The Securities and Exchange Commission says it has set aside about $450 million for payments to outside whistleblowers whose information results in successful cases and penalties collected from companies or individuals.

The SEC set up the program in accordance with the financial overhaul law enacted in July. It follows intense public criticism of the agency for the breakdown that allowed Bernard Madoff's multibillion-dollar fraud to go undetected for 16 years, despite numerous red flags raised by whistleblowers.

A recent report issued by the SEC shows it has put $451.9 million into a new fund to pay whistleblowers, which must have a minimum $300 million

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has permanently barred Michael J. DiMare, of Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., from the securities industry for “misappropriating over $1.9 million in client funds.” In its news release on the settlement, FINRA stated that Dimare, formerly a registered representative, hid his financial scheme by making false statements and submitting falsified account statements to his customers.

DiMare worked for John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (John Hancock) as a sales manager between 2001 and 2006, and as a registered representative/insurance agent with ING Financial Partners, Inc. (ING) from late 2006 to mid 2008. According to FINRA, DiMare persuaded his clients from at least 2001 to 2008 to invest in fictitious CDs and bonds, including what he described to be “tax free” corporate bonds.

FINRA’s investigation revealed that between 2001 and 2008, DiMare instructed some 14 of his clients to write checks payable to John Hancock – even after he no longer worked there – which he deposited directly into his bank account for eventual personal use. DiMare concealed his scheme by submitting false account statements to his clients who thought they were making legitimate financial investments.

In response to the situation, James S. Shorris, Executive Vice President and Executive Director of Enforcement for FINRA, made this statement:

"FINRA will continue to bar individuals who engage in deceit and theft with no regard for the high standards of ethical conduct that govern the industry. By deceiving customers into believing they were making legitimate investments when, in reality, he was simply enriching himself, DiMare epitomized the darkest side of the securities industry."

DiMare never admitted guilt nor denied FINRA’s charges, but the now barred schemer did consent to the entry of the agency’s findings in the settlement. John Hancock and ING reimbursed the customers defrauded by DiMare’s scheme.

Florida Broker Barred for Selling Phony Financial Products, Taking More Than $1.9 Million From Clients – FINRA’s News Release

Tips from FINRA to help Investors Avoid Financial Fraud

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is taking proactive measures to increase investor protection through strengthening regulatory requirements. This rule new change is expected to significantly increase the governing structure of money market funds, thus adding substantial protection to investors. The newly adopted rules will become effective 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

A full-scale review of the regulatory regime of money market funds by the SEC was precipitated by large-scale factors, including the ongoing financial crisis. The SEC’s review was also triggered by the Reserve Primary Fund’s so-called “breaking the buck” weakness, which causes a money market fund’s net asset value to fall below $1.00 per share. When this happens, investors lose money.

According to the SEC, the new rules are designed to increase the resilience of money market funds to stresses (such as economic pressure), and lessen the risks of runs on the funds. The agency hopes to achieve these ends by tightening the maturity and credit standards of quality as well as implementing new requirements for liquidity.

According to SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro,

"These new rules will have substantial benefits for investors and are an important first step in our efforts to strengthen the money market regime. These rules will help reduce risks associated with money market funds, so that investor assets are better protected and money market funds can better withstand market crises.”

The SEC expects the new rules to decrease the risks associated with money market funds by:

• Improving liquidity
• Placing limits on lower quality securities
• Shortening maturity limits
• Using “Know Your Investor” procedures
• Performing periodic stress tests
• Using Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs)
• Strengthening repurchase agreements

For more information about this reform and other important investor information, visit the SEC’s Web site at: http://www.sec.gov

David Brooks, a founder and ex-chief executive officer of DHB Industries (DHB), a contracting company for the U.S. military and other agencies, is accused of looting the company of $185 million. According to a federal prosecutor, Mr. Brooks allegedly used the looted money to fund “lavish” personal expenditures.

Along with Sandra Hatfield, DHB’s former chief operating officer, Mr. Brooks is accused of securities fraud, insider trading, manipulating financial records, and a bevy of additional charges. Brooks and Hatfield reportedly used deceitful techniques to increase the company’s reported earnings and profits substantially.

According to federal prosecutors, Brooks and Hatfield reportedly inflated the value of DHB’s stock by lying about the inventory of supposedly shipped combat vests to the U.S. military. As a result, the duo defrauded the company for a combined $190,000 million, reportedly $185 million for Brooks, and $5 million for Hatfield. Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges
.
“This is a case about the naked greed of two people, Sandra Hatfield and David Brooks, and the lies and the fraud that they used to satisfy that greed,” Richard Lunger, Assistant U.S. Attorney told jurors in his opening statement. “In the end they lied in order to push up the price of the company’s stock, then [they] sold their stock for $190 million.”

In July 2006, shares of DHB stock were removed from American Stock Exchange listings. Although still headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, DHB has since been renamed Point Blank Solutions, Inc. According to the company’s Web site, Point Blank is an industry leader in ballistic technologies, including its Point Blank Body Armor and other protective apparel, for the military and other authorities.

For more information about the case, click on the following Bloomberg Business Week article on the DHB Fraud of Ex-CEO

To learn more about this and other financial fraud cases, visit the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Web site www.SEC.GOV

The case is U.S. v. David Brooks, 06-CR-550, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

Former McKesson executive, Charles McCall can now join the Bernie Madoff Club. Yesterday he was found guilty of investment fraud that cost investors $8.6 billion. McCall is a former Chairman of the McKesson Corp.

A San Francisco jury found him guilty of securities fraud and violating accounting rules. On a positive note he was acquitted on falsifying records. His sentencing will take place next March.

Read the Bloomberg article to learn more on the Securities charges against Mr. McCall and his former colleagues.

According to a recent report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement division needs to improve its processes and procedures for investigating and managing the fight against securities fraud. The main example cited in the report was the most current and most blatant example of the SEC’s failure to properly investigate securities fraud complaints - Bernard Madoff’s multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. The report issued by the OIG stated that complaints about Mr. Madoff’s possible involvement in securities fraud were received by the SEC as long ago as 1999. Even though complaints of alleged fraud were made to the SEC in regard to Mr. Madoff, SEC staff failed to recommend that the SEC take action on these complaints.

The purpose of the OIG’s report was to determine the SEC enforcement department’s shortcomings and to identify those areas in which the department needs to make improvements to better fight securites fraud. The goal of the report was to bolster SEC enforcement measures in an effort to prevent another securities fraud case with such far-reaching implications and consequences as the Madoff case. It is the SEC’s job to protect investors from securities fraud. When the department fails to properly carry out its job duties the ramifications can spell disaster for investors.

The following systemic problems within the SEC’s enforcement department were identified in the OIG’s report: staff’s failure to thoroughly review complaints; due diligence was not exercised regarding complaints; inexperienced staff conducted unsupervised investigations; complaints were not sufficiently reviewed; staff failed to seek assistance from other departments and divisions; staff did not verify information with independent third-party representatives; administrative tasks were not completed in a timely manner. According to the OIG report, additional areas in which staff felt changes needed to be made and information clarified included: case handling procedure, program priorities, and working relationships.

The report issued by the OIG offered 21 recommendations to the department in order to create a more effective program. These recommendations focused on management control, establishment of formal guidelines, and a review of existing policy and procedures. The Director of Enforcement at the SEC stated that these measures would be implemented.

To read more on the this of OIG Recommendations view the following: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit on SEC - Program Improvements Needed within the SEC's Enforcement Division, Housingwire.com

Unfortunately, yesterday was not a great day for the SEC and the Bank of America legal team. Their $33 million agreed upon settlement regarding the BofA taking over Merrill Lynch was rejected by Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff

Judge Rakoff entered strong words towards the SEC and Bank of America settelement in his 12-page order, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp., 09 Civ. 6829. The judge stated the following: "Overall, indeed, the parties' submissions, when carefully read, leave the distinct impression that the proposed Consent Judgment was a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with the façade of enforcement and the management of the Bank with a quick resolution of an embarrassing inquiry -- all at the expense of the sole alleged victims, the shareholders."

He continues to further scold the SEC with additional statements:

"When a federal agency such as the SEC seeks to prospectively invoke the Court's own contempt power by having the court impose injunctive prohibitions against the defendant, the resolution has aspects of a judicial decree and the Court is therefore obligated to review the proposal a little more closely, to ascertain whether it is within the bounds of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy -- and, in some certain circumstances, whether it serves the public interest."

Judge Rakoff deems the settlement "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate."

Click here to read more on the SEC and BofA settlement from the New York Law Journal.

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.

The FBI has announced that former key executive for Morgan Stanley, Darin Demizio, will serve 38 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud and lying to the FBI. The trial took place in March before United States District Judge John Gleeson. United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Benton J. Campbell announced the sentence.

Mr. Demizio routinely directed business from Morgan Stanley’s securities lending division to smaller brokerage firms for kickbacks that were paid to his father and Craig DeMizio, his brother. The amount of the kickbacks was over $1.6 million from 2000 – 2004. His brother was sentenced to 21 months after pleading guilty to commit securities fraud and wire fraud.

Investors can be assured that the FBI is taking bribery and kickbacks seriously in the securities business. The Demizio conviction is the 29th conviction stemming from an ongoing industry-wide investigation.

The trial for USA v Tzolov and Butler 08-370 started this week in New York's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District.

The case involves two former Wall Street brokers that worked for Credit Suisse Group AG, Eric Butler and Julian Tzolov. They were charged with fraudulently dealing in subprime mortgage-backed auction rate securities (ARS) for corporate clients who specifically requested much safer investments.

The trial seems to be a pass the blame for the defense. The prosecution's argument is that the brokers mislead clients about auction rate securities deals, because of greed in trying to earn millions of dollars in commissions for risky investments instead of much safer investments such as government-guaranteed student loans. The defense cites an entirely different argument, they attribute the losses of the investments to the collapse of the real estate market instead of GREED.

It is important to note that one of the brokers, Tzolov, saw the writing on the wall and recently struck a deal with the prosecution. Eric Butler, pleaded not guilty, and decided to try his luck with a jury. His former partner in crime, Tzolov, struck a deal after pleading guilty, and will be a witness for the prosecution. His testimony should really be interesting.

According to a recent article published by Reuters

"The defendant and his partner promised something better, a better opportunity," U.S. prosecutor Greg Andres said in opening arguments to the jury.

"They did not honor that promise. They invested in securities the clients didn't ask for and didn't want."

This is an important trial to watch regarding investment fraud. The defense is trying to blame the market for the loss of the investors, instead of what seems to plague many Wall Street brokers and others accused of Securities and Investment fraud: GREED.

This makes me think of a statement from the famous fictional villain, Gordon Gekko, in the Oliver Stone movie Wall Street, "Greed is Good". I imagine that people such as Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Robert Allen Stanford, Arthur Nadel would all agree that "Greed carries a high price tag".

What will happen in the USA v Tzolov and Butler 08-370 case and the fate of former broker Eric Butler's fate? Time will tell...

Stay tuned...

As prior readers of The Law Planet Blog know, I have a strong dislike for Equity Index Annuities. I think they are lousy products and, to the extent they are sold, should be sold by someone who has proven at least a modicum of securities knowledge. Insurance salesman, without a Series 6 or 7 license, have not proven this knowledge. Yet they were allowed to sell complicated, market-based products.

I cheered last year when the SEC announced Rule 151A which would bring these products under their purview. It would also require licensing of salespeople and registration with a broker-dealer. All of these are good things. The Insurance and Annuity industry did not agree with me. It was nothing personal, I’m sure.

The industry took their case to court, in the case American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission (July 21, 2009-6) on Petitions to argue that the Rule should not be enforced. The industry won, and lost.

There should be no joy in Mudville here. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has told the SEC what it did wrong and what it needs to do right. On the other hand, the Court told the insurance industry that these products can be regulated as securities. For me, that’s the important part.

The court wrote “In this case, the SEC has adopted an interpretation that is based in reason. By their nature, FIAs ‘appeal to the purchaser not on the usual insurance basis of stability and security but on the prospect of ‘growth’ through sound investment management.’” This is what I’ve been saying all along. This is a market-based product. It is a security. It should be sold by qualified securities salespeople. Now it’s up to the SEC to make the requisite findings regarding its rulemaking and give it another try.

Stay tuned…

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association has proposed a rule directly to the SEC that would effectively eliminate the “industry” arbitrator from the arbitration panel. The paranoia exhibited by this organization, without any true empirical basis, knows no bounds.

As a lawyer who represents both industry and investor clients, I have a unique position to assess this proposal (although I am not alone in representing both types of parties.) PIABA remains critical of the presence of a person experienced in the industry on an arbitration panel. Personally, having experienced arbitrations where the industry panelist was marginally affiliated and the public arbitrators knew next to nothing about securities, I suggest that we should all be afraid of PIABA’s proposal.

PIABA continually refers to the industry panelist as an advocate for the industry. There is no basis for this. The organization cites flawed research that states that claimants in arbitration win less than they “should.” But how does PIABA know that these cases would have fared better either in court or with an all-public arbitration panel? It doesn’t. I have stated before and I will say it again, that cases that go to hearing tend to be self-selecting. Those cases which can’t settle because the Claimant wants too much or the Respondent won’t pay enough are the ones that go to hearing. Therefore, these are the more difficult, or bad, cases depending on one’s point of view.

I have been involved in a number of cases where it was obvious that the industry panelist did not agree with the Respondent’s position. There is no evidence that the industry panelist serves as a patsy for the brokerage firms. Just because a flawed analysis finds that the “win rate” is down, does not mean that the system is bad. In arbitration, each case stands on its own. Two cases cannot be compared as every person’s situation is different.

As part of FINRA’s ongoing effort to consolidate and reconcile the former NASD and NYSE manuals, changes are in the works. FINRA recently filed a proposed rule change that is going to make changes to FINRA suitability rules, as we have known them, noticeably different.

FINRA’s proposed rules governing Suitability and Know Your Customer Obligations will expand the obligations of registered representatives when recommending securities or investment strategies­ to customers. This is interesting because it looks like FINRA is moving towards codifying a fiduciary standard, or at least a modified fiduciary standard.

In the past, a fiduciary duty in a non-discretionary account related to only the execution of trades and custody of assets. Now, if an investment strategy encompasses assets away from the firm, that strategy falls within the proposed rule. For instance, the recommendation to retain stocks in an account at another brokerage firm may be considered recommending an investment strategy as may the recommendation to hold, and not sell, a particular stock.

This represents a significant change in the relationship a broker has with his/her client and will broaden the areas of responsibility when making suitability determinations.

It's a new dawn. It's a new day and investors in Florida should be feeling good. Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed House Bill 483 into law on Monday, which adds protections for Securities investors today, designed to protect securities investors from Bernie Madoff type ponzi schemes.

The Bill's sponsor, State Representative Tom Grady (R- Naples) is quoted as saying the following in a recent interview:

“Our economy will grow stronger if investors have confidence in our financial markets. By increasing the tools available to the state to prosecute violators of our securities laws, we protect investors and foster needed trust in the system."

House Bill 483 gives additional power to the Office of Financial Regulation for prosecution of violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. Whistleblowers will also be compensated with rewards for original information regarding money laundering investigations.

Governor Crist issued the following statement on House Bill 483:

“Investors play a critical role in the success of Florida’s economy, and this legislation helps ensure their hard-earned money is protected. I am committed to maintaining the integrity of our markets. Enhancing protection measures and oversight is the best way to crack down on fraudulent activity and increase consumer confidence.”

HB 483 - Investor Protections received overwhelming support from legislators. This Bill provides the following Investor Protections according to the House of Representatives site:

Expands jurisdiction of Office of Statewide Prosecution to investigate & prosecute specified additional offenses; revises various provisions of law relating to viatical settlements; exempts specified transactions in viatical settlement investments from specified registration requirements; revises registration requirements; excludes post judgment interest from payments from fund; expands class of persons related to or associated with applicant or registrant for which specified violations may result in adverse actions taken against registrations; requires Financial Services Commission to adopt rules relating to disciplinary guidelines & temporary disqualification; authorizes OFR to apply to court for specified orders; specifies additional investigation & enforcement authority of AG; authorizes AG to recover costs & attorney fees; authorizes OFR use of such information in prosecution actions; increases amount of specified administrative fines; authorizes OFR to bar specified persons from submitting applications or notifications for license or registration under specified circumstances; revises criteria for prohibited practices relating to commodities; authorizes FDLE to enter into agreements to pay rewards for specified information; expands subject matter jurisdiction of statewide grand jury to include specified additional offenses.

If you have original information regarding Investor fraud you may want to contact an attorney to discuss your rights. If you want to learn more on Securities litigation and your rights as a whistleblower, visit the following pages on Securities Litigation and Stockbroker fraud.

Today, I came across an interesting article from Bloomberg News on the Arbitration debate over financial investments. It was a Commentary written by Bloomberg News Columnist Susan Antilla entitled "Obama Fails to End Kangaroo Courts for Investors".

In the article, Susan highlights the following statement from President Obama:

The Securities and Exchange Commission “should study the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in investor contracts,” and then pursue legislation if appropriate,

At the end of the Commentary, she adds:

That argument is more bogus today than ever, because cases increasingly involve the mass-marketing of financial products by multiple brokerage firms.

“The concern is that the industry arbitrator could be on a panel telling others that ‘everybody does it,’” says Brian Smiley, the president of Piaba.

And in a closed justice system where nobody can come to court and watch, who would ever know?

The Arbitration Commentary gives food for thought and highlights the key issues, but it is hard to argue over, which side Susan is on in the Arbitration argument. She makes her point very clear on the issue.

It is safe to say that after losing a loved one, a widow has a lot on their plate, However, this loss does not mean that Financial Advisors can ignore them or mismanage their account. A recent study by Allianz Life found that

About 44% of widows are inclined to obtain financial advice in new ways, and that 70% of those using financial advisers considered firing their advisers in the first three years after their husbands' deaths.

This tragic loss does not give Financial Advisers the right to prey upon Widows with risky financial investments, mismanagement of funds or simply ignoring the widow altogether.

Five simple steps that a widow can use for Financial Guidance and respect from Financial Advisors include:

Step one: Deal with your emotional needs first after the death of your spouse. Having a clear mind and perspective is key before making major decisions,

Step two: Organize your finances and make a budget. Looking at your entire financial picture allows you to see what you need financially to live on.

Step three: Calculate your net worth. Take a look at all of your assets, investments, stocks, home, bank accounts, bonds, and everything that is of value. Ask your Financial Advisor to give you a report of what your portfolio is worth, present value and a comparison of what it was worth when your husband was alive. Give them a specific time frame of when you expect this data.

Step four: Identify a few key Financial Advisers and Interview them for your business. Compare the Financial Adviser that was working with your spouse to the new ones that are recommended by reliable sources. Make a checklist of things that are important to you in an adviser. Rate each Adviser with a score for each of your checklist items and come up with a ranking system for comparison. Try to be objective and compare each adviser on the same benchmarks.

Step five: Sit down with your Chosen Financial Advisor and develop a long-term financial plan for your investments. Share with the selected Financial Advisor that they were selected after a careful screening process. This will allow them to see that you are serious about service and expect excellent Customer Service. Set aside a specific timeframe for a review, that you are comfortable with, i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi annually. Make sure that the Financial Advisor agrees to this timeframe to go over your portfolio and hold them to it. If they fail to service your account properly, go back to your list and replace them with someone that will treat you the way that you expect to be treated.

Read the book, On Your Own: A Widow's Passage to Emotional & Financial Well-being,by Alexandra Armstrong and Mary R. Donahue for more information on how a Widow can take charge of their life and finances without being taken advantage of by a Financial Advisor. The book retails for under $20 on Amazon and other online retailers.

If you are a Widow, please note that you are not alone, According to an article on the subject from Investment News, nearly 800,000 women become widows each year. There is much comfort in numbers. Join a support group for women that are recent widows. You may find that sharing your experiences present, past and future can help you cope with your loss.

To learn more on other ways for Widows to protect themselves against Investor fraud, view some of the following Financial Services pages on Stockbroker fraud, Securities Issues, or dispute resolutions.

A Florida Judge ordered former Pinnacle Business Management, Inc Chairman, Jeffrey G. Turrino to pay $9.95 Million and permanently banned him from Penny Stock Offerings.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, entered an order of civil contempt against defendant Jeffrey G. Turino.

In her ruling, Judge Kovachevich found that Turino acted in flagrant and repeated contempt of the penny stock bar back from December 2003. This was in connection with a previous Commission enforcement action stemming back from May 2002. In that action, the Commission alleged that Turino, one of his associates, and the penny stock company they operated, Pinnacle Business Management, Inc., had committed securities fraud by making materially false and misleading statements about Pinnacle’s business operations. This action was settled by Turino with a civil penalty of $60,000, consent to a permanent fraud injunction, and a penny stock bar for five years.

Allen Stanford, Chairman of Stanford Group holdings, surrendered to authorities yesterday, will be officially charged by SEC today in Court. He is accused of stealing over $8 billion from investors.

According to Bloomberg News and The Washington Post,

The SEC lawsuit indicates in its compmplaint that Stanford International Bank misled investors by touting "improbable, if not impossible" returns for investments.

The SEC alleges that the Stanford Group Co. sold $8 billion of certificates of deposit in Stanford International Bank. The financial advisors of the company misled clients to believe that their money would be placed primarily in easily sold financial instruments monitored by over 20 analysts and closely audited by Antiguan regulators.

Instead Stanford and the company's chief financial officer managed most of the portfolio and invested a substantial amount of it in real estate and private equity.

Today, marks a milestone in the life of The Law Planet Blog. This is our 100th Post our Blog covering Securities, Stock Fraud and Employment/Labor Law issues.

It is also a great day for Senior Investors. A series of Grass roots campaigns will be launched in Florida, Colorado, Vermont, North Carolina, and Washington state to protect seniors from investment fraud. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) outlined new initiatives aimed at protecting and educating investors. The initiatives include a national advertising campaign and a 60-minute video, "Tricks of the Trade: Outsmarting Investment Fraud."

The video is part of the FINRA Foundation's new "fraud-fighting" education series for investors, which also includes in-person workshops and events in five states across the country this year: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington state. These state-wide campaigns, which will be expanded to five additional states next year, are being presented in partnership with AARP, state securities regulators and other fraud-fighting organizations to help senior citizens identify and steer clear of investment fraud. A central feature of these campaigns is the presentation of an educational curriculum that has been tested and shown to reduce seniors' susceptibility to investment fraud by over 50 percent among participants.

Stay tuned for more information on Investor protections to fight against fraud for Seniors.