Stock Broker Fraud Blog

Merrill Lynch & Co. has publicly opened the door to what many believe could be an even larger problem to the credit markets than the widely publicized sub-prime mortgage debacle - the little understood and sledom discussed "swaps" market.

Perhaps the world’s most high-profile financial firm, Merrill - itself a frequent complainer about lawsuits – has filed a monster of a suit in a New York court against bond insurer Security Capital Assurance Ltd. (SCA). Merrill Lynch sued the insurer alleging it failed to honor seven contracts promising to cover losses on $3.1 billion in "credit swaps," after which SCA filed a countersuit against Merrill for $28 million. .

Merrill claims SCA walked away from signed insurance contracts guaranteeing Merrill against losses. SCA counterclaims that Merrill broke a stipulation in one of the contracts which entitles SCA to terminate all the agreements and collect damages. (Perhaps Merrill is getting a taste of what many us have experienced: an insurance company happy to collect premiums but which later relies on a technicality to avoid payment.)

Under the contracts, SCA says it was granted "control rights" over the CDOs, meaning it had control over decisions affecting the investments. SCA alleges that "Merrill Lynch made the decision to blatantly ignore its prior commitments,” when, in a “rushed campaign” to dump risk from its books, Merrill Lynch promised such control rights to others.

Yet, some believe the greater importance of this suit is that it reveals the tip of the iceberg regarding the exposure of the world’s financial institutions to the multi-trillion dollar “swaps” market. The swap contracts in question were agreements to cover missed payments on collateralized-debt obligations, but an untold amount of “swaps” agreements outstanding cover more possibilities and circumstances than most of us can imagine!

Because the “swaps market” is almost totally unregulated and involves agreements eerily similar to those engineered at Enron, few publicly venture a guess as to the gravety of the exposure to the financial markets should such swap agreements simply began to unwind.

The law firm of Shepherd, Smith, Edwards & Kantas is committed to assisting investors to recover losses in their accounts at securities firms. If you or someone you know is a victim of securities fraud, contact us today to arrange a free confidential consultation with one of our attorneys.

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin is subpoenaing Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith Inc., UBS Securities, and Bank of America Investments because it wants information about the companies’ involvement in selling auction-rate market securities to retail investors. The companies are all registered Massachusetts broker dealers. Galvin issued the subpoenas on behalf of the Massachusetts Securities Division.

The division wants to determine whether the firms followed proper procedures in letting Massachusetts investors know of the possibilities that their investments could become illiquid. The state is also trying to determine what role big investment banks played in causing the auctions to fail and whether the investments sold to retail investors were suitable.

Many of the investors that bought auction market securities cannot get their money because the securities are frozen. Small business owners and individual investors have been especially hurt by the failures in the auction market because of the subprime mortgage collapse.

Galvin says he is not investigating why the securities are frozen but whether the investment firms were in compliance with their sales practices and in disclosing the necessary information to investors.

In February, Galvin subpoenaed Calamos Financial Services, Blackrock Financial Management, Pioneer Investment Management, Nuveen Asset Management, MFS Investment Management, John Hancock Advisers, Allianz Global Investors, Evergreen Investment Management, and Eaton Vance for information about the asset management companies’ dealings with closed-end funds following the auction failures in the auction-rate securities market.

The stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards is committed to helping investors recover losses brought about by securities fraud. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today to request your free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Galvin issues subpoenas in debt securities probe, Boston.com, March 28, 2008

Another Kick in the ARS, CFO.com, February 22, 2008

Massachusetts Securities Division

In a note to investors, Wachovia Securities Analyst Doug Sipkin commented on the state of the leading Wall Street securities firms in light of the worsening global credit crisis.

Sipkin blamed the “The failure of Bear Stearns” on a “management issue” rather than a “market issue.” JP Morgan Chase & Co. recently purchased Bear Stearns, the fifth largest securities company, for $236 million—that’s $2/share—a 90% market drop in just two days. The securities firm ran out of money after clients took away funds.

Sipkin, however, reassured investors that the action taken by the Federal Reserve to reduce emergency lending rates will keep the other four big securities firms in business.

The Wachovia analyst says that worries about Lehman Brothers are misguided and that the bank has sufficient liquidity to keep business running. Sipkin cited Lehman’s “superior management” and “superior business.”

Lehman and Goldman Sachs are expected to garner new business from the Bear sale. Sipkin said Goldman will likely benefit from “migrating prime brokerage balances,” while Lehman would likely pick up “material market share" in mortgages.

Morgan Stanley, said Sipkin, seems to be weathering the crisis because it has its asset management and brokerage businesses.

Sipkin pointed to Merrill Lynch as appearing to be the weakest of the top Wall Street firms—but said that it would also likely stay afloat, considering that its balance sheet had the highest leverage.

Related Web Resources:

Ahead of the Bell: Investment Banks, Chron.com/AP, March 18, 2008

US stock market drops as Bear Stearns sold for $2/share, Reuters, March 17, 2008

JP Morgan Shares to Acquire Bear Stearns, Bear Stearns

If you have been the victim of investor fraud, you are entitled to the recovery of your lost investment. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today to schedule your free consultation with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today that five major brokerage firms have agreed to pay fines totaling $2.4 million for supervision violations and improper mutual fund sales to thousands of investors. These firms must take remedial steps to prevent such actions in the future and pay amounts estimated to exceed $25 million to their clients because of such practices.

According to FINRA, the violations include sales by these firms of load securities, meaning clients were required to pay commissions, when these investors were eligible to make fund exchanges without paying commissions. FINRA’s press release states that “Class B and Class C mutual fund shares and failure to have supervisory systems designed to provide all eligible investors with the opportunity to purchase Class A mutual fund shares at net asset value (NAV) through NAV transfer programs.”

Prudential Securities must pay an $800,000 fine, UBS Financial Services, Inc. was fined $750,000 and Pruco Securities was hit for $100,000 for improper sales of Class B and Class C mutual fund shares. These firms also agreed to remediation plans that will address over 27,000 fund transactions in the accounts of 5,300 households. Merrill Lynch, Prudential Securities, UBS and Wells Fargo must take steps regarding customers who qualified for but did not receive the benefit of NAV transfer programs. It is estimated that total remediation to fhese firms' customers will exceed $25 million.

FINRA also fined Prudential Securities, UBS, and Merrill Lynch $250,000 each for failure to reasonable supervise and offer opportunities for investors to obtain sales charge waivers through NAV transfer programs. As a result of inadequate supervisory systems FINRA found that customers of Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, UBS and Prudential Securities eligible for the NAV programs incurred front-end sales loads or purchased other share classes that unnecessarily subjected them to higher fees and sales charges.

FINRA found that Wells Fargo Investments failed to have reasonable supervisory systems and procedures relating to NAV transfer programs but did not impose a fine because the firm made changes before FINRA's inquiry into the practices. FINRA said the firm had initiated a review of its mutual fund sales and acted promptly and in good faith to correct its system and procedures and had reimbursed its customers over $612,000.

"Firms have an obligation to consider all relevant factors when recommending mutual fund investments, to ensure that they recommend the share class that is most advantageous to the customer," said Susan L. Merrill, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement at FINRA. "The supervisory problems here led not only to the sales of inappropriate mutual fund share classes, but to the failure to identify special sales charge waiver programs on mutual fund purchases. We are pleased that through these settlements, millions of dollars will be returned to customers."

The securities law firm of Shepherd, Smith, Edwards and Kantas has represented thousands of institutional and individual investors nationwide with substantial claims for losses caused by wrongdoing of stockbrokers and their firms. Contact us today if you, your firm or someone you know could be the victim to arrange a free, confidential conference with one of our securities attorneys.

The city of Cleveland, Ohio is suing 21 financial institutions for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages caused by subprime lending and securitization. The defendants named in the lawsuit are:

• Deutsche Bank Trust Company
• Ameriquest Mortgage Company
• Bank of America Corporation
• The Bear Stearns Companies
• Citigroup, Inc.
• Countrywide Financial Corp.
• Credit Suisse (USA)
• Fremont General Corporation
• GMAC-RFC
• Goldman Sachs Group
• Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
• HSBC Holdings, PLC
• Indymac Bancorp., Inc.
• J.P. Morgan Chase Co.
• Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
• Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
• Morgan Stanley
• Novastar Financial Inc.
• Option One Mortgage Corporation
• Washington Mutual Inc.
• Wells Fargo & Co.

The city of Cleveland says that the defendants issued loans to people who would never have been able to pay them back and that the foreclosures were inevitable. The lawsuit says that not only did the financial institutions issue loans to ill-qualified borrowers, but they securitized the loans and used the profits to fund more subprime mortgages, make more money, and secure more borrowers.

In the past two years, Cleveland has experienced over 7,000 foreclosures. Entire city blocks have been vacated and violent crime and arson incidents have increased. 1,000 abandoned homes have been torn down. Cleveland is calling the “propagation of subprime mortgages… and the corresponding foreclosures... a public nuisance as defined by Ohio common law.

As a result, the city of Cleveland’s population was 444,000 last year—way down from its nearly one million residents in 1950. The decrease in population size has negatively affected the city’s budget.

The stockbroker law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors who have lost money due to the misconduct or negligent actions of broker-dealers and other financial institutions. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers will be happy to offer you a free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Cleveland Sues 21 Lenders Over Subprime Mortgages, Herald-Tribune, January 12, 2008

Read the Complaint (PDF)

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is subpoenaing several Wall Street firms, including Deutsche Bank AG, Merrill Lynch & Co, and Bear Stearns, for information about packaging and selling debt connect to high-risk mortgages.

Prosecutors want to look at the way investment banks review the quality of mortgages before turning them into packaged products that can be sold to investors. They also want to find out how debt is being turned into securities and learn more about the credit-rating firm-bank relationship.

This past summer, mortgage-backed securities affected by growing default and delinquency rates had high debt ratings despite the backing of loans issued to lenders.

Two hedge funds run by Bear Stearns fell apart—instigating the credit markets crisis. The collapse cost investors some $1.6 billion. The collapse cost Merrill Lynch, a big investor in the fund and other subprime mortgage securities close, to $8 billion.

The investigation will look at the way relationships among third-party due-diligence firms, mortgage companies, credit-rating firms, and securities firms and their connection to the firms’ involvement with the subprime mortgage crisis. Underwriting standards will also be reviewed.

Last month, NY Attorney General Cuomo sent subpoenas to investment banks as part of his investigation into U.S. mortgage loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among those subpoenaed.

If you are an investor who has lost money because of the misconduct of anyone in the securities industry, contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards right away. One of our securities fraud attorneys would be happy to speak with you during a free consultation. Shepherd Smith and Edwards has helped thousands of investors recover their losses.

Related Web Resources:

Wall St. firms get subprime subpoenas, CNN.com, December 5, 2007

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

Merrill Lynch

Bear Stearns

Deutsche Bank

A Florida jury has ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay $6 million to the daughters of a New Jersey philanthropist and his wife. The claims against Merrill Lynch included that its broker took advantage of the elderly couple's deteriorating mental condition in order to convert their money into investments that paid he and the firm higher commissions.

The suit also claimed the Merrill broker falsely told Mr. Rothman in three letters that the investments carried no fees or sales commissions. An attorney for the heirs said that Merill and its brokers made at least $2.5 million in fees on the Rothmans' $32 million investment in variable annuities, while the investors only made $600,000.

"The verdict is astonishing in light of the undisputed fact that the Rothmans, who were wealthy, sophisticated investors, made $10 million on the annuities at issue, and did not lose money," a Merrill spokesman said. "The verdict is unjustified by the facts and law."

The Merrill spokesman added that the firm will seek to have the verdict set aside by the court and will appeal the verdict it is not. Meanwhile, the issue of whether punitive damages may also be added to the verdict has yet to be determined by a jury.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against securities firms. We have represented investors in more than 1,000 securities cases, including many against Merrill Lynch. To learn whether we may be able to assist you with a claim contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

The New York Stock Exchange Regulation Inc. is disciplining nine companies and eight people for numerous violation. The firms disciplined include:

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith: Fined $100,000 for violating rule 123c about 480 times when it cancelled or submitted securities orders after the mandatory cutoff period.

Citigroup Global markets Inc: Find $300,000—half of this to be payed to NASDAQ; the other half to be paid to NYSE. The firm made inaccurate reports about short interest positions in securities that were listed on the NYSE.

Interactive Brokers LLC: Fined $250,000. The firm was fined for violations related to day-trading minimum balances.

HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.: Fined $500,000. Over a several year period, the firm recommended and sold CDs that were not appropriate for their targeted 1900 investors. The firm allegedly engaged in misrepresentations and withheld risks during these transactions.

UBS Securities LLC: Fined $150,000. The firm did not make disclosures in its published research reports about investment baking relationships and non-investment-banking connected compensation.

Eight individuals were also fined for numerous violations, including former securities specialist Freddie DeBoer, broker Stephen Mara, and Adam Lazarus.

DeBoer was fined $300,000 and was permanently barred because he intentionally defrauded customers involved in the sale or purchase of securities. Lazarus was barred for 30 months because of short term purchases sales that were “unauthorized and unsuitable” and involved four customer accounts. Mara was suspended for two weeks and censured because of his involvement in a “physical altercation” on the exchange floor

A number of other people were permanently barred because they failed to reveal that they had criminal records and for recordkeeping violations.

NYSE Regulation can discipline brokerage firms and brokers for broker misconduct. However, you if you want to recover any investments you may have lost because of the illegal actions of any member of the securities industry, your best bet is to retain the services of an experienced stockbroker fraud attorney. Over the years, Shepherd Smith and Edwards has recovered the losses of thousands of investors throughout the United States. Let us help you.

Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and ask for your free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

NYSE Regulation

HSBC Securities

Merrill Lynch

Citigroup

Interactive Brokers

UBS Securities

Merrill Lynch will soon report third quarter earnings which analysts have revised downward. An analyst at competitor Goldman Sachs says that Merrill’s earnings for the third quarter will be about $1.80 per share, down from $1.95 and lowered Merrill's stock price target to $94 from $108. The Goldman analyst predicted that Merrill will have $4 billion in write-downs, primarily from the fixed income division, resulting in a net loss of $1.5 billion for the quarter.

Other analysts' expectations were even even lower: Fox Pitt Kelton's analyst lowered earnings per share estimate for Merrill to $1.20, from a previous estimate of $1.91, “while noting that forecasting confidence is low in periods such as these.” He also expected the firm to experience $3.5 billion “in gross negative marks and realized losses” on leveraged loans, CDOs, and mortgages resulting in $2.2 billion in net losses and attributes the more positive net loss estimate to “$700 million in hedging gains; $500 million in loan fees; and $100 million in gains on liability marks.”

Morgan Stanley reported last week that it suffered a 17 percent drop in profit compared to the third quarter last year, earning $1.44, about ten cents below analysts’ estimates, with loan losses of $1 billion the culprit.

Bear Stearns has been center stage in mortgage related investment problems which have hit the investment community. That firm reported last week that it experienced a 61 percent drop in profits compared to the third quarter last year. This was mostly caused by multi-million dollar losses in mortgage focused hedge funds.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs, beat all analyst’s earnings per share predictions by more than $1.50, with $6.13 earnings per share in the third quarter, claiming that credit hedging had mitigated the firms loss. Lehman Brothers reported better than expected earnings of $1.54 per share despite $700 million in losses related to the credit crunch.

In the wake of the mortgage backed securities meltdown, Congress is investigating credit rating agencies over how and why ratings on such securities failed to reflect the danger. The SEC Chairman testified that the SEC is examining whether agencies including Moodys Investors Service and Standard & Poors were “unduly influenced” by issuers and underwriters that paid for the credit ratings. A union pension fund is suing the Moody’s credit rating agency over its “excessively high ratings” of bonds backed by subprime mortgages.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against securities firms. We have represented investors in more than 1,000 securities cases, including against Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns. To learn whether might assist you with a claim contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Former Merrill Lynch employee Hydie Sumner sued that firm saying she was sexually harassed. She was represented by lawyer Linda Freidman. In 2004, a panel of three NASD arbitrators decided Hydie was right and awarded her $2.2 million. They also forced Merrill to reinstate her.

Meanwhile, an email was allegedly sent to Merill Lynch by Ms. Sumner’s attorney Linda Freidman, reportedly at Sumner’s direction, questioning Merrill’s ethics for employing “a man like [Blas] Catalani,” Sumner’s Merrill Lynch manager. According to Catalini, this defamed him and caused him to be fired, his clients were then distributed to other brokers at Merrill and he found it “extremely difficult” to becoming re-employed in the securities industry.

Catalini therefore filed a lawsuit against Sumner and her lawyer, claiming defamation. Not to be outdone, Hydie Sumner then filed a counterclaim against Catalini claiming that he damaged her reputation by reporting that she was the reason he was terminated by Merrill Lynch.

Making things more complicated, Catalini also filed suit against Merrill Lynch claiming sexual discrimination, saying that firm terminated him to make room for Sumner. The claims against Merrill have now been moved to arbitration.

How much damage has Catilini actually suffered? Apparently, he is now managing a seven broker private client unit in San Antonio for Dallas-based Southwest Securities. Reportedly, a spokesman for Southwest, Jim Bowman, stated: “We think there’s a growing market in [San Antonio] and we’re trying to grow that office.” Southwest Securities did not comment on Catalani’s ongoing lawsuit(s).

Who is the victim of what, when, why and to whom? Hard to say. But if you are keeping score: Hydie and her lawyer are a couple million ahead, Catalani is apparently doing well in River City, Merrill has already earned a couple of billion this year. I just wonder when anyone has the time to take care of investors - you know - the clients.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards has represented thousands of investors nationwide in claims against securities brokers and their firms. If you, your company or pension fund, or someone you know has been harmed by fraud, negligence or other wrongdoing by those in the securities industry contact us today to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Usually lawsuits must be filed within a few years after the wrongful acts, or when one knew or should have known of the wrongdoing. For example, federal and most state securities laws require lawsuits to be filed by 2 or 3 years after the problem is known or made public, but no later than 5 years in any event.

However, if a class action is filed on behalf of shareholders, this “tolls” the limit for filing a case for those the case seeks to represent. If, for example, if a shareholder decides to “opt out” of the class action, or it is later decided the class action can not be maintained, the “window” for such shareholders to file their own cases remains open. (Caution: The remaining time to file a case may then be quite short.)

WorldCom Inc. bondholders were in this position. A class action was filed, including a class of bondholders. Some of these bondholders decided to file their own case before the class was “certified” (when the court decides whether the class members have claims common to all of them, etc.) Using strange reasoning, the federal judge presiding over their case decided that, because these bondholders did not wait for the class to be certified, they could not use the tolling benefit of the class action. Because the case was otherwise filed too late, it was dismissed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed and reversed that decision. (In re WorldCom Securities Litigation, 2d Cir., No. 05-6979-cv, 7/26/07). The appeals court said that the initiation of a class action puts defendants on notice of the claims, whether or not plaintiffs choose to become part of the class and whether or not they file their cases before the class is certified.

Victims of securities fraud are often included in class actions without their knowledge. Often they are notified of class actions years later. Either way, class actions can keep the window open to file lawsuits for as long as a decade. Currently Enron shareholders await word from the U.S. Supreme Court whether the recent dismissal of their case against Merrill Lynch and others will become final. If so, they could individually or in small groups sue Merrill Lynch and the other defendants. All Enron shareholders should already be in contact with an attorney.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents victims of securities fraud. If you, your company or pension fund, or someone you know lost in Enron, it is worthwhile to learn whether it is too late to act. For more information contact us today to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be fired after discovering his ethnicity. Merrill is currently defending a suit filed in court by another Iranian who has also accused the firm of discrimination.

In an unusually lengthy decision, the securities arbitration panel awarded Fariborz Todd Zojaji $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The arbitrators explained that Merrill Lynch defamed Mr. Zojaji in a required exit disclosure form (Form U-5), which "destroyed claimant's ability to become employed in the securities industry."

This language may cause the award to be undone, since it was recently determined that brokerage firms have total immunity for statements made in such disclosures. Yet, the standard for vacating arbitration awards is quite high and a court could let the decision stand if it determines the arbitrators could have decided the case for any other reason. It is also possible the arbitrators heard evidence that the derogatory statements made in the U-5 were stated orally or in writing elsewhere, thus not be protected by the privilege.

The panel said an internal investigation of Zojaji was "so reckless and wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard and indifference to the rights of claimant." It also described that Mr. Zojaji, a broker in suburban Miami had been on a management track before his former manager relegated him to a reduced role after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In November 2004, Mr. Zojaji was fired on his manager’s charges he made unauthorized trades in two clients' accounts and broke the firm's privacy policy by allowing his wife to act as a translator during a phone call with a client who spoke Spanish.

Such determinations may keep the award viable even if the defamation claims are determined to be “manifest disregard for the law” by the arbitrators. While “manifest disregard” is not one of the statutory routes of overturning an arbitration award, it can be used in most jurisdictions as a “common law” reason to vacate an award. If the award is vacated, Mr. Zojaji would need to then file a new claim in arbitration to be determined by different arbitrators.

NASD securities arbitrators are not required to give reasons for their awards, which many lawyers would like to see changed. However, Mr. Zojaji’s and his lawyer are likely wishing the three arbitrators had simply awarded him the money without any discussion. It is likely that the parties will resolve the issue for a lesser amount rather than face lengthy litigation, and possibly additional arbitration to arrive at a final result.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against members of the securities industry. We do not represent brokerage firms but we often represent brokers who are victims of the conduct of brokerage firms. Whether client or broker, if you have a claim against a financial firm contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney and Charles Schwab are being sued for claims they improperly directed their clients's funds into lower paying deposit accounts at affiliate banks, enabling those banks to reap billions in extra profits. Attorneys for investors seek permission to add Wachovia, based on "sweep" accounts it will receive from AG Edwards in an impending merger.

Details of the suit, filed in January but amended last month, had not previously been reported. Bank deposit sweep programs “put the broker in a very conflicted position” said an attorney for the investors recently, adding “this is not what they should be doing as financial advisers.”

The claim states that the firms are positioning themselves as objective financial advisers, but send their customers' funds into bank deposits paying far less than market rates, adding that the firms disclose to clients that more profitable accounts are available, but bury the disclosures in documents while failing to mention the magnitude of their profits.

Merrill’s savings bank, for example, holds $55 billion in deposits from Merrill’s customers, plus other assets, and earned over $2 billion last year, confirms Jon Holtaway, managing director of Danielson Associates Inc., a bank consulting firm in Rockville, Maryland. He added that Merrill earns a net interest margin of 3.6% - 6 to 7 times as much as the 0.5% to 0.6% firms make on money merket funds.

The suit claims that most of the firms' banks initially paid interest rates competitive with money market funds, but changed to a "tiered" rate structure with yields of 1% or less to smaller customers. Morgan Stanley rolled out its program in 2005, with deposits growing by 30 times to $16.4 billion by February 2007, according to company reports.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards is a securities law firm which represents investors nationwide in claims against investment firms. To learn whether our firm ca