Eric E. Ludin manages the Securities Claims division of Tucker & Ludin P.A. Attorney Eric Ludin has been handling these cases for 17 years representing brokerage firm customers throughout the United States and Europe. He has lectured and published articles on the topic of securities claims and is a member of the Public Investors Bar Association, a national organization of attorneys representing investors.
The law firm of Tucker & Ludin handles claims that brokerage firm customers might have against their broker. Not all client losses in the market can be recovered from the broker/dealer. However, this firm is experienced in assessing the merits of potential claims and pursuing a recovery of client losses.
There are many reasons why a client may be able to recover losses incurred in the stock market. Often a broker will make recommendations that are not suitable for their customer in light of their financial situation and needs. If the decision to buy, sell or hold unsuitable securities results in losses to the customer, this firm may be able to help. We will also study your claim to determine whether the broker violated any State or Federal laws, whether they made unauthorized trades, churned your account or otherwise breached duties owed to their customer.
Pursuing these types of claims can be time consuming and expensive. However, we will handle your case as quickly and efficiently as possible without sacrificing results. Usually we will be able to represent you on a contingent fee basis with your only obligation being payment of costs.
Announcement: Press release
FINRA RULES IN FAVOR OF CLIENT OF TUCKER & LUDIN AGAINST SPENCER INTERNATIONAL ADVISORS, INC. AND SCOTT A. SPENCER
October 2, 2009
In a unique case of breach of fiduciary duty, an arbitration panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) awarded $205,529.98 to a 75 year old, Pinellas Park widow..
The claimant, Shirley Jeup had been a customer of Spencer International Advisors, Inc, a Clearwater investment advisory company since 1998. When Mrs. Jeup wanted to help her children build the Waterin’ Trough country western bar on 66th Street North in Pinellas Park, Scott Spencer, President of Spencer International, advised 13 of his elderly customers to purchase 15% notes to raise the money. Jeup agreed to guarantee these notes.
By November 2007, when the notes were to come due, the failing economy made it very difficult to find substitute financing. Spencer agreed to act as agent for the note holders and pressured Jeup to pay a 2% note extension fee and transfer virtually all of her IRA savings to an account for the benefit of the note holders. He also had Mrs. Jeup sign an agreement not to encumber on the Waterin’ Trough property.
By March 2009, when the notes were still not paid, and even though Mrs. Jeup was close to securing replacement financing from Regions Bank, Spencer sued Mrs. Jeup as agent for the note holders. The filing of this suit was reported in the St. Petersburg Times on March 20, 2008.
“The suit was filed by Mr. Spencer as the note holder’s agent against Mrs. Jeup, even though he continued to act as Mrs. Jeup investment advisor and certified financial planner,” said Mr. Eric Ludin, Mrs. Jeup’s attorney.
Ludin added that, “Mr. Spencer was Mrs. Jeup’s fiduciary and held a position of trust. Therefore, he could not represent the interest of his note holders against Mrs. Jeup because he had a clear duty to all parties and had a conflict of interest.”
Just before the Waterin’ Trough notes went into default, the St. Petersburg Times reported about other notes in default owned by Spencer’s elderly clients. The other notes benefited a condo development owned by developer John Loder. After the default on these notes was reported in the media, Charles Schwab discontinued acting as the broker/dealer for Spencer.
It is believed by Mrs. Jeup that the failure of the Loder notes and Schwab’s decision to terminate its broker/dealer relationship put added pressure on Spencer to act aggressively against Mrs. Jeup, his client.
Mr. Spencer earned over $60,000 by recommending the Waterin’ Trough notes to his customers. Mrs. Jeup lost over $200,000 from her IRAs.
Eric E. Ludin, of the law firm of Tucker & Ludin, P.A. has represented investors against broker/dealers and registered investment advisors since 1990 in cases involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and account mismanagement.
If you have money that you borrowed on margin, you may be about to receive a margin call requiring you to deposit funds or have your securities liquidated to pay the debt to your brokerage firm. This call may be made, not because of anything you did, but because your portfolio has suddenly declined in value.
Why did this happen? It may have been because of the general losses in the securities market. However, it may also have happened because your portfolio was not invested conservatively enough in light of the debt you owed to the brokerage firm. You should be asking yourself whether your broker was correct in recommending that you borrow money on margin. Also ask if your portfolio was adequately diversified and primarily invested in secure conservative securities.
Under the NASD (now FINRA) conduct Rule 2310, a broker/dealer should only recommend transactions that are suitable for the customer in light of the customer's financial status, investment objectives and such other information considered to be reasonable in making recommendations to a customer. If you suspect that your broker may have breached this duty, you should contact an attorney with experience handling these types of claims.
