CFPB and SEC Jointly Issue a Consumer Advisory and Investor Bulletin on Diminished Capacity

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Office for Older Americans and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education recently issued a bulletin to help investors and consumers understand the potential impact of diminished capacity on their ability to make financial decisions and to encourage investors and consumers to plan for possible diminished financial capacity well before it happens.

The advisory bulletin makes the following recommendations to help avoid or minimize problems: (1) organize your important documents (this includes bank and brokerage statements and account information, mortgage and credit information, insurance policies, pension and other retirement benefit summaries, Social Security payment information and contact information for financial and medical professionals); (2) provide your financial professionals with trusted emergency contacts; (3) consider creating a durable financial power of attorney; (4) think about involving a trusted relative, friend, or professional; (5) keep things up to date; and (6) speak up if something goes wrong (i.e. if you ever think someone is taking advantage of you, or that you’ve been the victim of a fraud)

With regard to helping others who may have diminished capacity, the CFPB and SEC make the following recommendations: (1) have an open conversation about investments and other financial matters sooner rather than later; (2) help your relative or friend with managing finances; (3) if your family member or friend has named you to manage money or property, understand your responsibilities and how you can protect your loved one from financial exploitation. 

Finally, if you are someone who has been asked by a loved one or friend to help out with his or her finances, the CFBP and SEC notes you can do the following to help: (1) help with ongoing financial responsibilities (you may need to take on immediate tasks, such as helping to pay bills, arranging for benefit claims, preparing tax returns, or helping with investment decisions); (2) review their investment portfolio; (3) assess the riskiness of their investment portfolio; (4) contact their investment professional.

How Do I Find a Lawyer for a Securities Litigation or Arbitration?

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), "You should consider hiring an attorney to represent you during the arbitration or mediation proceedings to provide direction and advice. Even if you do not choose to hire an attorney, brokerage firms are generally represented by an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, some law schools provide legal representation through securities arbitration clinics."

I agree.  At the very least "consider" hiring a lawyer if you have a securities or brokerage firm, insurance, or similar dispute!

How do you find a suitable lawyer?  For customers and brokerage firm employees, a great place to start is the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA).  PIABA's website includes a "FIND AN ATTORNEY" search tool that allows searches by state or zip code. 

Other options, suggested by FINRA on its website include:

  • Consult with your lawyer, if you have one, about your options and whether you need a lawyer who specializes in securities arbitration or litigation.
  • Call several bar associations to obtain a varied listing of lawyers in your area. Many lawyers will offer to consult with you initially for free or for a minimal fee.
  • Broaden your list of potential securities lawyers by consulting directories of attorneys. The Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory can be found at many libraries or at at its website. It lists lawyers by state and jurisdictions. Some state and local bar associations also compile directories and may list attorneys according to specialty.
Other selective law directories include Chambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, and Avvo.  Attorneys are listed by location and practice area.

For customers with small claims and who are unable to afford a lawyer a number of law schools host securities law clinics.  Many of the law school clinics will only accept claims demanding less than $100,000 for claimants with a household income below $100,000, or where the customer has been unable to find counsel.  It never hurts to ask, however, since clinics offer pro bono (free) representation -- customers who may qualify and have a claim should consider representation through a clinic.  FINRA lists all the law school clinics here.

Obama Administration Proposes Rules to Tighten Broker Standards for Retirement

Friday, May 15, 2015


One source notes that the Department of Labor is moving full steam ahead with a proposed fiduciary standard for anyone giving retirement investment advice. As the Wall Street Journal notes, at present, brokers’ recommendations only have to be “suitable.”

The proposed rule would require financial advisers dealing with retirement savings to do so in their clients' best interests and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. It also calls for several prohibited transaction exemptions that would allow retirement advisers and service providers to continue arrangements like revenue sharing and fees.

The rules come as individuals have become increasingly responsible for their own retirement security as traditional pensions have mostly disappeared in favor of IRAs and 401(k)s. Such products either didn’t exist or were brand new when the department wrote its rules for retirement advice 40 years ago but now contain about $11 trillion in assets.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez notes that the rule is “intended to provide guardrails but not straitjackets, so we know consumers are getting advice that is in their best interest.

The DOL sent its proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review on Feb. 23, which typically can take up to 90 days. The proposed rule is now being released for a 75-day public comment period, followed by a public hearing and further public commentary.

 

 

Former Old Town, Maine Mill Owner Faces SEC Fraud Charges

Monday, April 6, 2015

As the Bangor Daily News and other media outlets reported recently, Lynn Tilton -- the force of nature behind a brief ray of hope for Maine's Old Town paper mill -- is now facing Securities Exchange Commission fraud charges.   Tilton's firm had tried but failed to breath new life into the Old Town mill and, ultimately, sold the facility as reported here.

The SEC's press release says, "The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges against an investment adviser and her New York-based firms accused of hiding the poor performance of loan assets in three collateralized loan obligation (CLO) funds they manage." 

Tilton has responded, as Reuters reports, by suing the SEC over alleged constitutional defects in that agency's administrative justice system.



White House: "conflicted advice leads to large and economically meaningful costs for Americans’ retirement savings."

Monday, March 2, 2015

In a report issued in February 2015 the White House concluded that conflicted investment advice harms investors to the tune of billions of dollars.  The White House estimates losses at between $8 billion and $17 billion or between 1 percent and 0.5 percent of the $1.7 trillion dollars of IRA assets under management.


The report suggests that mandated disclosures are not a solution. They may actually backfire by providing a false sense that advice is unbiased.  Disclosures are not read by investors.  They are often are not understood.  They are in fine print or in legalese and may not be understood.   


The report also suggests that the American public receives much less protection against conflicts of interest than our neighbors in Canada, Europe, and India.


This report supports a push by the White House, as widely reported, to have the Department of Labor move forward with rules that will impose a fiduciary standard on all stock brokers handling retirement accounts.  

Maine Securities Regulator Testifies Before U.S. Senate Committee on Aging; Touts Success of Maine Program to Combat Senior Financial Exploitation

Thursday, February 26, 2015


As the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) reports, on February 4, 2015 Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw testified before the U.S. Special Committee on Aging. Shaw emphasized the difficulty in addressing senior financial exploitation, noting that many elderly individuals are vulnerable, socially isolated and distant from family and other supportive networks. According to Shaw, financial exploitation is one of the most serious issues facing seniors.

Of note, Shaw discussed the approach Maine is taking to address this growing issue. In particular, Shaw noted the success of Maine’s “Senior$afe” program (a partnership between the Maine Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Aging and Disability Services, the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, the Maine Bankers Association, the Maine Credit Union League, Maine’s Legal Services for the Elderly, and Maine’s five Area Agencies on Aging). The “Senior$afe” program is a training and outreach effort intended to increase identification and reporting of elder financial exploitation by financial institutions. It provides training for tellers, other front-line staff and managers on the red flags of elder abuse and financial exploitation.

According to Shaw, over 200 bank and credit union employees in Maine have received Senior$afe training. The program has been so successful that Senior$afe program materials have been shared with NASAA for revision and co-branding so that it can be made available to NASAA members in the United States, Canada and Mexico. According to one source, Shaw “strongly believe[s]” the program could be a model for other states.

According to U.S. Senator Susan Collins, “Maine is on the cutting edge of helping to combat financial abuse of seniors though programs like the innovative Senior$afe program, which is the first of its kind in the nation.”

Shaw’s testimony can be viewed by video by clicking here.

Arbitration versus Litigation: Factors to Consider

Wednesday, February 25, 2015


 ARBITRATION v. LITIGATION: Pros & Cons
How do they compare?   What factors might you consider if you have a choice whether to go to U.S. state or federal court or pursue arbitration? 

Litigation
Arbitration
Cost
High.  Litigation is the most expensive dispute resolution process as a result of extensive pre-trial discovery, motion practice, and formal process.
Moderate.  Arbitration is generally less expensive than litigation, although unlike litigation, the arbitrator’s fees are paid by the parties (Judges are paid by taxpayers).  
Discovery
Expansive. Ability to uncover vast amounts of information.
Limited.  Most arbitration rules favor limited discovery, so opportunities for depositions and subpoenas to third-parties are limited.
Dispositive Motions
Allowed.  Courts often dismiss claims prior to trial.
Limited.  Many arbitration rules limit or disfavor dispositive motions.
Speed
Slow.  Timing of resolution based on court’s schedule, cases may be set for hearing on short notice.
Faster.  Arbitration is usually faster, and a date certain for hearing is standard; greater  scheduling flexibility.
Predictability
Unpredictable.  Juries can be unpredictable.   The parties cannot select the judge and have limited ability to select the jury. 
More predictable. Arbitrator is agreed upon by both parties and can be an expert in the subject matter.
Appeal Rights
Yes.  Full rights of appeal. Decisions by judges are explained.
Very limited.  Arbitration awards are subject to appeal only on very narrow grounds.  Decisions may not be explained, making it even more difficult to appeal.
Evidence
Formal.  Rules of evidence apply.
Informal.  Rules of evidence do not apply.  Evidence can be introduced in arbitration that would be prohibited by a court. 
Privacy
Public.  The Courts are public; information obtained through litigation is often public too.
Private.  Information disclosed and outcome can be confidential if agreed upon by both parties.
Forum Selection
Limited.  Limited by the events giving rise to the dispute and where the parties are located.
Flexible.  Parties can select where to hold the arbitration regardless of where they live or where the events giving rise to the action took place.