensure compliance with securities laws and industry regulations. When a brokerage firm fails to sufficiently supervise its financial advisors or the investment account activity, it may be liable for investment losses sustained by customers.

If you believe you have a claim, you should contact experienced securities arbitration attorneys at Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential consultation and review of your legal rights.

How Much Do Securities Arbitration Attorneys Charge?

Iorio Altamirano LLP generally represents investors through a contingency fee arrangement, which means that if we do not obtain a recovery, we do not collect a fee*.

*We do not collect a fee unless we obtain a recovery via settlement or judgment. You may, however, be responsible for costs and expenses the firm has advanced according to the terms of your agreement with the firm. The firm may recover advanced costs and expenses by deducting the expense from the gross recovery of any settlement or judgment.

Retail Investors Fight Back Against Robinhood for Its January 28, 2021, Trading Restrictions on “meme Stocks,” Such as Gamestop, Amc, Koss Corporation, and Express, Inc.

Iorio Law PLLC — Mon, 10 May 2021 14:09:51 GMT

On Thursday, January 28, 2021, Robinhood designated specific stocks “position closing only,” meaning that customers could not purchase additional shares in those stocks. The targeted stocks included GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), Nokia (NYSE: NOK), Koss Corporation (NYSE: KOSS), and Express, Inc. (NYSE: EXPR).

Robinhood was joined by other online brokers, including TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab & Co, Inc, Interactive Brokers, LLC, Webull Financial, LLC, E*Trade Securities LLC, who all implemented trading restrictions on targeted securities. These online brokerage firms, including Robinhood, intentionally deprived their customers, without notice, of the ability to use their service in order to slow the growth of the targeted “meme stock” securities.

As the trading restrictions were put into place by the online brokerage firms, including Robinhood, retail investors watched helplessly as the value of their positions plummeted with no potential to remediate the positions given the wrongful sale pressure initiated by Robinhood and others.

Many retail investors felt cheated and wronged by the actions of these brokerage firms, particularly Robinhood, which has held itself out as a brokerage firm for all. Front and center on its website, Robinhood declares that it believes that “the financial system should be built for everyone.” That could not be further from the truth.

Now, many retail investors across the country are fighting back and filing securities arbitration complaints to recover losses from Robinhood as a result of its unprecedented decision to place trading restrictions on stocks of publicly traded companies on January 28, 2021, in the midst of an unprecedented rise in stock prices.

Most recently, a 26-year-old truck driver from Connecticut, represented by Iorio Altamirano LLP, filed a securities arbitration claim alleging that Robinhood’s decision to halt the purchase of securities by retail investors caused the share prices of the publicly traded companies to fall, resulting in losses.

What is Securities Arbitration?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process. When an investor suffers investment losses due to misconduct by a financial advisor or broker-dealer, the investor can file a securities arbitration claim against their financial advisor and/or broker-dealer in an effort to be compensated. Arbitration is the primary forum for resolving disputes between investors and brokerage firms because it is a contractual obligation. The customer and broker-dealer contractually agree to use arbitration to resolve disputes when the customer opens a brokerage account and signs the customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause. To read more about securities arbitration, click here.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

If you have suffered financial losses, please fill out the following form for a free and confidential consultation. You may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

How is an Arbitration Claim Different Than a Class Action?

A securities arbitration complaint is brought by an individual against a brokerage firm. The person who brings the claim (the Claimant) has complete control over settlement decisions. If the dispute is not settled, an arbitration panel will hear evidence and decide whether the brokerage firm is liable to the Claimant. The arbitration panel will also determine how much, if any, monetary damages are owed to the Claimant.

A class action complaint is a lawsuit filed in court by an individual on behalf of all like suited individuals. Individuals who are not class representatives do not have input on settlement decisions. Class actions can be dismissed for various reasons, and even if there is a recovery someday, class members often only receive pennies on the dollar.

See Also:

Takeaways from Robinhood’s IPO Filing

Investor Alert: Iorio Altamirano LLP Investigates Robinhood for Failing to Exercise Due Diligence Before Approving Options Accounts

Breaking News: Robinhood Ordered to Pay $70 Million, the Largest Financial Penalty Ever Ordered by FINRA

26-year-old Truck Driver from Connecticut Files Securities Arbitration Claim Against Robinhood for Placing Trade Restrictions on certain “Meme Stocks”

Lake Forest, Illinois Financial Advisor Victor A. Rigoni, Iii, Formerly of Summit Brokerage Services, Inc., Suspended by Finra

Iorio Law PLLC — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 19:04:41 GMT

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) has suspended stockbroker Victor A. Rigoni, III from the securities industry for three months. FINRA accepted an Offer of Settlement submitted by Mr. Rigoni after FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Rigoni in August 2020. The complaint alleged that from August 2012 through March 2019, Mr. Rigoni willfully failed to timely amend his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4) to disclose six unsatisfied federal and state tax liens totaling $164,521. On average, Mr. Rigoni disclosed his tax liens almost three-and-a-half years late. Mr. Rigoni also never disclosed a state tax lien of $11,304.

Mr. Rigoni has been associated with the following broker-dealers:

Cetera Advisor Networks LLC in Lake Forest, Illinois, from September 2019 to August 2020.
Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. in Lake Forest, Illinois, from November 2010 to September 2019.
Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. in Lake Forest, Illinois, from October 2008 to December 2010.
Edward Jones in Antioch, Illinois, from October 2000 to November 2008.

According to this public disclosure report with FINRA, Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC allowed Mr. Rigoni to “voluntarily resign” after Mr. Rigoni was named a Respondent in the FINRA complaint alleging that he willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose unsatisfied federal and state tax liens.

Mr. Rigoni has also been associated with the following entities: NSCG Insurance Solutions, LLC; Retirement Zone Radio; North Shore Capital Group; and Retirement Life Pro.

As discussed more fully below, Mr. Rigoni has also been the subject of numerous customer disputes that have resulted in monetary settlements to customers.

If you have suffered financial losses investing with Rigoni or suspect that Mr. Rigoni did not have your best interest in mind when recommending an investment, account transactions, or annuities, contact New York securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of your account or annuity contract.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents investors that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as Cetera Advisor Networks LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.

Financial Advisor Victor A. Rigoni III (CRD No. 4272056)

Mr. Rigoni has 19 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with four different brokerage firms.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Rigoni has been the subject of five customer complaints concerning investment recommendations that he made related to variable annuities, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and Exchange Traded-Funds (“ETFs”):

Customer Dispute (November 2019): In November 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint seeking $99,000 in damages and alleging that Mr. Rigoni and Summit Brokerage Services made an unsuitable recommendation related to a variable annuity contract. The customer also alleged that Summit Brokerage Services breached its contract with the client. The dispute was settled for $18,000.
Customer Dispute (May 2019): In November 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $100,000 in damages arising out of a REIT The customer alleged breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligence. Summit Brokerage Services settled the matter for $25,000.
Customer Dispute (April 2019): In April 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $100,00 in damages arising out of recommendations to invest in a REIT and variable annuity. The customer alleged breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of FINRA rules. Summit Brokerage Services and Mr. Rigoni settled the matter for $13,999.
Customer Dispute (October 2018): In October 2018, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $125,000 in damages arising out of a recommendation to invest in a real estate security. The customer alleged breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of FINRA rules. Summit Brokerage Services settled the matter for $12,000.
Customer Dispute (November 2010): In November 2010, a customer submitted a written complaint to Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., alleging $80,000 in damages. The customer alleged that (1) prior to transferring the investment account from Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. to Summit Brokerage Services, Inc., Mr. Rigoni liquidated holdings in the account for the purpose of generating new commissions at Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.; (2) Mr. Rigoni generated excessive commission; (3) investment were not suitable; and (4) Mr. Rigoni engaged in unauthorized trading; and (5) Mr. Rigoni made poor recommendations. Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. and Mr. Rigoni settled the dispute for $63,742.

Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. – Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. must properly supervise financial advisors and customer accounts. Brokerage firms must also establish and maintain a reasonably designed system to oversee account activity to ensure compliance with securities laws and industry regulations. When a brokerage firm fails to sufficiently supervise its financial advisors or the investment account activity, it may be liable for investment losses sustained by customers.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

If you or a loved one were a customer of Victor Rigoni and either sustained financial losses or suspect inappropriate activity in your investment or retirement accounts, contact New York securities arbitration attorney August Iorio of Iorio Altamirano LLP. August Iorio can be reached at august@ia-law.com or toll-free at (646) 330-4624 for a free and confidential evaluation of your account.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. Iorio Altamirano LLP pursues FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses arising out of wrongful conduct by stockbrokers and brokerage firms.

At Least Twenty-Four Customers Have Filed Securities Arbitration Complaints Against Robinhood Financial, Llc

Iorio Law PLLC — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:36:46 GMT

Here is how you can file a claim to recover losses suffered from trading restrictions placed on GameStop, AMC, Blackberry, Nokia, and other stocks.

On February 12, 2021, in a letter addressed to Senator Elizabeth Warren, Robinhood Financial, LLC confirmed twenty-four (24) pending securities arbitrations.

Robinhood’s letter was written in response to an inquiry sent by Senator Warren on February 2, 2021, as to why Robinhood “abruptly changed the rules” for retail investors by restricting the purchase of certain securities.

On Thursday, January 28, 2021, Robinhood designated specific stocks “position closing only,” meaning that customers could not purchase additional shares in those stocks. The targeted stocks included GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), and Nokia (NYSE: NOK). In the days that followed, Robinhood continued to impose certain restrictions on these stocks. The restrictions on AMC and GME lasted until February 5, 2021.

According to reports, after Robinhood and other popular online broker-dealers such as Webull Financial LLC implemented the trading restrictions, GameStop dropped 44%, and AMC lost 57%. The trading restrictions appear to have sent the share prices of targeted companies plunging.

What is Securities Arbitration?

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

Iorio Altamirano LLP is particularly interested in speaking with investors that have:

purchased and held GME, AMC, NVAX, EXPR, BB, BBBY, KOSS, or NOK before Robinhood and other popular trading platforms restricted transactions on January 28, 2021;
subsequently sold their positions; and
suffered losses of $25,000 or more.

How is an Arbitration Claim Different Than a Class Action?

Investor Alert: Iorio Altamirano Llp Continues to Investigate Robinhood, Webull, T.d. Ameritrade, Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, and Other Brokerage Firms for Market Manipulation and Breach of Contract

Iorio Law PLLC — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 18:14:44 GMT

Iorio Altamirano LLP is investigating claims of market manipulation and breach of contract after Robinhood Markets, Webull Financial LLC, T.D. Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, E*Trade Financial Corp., Interactive Brokers Group, and other online brokerage platforms halted the ability of its clients to purchase GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Novavax, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVAX), Express (NYSE: EXPR), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), Bed Bath & Beyond (NASDAQ: BBBY), Koss Corp. (NASDAQ: KOSS) and Nokia (NYSE: NOK) stock on January 28, 2021.

According to reports, after the popular online brokerage firms implemented the trading restrictions, GameStop ($GME) dropped 44%, and AMC ($AMC) lost 57%. The trading restrictions, which appear to have sent the share prices of targeted companies plunging, set off a firestorm of criticism, including Congress members.

New York Attorney General Letitia James released the following statement on January 28, 2021: “We are aware of concerns raised regarding activity on the Robinhood app, including trading related to the GameStop stock. We are reviewing this matter.”

On January 29, 2021, securities regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, indicated that they would closely review the actions of some brokerage firms, which restrict investors’ ability to purchase certain securities. The securities regulators said they would look for abusive or manipulative trading activity prohibited by federal securities laws.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which regulates brokerage firms like Robinhood, requires that broker-dealers make every effort to execute a marketable customer order that it receives fully and promptly.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is especially interested in speaking with investors that have:

purchased and held GME, AMC, NVAX, EXPR, BB, BBBY, KOSS, or NOK before Robinhood and other popular trading platforms restricted transactions on January 28, 2021;
subsequently sold their positions; and
suffered losses of $25,000 or more.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is also interested in speaking with investors who have not sold their positions but have suffered losses of more than $50,000.

Do not rely on any pending or future class action filings. Class actions can be dismissed for various reasons, and even if there is a recovery someday, class members often only receive pennies on the dollar.