The investor rights law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. has launched an investigation regarding securities sales practice abuses potentially suffered by investors of Atlas Resource securities. On July 27, 2016, Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Atlas”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Pursuant to a Restructuring Support Agreement dated July 25, 2016 and proposed pre-packaged plan of reorganization, holders of Atlas’ limited partnership units will receive no recovery and on the bankruptcy Plan Effective Date all preferred limited partnership units and common limited partnership units will be cancelled without the receipt of any consideration. Limited partnership interests like those issued by Atlas are typically high risk ventures suitable only for the most sophisticated investors. If you purchased Atlas securities based upon the recommendation of a broker and/or brokerage firm and you believe such was not suitable for your investment needs and/or that you were not provided all information necessary for you to make an informed investment decision, my firm would like to speak to you about your investment. The following is a list of limited partnerships issued by Atlas and/or affiliates over the last six years: Atlas Resource Partners, L.P. Atlas Resources Series 31-2011 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2010 (A) L.P. Atlas Resources Series 32-2012 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2010 (B) L.P. Atlas Resources Series 33-2013 L.P. Atlas Resources Public #19-2011 (C) L.P. Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 L.P. Atlas Resources Series 30-2011 L.P. If you are an Atlas Resources limited partnership investor and are interested in learning more about your legal rights and remedies, please contact Richard A. Nervig (firstname.lastname@example.org) at 760-451-2300. If you email, please include your phone number.
Eleventh Circuit Rules Investor Claim Of Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention Does NOT Require Existence Of A Broker Client Relationship. Late last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Martha F. Owens et al. v. Stifel Nicolaus and Company, Inc., et al., 2016 WL 3033158 (11th Cir. 2016) reversed a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Stifel relating to various claims asserted by the Plaintiffs including one based upon negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The case arose from the solicitation and sale of certain promissory notes issued by a company called Cardiac Network, Inc. (CNI) by Stifel broker Anthony Fisher. CNI defaulted on its obligations to investors including Plaintiffs Donald Pope and Refuse Materials, Inc. who invested approximately $345,000 in CNI securities. Fisher, was ultimately fired by Stifel for among other things engaging private securities transactions involving CNI notes — a practice commonly referred to in the securities industry as “selling away”. Plaintiffs Pope and RMI who were also not formal clients of Stifel, asserted various claims against Stifel arising from the losses they sustained in CNI notes including inter alia, a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by Stifel ruled that “… Pope and RMI “failed to establish that SNC owes a duty to exercise any degree of care toward non-clients,” [and] concluded that Pope and RMI’s negligence claims failed as a matter of law.” On appeal however the Eleventh Circuit ruled the trial court’s decision on this issue to be error finding that: Neither the lawyer who runs a red light nor the accounting firm that fails to warn of a slippery floor could escape general tort liability by arguing that the plaintiff was not a client. RMI’s negligence claim against SNC is not that SNC negligently gave RMI bad investment advice.4 Rather, RMI claims that SNC negligently hired, supervised, and retained Fisher, a fraudster who used his employment with SNC to gain RMI’s trust and thereby perpetuate his scheme. The availability of this tort theory does not necessarily require a broker-client relationship. [emphasis added]. Although an unpublished opinion, the decision is significant as it confirms the general principal that securities broker dealers may not limit their tort liability to only those with whom they have a formal broker customer relationship.
Goldman Sachs MLP Energy Renaissance Fund “GER” (U.S.: NYSE) The GER fund has lost (74.2%) between September 26, 2014 and March 9, 2016. Newly formed in 2014 with no prior operating history, GER sought to concentrate its investments in the energy sector, including the oil and gas industry. With oil and gas prices now at record lows however, investors in GER and other oil and gas ventures may now be incurring substantial investment losses. If you invested in GER based upon the advice of a broker or investment adviser and you believe such may have been inappropriate for your investment needs or sold to you in a misleading way you may have the right to recover your investment losses. The law firm of Richard A. Nervig, P.C. represents individual investors who have suffered financial losses as a result of investment fraud or misconduct, Ponzi schemes, unsuitable investment recommendations, or abusive securities sales practices. If you have investment losses in GER or any other investment in excess of $100,000 please call my office at (800) 837-0441 for a free consultation.
Wall Street’s Latest Bad Deal for Main Street Investors: Non-Traded Business Development Companies (“BDC’s”) First it was Non-Traded Real Estate Investment Trust (Non Traded REITS) and now comes Non-Traded Business Development Companies (“BDC’s”). Originally created in 1980, BDC’s are touted as high yield products with annual payouts of about 8%, diversified assets and flow through tax treatment. BDC’s seek to generate investor returns by making high interest loans to equally high risk corporate borrowers – the types of borrowers who if subjected to bond rating scrutiny would in most instances be classified as “junk”. As an incentive for brokers and broker dealers to sell these products, some BDC’s charge sales loads of 10%. These sales charges also do not include in some instances an additional 2% charge for offering expenses. Investors in such circumstances are then left with having only 88cents out of every $1 invested actually going towards their investment and further result in investors having to generate a return of 12% just to break even. If you invested in a BDC based upon the advice of a broker or investment adviser and you believe such may have been inappropriate for your investment needs or sold to you in a misleading way you may have the right to recover your investment losses or to rescind your original purchase. For a free consultation regarding your situation please call my office at (800) 837-0441.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SECURITIES BROKER NAMED IN FEDERAL INDICTMENT FOR ALLEGEDLY PARTICIPATING IN STOCK SCHEME INVOLVING SHARES OF VGTEL, INC. Sheik Firdosh Khan a/k/a Abida Khan a registered securities broker affiliated with Ameritas Investment Corp. between May 2002 and December 2013 was named in a federal indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for participating in an investment scheme involving shares of VGTEL, Inc. (“VGTL”) stock. According to the indictment filed January 5, 2016, Khan and others solicited in excess of $10million from investors through false and misleading representations. Victims of the scheme include residents of Riverside County. Shares of other securities also solicited by Defendants in the scheme include Q Lotus Holdings, Inc., Haddad-Wylie Industries, LLC and Cassidy Ventures, Inc. In addition to the indictment, Khan has also on behalf of a company called Ashira Consulting, LLC filed a FINRA arbitration claim in September 2015 against COR Clearing, LLC, Christopher Cervino and Rafael Santiago seeking to recover total losses related to the VGTL scheme of $495,000. FINRA Arb.#15-02385. And in a further related matter, Ms Khan entered into a Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for among other things engaging in private securities transactions and making untrue statements. See, In re: Sheik F. Abida Khan, FINRA AWC# 2015045211101 (Nov. 2015). ANYONE WHO HAS DONE BUSINESS WITH KHAN IS URGED TO CONTACT THE LAW FIRM OF RICHARD A. NERVIG, P.C. FOR A FREE CONSULTATION.800-837-0441