LaBovick Law Group, PA filed a FINRA arbitration against Ameriprise Financial Services, (NYSE: AMP), formerly known as American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) for stockbroker misconduct and negligence. The claim alleges that Deborah Amilowski, Financial Advisor for Ameriprise Financial Services, failed to properly advise a Senior investor on risks associated with unsuitable products for a person of that age, at the time of the initial investment and negligence in properly identifying the beneficiary resulting in additional loss to the trust.

The FINRA Statement of Claim, filed on August 13, 2009, stated that Ms. Amilowski, recommended a RiverSource variable annuity as an initial investment to a 77 year old investor at the time of purchase, thus ineligible for a guaranteed death benefit. This investment was too risky for someone of this age.

Click on the following link to learn more on the FINRA Arbitration claim against Ameriprise Financial.

6 years ago, I handled a case against Securities America (Now Ameriprise) where the broker used a stolen identity. In fact, he used two stolen identities. The second one was a law school classmate of his, who then spent years straightening out the mess.

Fast forward to today. A broker, using the name Joseph Bonnano, in Ohio entered a guilty plea related to the falsehoods one must tell in order to propagate a stolen identity, in this case Timothy Hyde. In the prior case that I handled, much money was missing and lost.

When I handled the Securities America case, they tried to say that the broker, even though he used a phony name, was properly registered. He wasn’t of course, since he did not use his real name.

The Ohio broker’s clients may have the right to rescission – to pick the trades they don’t like and ask for their money back. So if you’re a client of Joseph Bonnano, also known as Timothy Hyde, you may be able to get second chance.

The one interesting thing we learned from the earlier case is that FINRA collects fingerprints but does not run each set of prints through a database like you see on CSI (even though there’s poetic license there as well). Instead, they just compare names and social security numbers to see if anything pops up on the national criminal database. That’s how an identity thief gets registered as a stockbroker.

Barry Kaye, who allegedly made his fortune in the life settlement market is facing more bad news. First, he was forced to reduce his contribution to Florida Atlantic University to $5,000,000 from his planned $16,000,000. Now Investment News is reporting, that the Ohio Department of Insurance is investigating his life settlement sales in that state. The article reports that he has been sued by an 81 year-old life settlement investor for a failed transaction.

A life settlement begins with the purchase of a high value life insurance policy by an investor. The investor can either pay with their own cash or borrow the cash from a willing borrower, usually a financial institution. So, either using their own or someone else’s cash the investor pays the premiums for two years, to avoid the contestability period. At that point, the policy becomes a free asset and can be sold. It was commonly believed that policies had higher values in the resale market than their cash value.

The problem, not surprisingly, is that the entire transaction was based on the availability of willing buyers. Like many great ideas of 2001-2007, these ideas don’t look so good in 2008 and 2009. The new owner of the policy has to pay the premiums, a significant sum in many cases. So the original investor ends up with no buyer, a policy they didn’t need but were convinced that they did, and possibly a significant loan that they don’t want, can’t afford and expected to be able to repay upon sale of the insurance policy. Oops.

No free lunches people. This was too good to be true and it was a sham to begin with. But the sellers of these schemes should have known better and made better disclosures.

After all of the grief that Stanford caused to investors he swindled $7 billion from, can you believe he is complaining about intolerable conditions in jail. His $500,000 bail was revoked because he was considered a flight risk by the Judge.

The WSJ shared his Stanford's complaint to the Judge asking for a transfer in the article "Allen Stanford on His Life in Jail: ‘Conditions Are Intolerable". Jail is not supposed to be a walk in the park or a country club experience.

Texas Billionaire Allen Stanford shared the following through his Attorney, Dick DeGuerin:

1. For at least a week, during the hottest part of the summer, with outside temperatures of 100 [degrees] or more, the place where Allen Stanford is being held as a pretrial detainee has had no air conditioning and for part of that time was without power altogether.

2. Allen Stanford is housed in a single cell with between eight to ten other men. For part of the time last week, they were in total darkness and so far (this motion is prepared on Sunday, July 26) the cell has been without air conditioning for at least a week. There are no windows for light or ventilation and the conditions are intolerable.

3. Allen Stanford urgently asks the Court to transfer him to the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston run by the Bureau of Prisons and renews his request for transfer, both because of the oppressive conditions under which he is suffering, as well as the impossible conditions for preparing for his complex trial.

4. Regarding the inability of Allen Stanford to consult with his lawyers, the discovery in this case is by electronic means and none of the visiting conditions at the Joe Corley Detention Facility allow the use of electronics. Allen Stanford will be denied his constitutional right to review the evidence in his case if he is detained pretrial at the Joe Corley Detention Facility.

5. Counsel for Allen Stanford has tried to address the conditions with the Marshal’s Service and the Joe Corley Detention Facility, but thus far to no avail. See Exhibit A, a letter to United States Acting Marshal Saenz.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dick DeGuerin

He should not get preferential treatment. Let us know what you think of Stanford's current conditions. Is this fair or cruel and unusual treatment?