Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

305-350-2300
ATTORNEYS SECURITIES LAW | Coral Gables, FL   
  • Print This Page
  • Email Us
  • Bookmark
Company Information
255 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134
305-350-2300
305-350-2525
800-578-0137
ben@rtgn-law.com
http://www.stockmarketlosslawyer.com
Ben Fernandez
Business Services:
Qualifications & Certifications: Professionals on Staff,
Legal Services: Trials, Representation, Litigation, Arbitrations,
Financial Problems: Fraud,
Other Services: securities arbitration investment losses stock market losses securities attorney bilingual law firm stock fraud bank stock losses citigroup stock losses washington mutual stock losses oppenheimer mutual fund losses medical capital holdings losses variable
Hours of Operations
Open Close
Monday 9:00 am 5:00 pm App..
Tuesday 9:00 am 5:00 pm App..
Wednesday 9:00 am 5:00 pm App..
Thursday 9:00 am 5:00 pm App..
Friday 9:00 am 5:00 pm App..
Saturday App..
Sunday App..
Warning Signs

Stockbroker Misconduct Warning Signs 

There are certain activities in an investors account which are not advisable for most individuals and should be considered a warning sign that require closer attention to your investment account.  

 

An unusual amount of trade confirmations sent to your home.

 

Recommendations which result in a dramatic change in your portfolio composition.

 

Pressure to act immediately to a recommendation.

 

Concentration of your investments into a single product or investment vehicle.

 

Large purchases of securities on margin.

 

A transaction history of selling winners and holding losers.

 

Switching between different mutual fund families.

 

Switching between different variable annuity contracts.

 

Purchase of large amounts of life insurance as a “retirement” plan.

 

Denied access to Branch Manager to clarify unanswered questions.

 

Account underperformance relative to the stock market.

 

Stockbroker Guarantee of Investment Return and Protection Against any Losses.

 

Social Media

Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

Tramont Guerra & Núñez, PA (“TGN”) focuses on the representation of Individuals, Trusts, Stockholders and Corporations in the competitive arena of Trial Litigation and Securities Arbitration. TGN is a bilingual firm which represents investors who have experienced losses in the securities market that are the result of the misconduct of stockbrokers and their brokerage firms.  TGN represents investors throughout the United States and Latin America, including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Venezuela, with brokerage accounts held in the United States.

 

 Why Should TGN Be Your Choice to Represent You?
 
 
TGN has the trial litigation and securities arbitration experience, a track record of success, and a preeminent position amongst their peers.
 

Experience

 

TGN’s three shareholders have over 70 years of combined experience in Litigation and Arbitration:

In addition to representing claimants, the attorneys of TGN have extensive experience in defending brokers and broker dealers from claims brought by customers for their misconduct and negligence. Thus, TGN provides their clients with a unique blend of the tenacity and trial experience that comes from years of representing claimants, with insight of the mind-set of brokers and brokerage firms and familiarity with the defense strategies that they employ.
 
Track Record of Success
 
TGN has a track record of success representing both investors and broker-dealers in stock market loss claims. TGN attorneys have recovered over $200 million in judgments and settlements for their clients, including a settlement of over $59 million, four awards of over $15 million, and several other multi-million dollar recoveries.
 
Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™
 
The Martindale Hubbell Directory, first published in 1896, has a 140 year history of providing unbiased information to the public about the ethical standards and professional ability of attorneys. TGN received the Highest Rating (AV® Rating) given to a law firm.
Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

 

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
 
The FINRA securities dispute resolution process is designed to be impartial, cost-effective and convenient for investors. The result of the arbitration process is expedient, final and binding for those involved in the dispute. The securities dispute resolution process provides arbitration or mediation as your path to resolve a securities dispute.
 
FINRA was formed on August 6, 2007, to combine the regulatory efforts of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). FINRA is charged with the responsibility to resolve disputes between public investors, member firms and firm employees. FINRA is subject to oversight by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). FINRA establishes Rules and regulations for the standards of care required for the handling of customer accounts. These rules and regulations are promulgated by the Code of Conduct which each member firm is charged with compliance with these rules as a condition of membership. Failure to comply with the FINRA Rules of Conduct can result in sanctions and penalties.
Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

 

Legal Causes of Action
 
Failure of a member firm to comply with the Rules and Regulations for the standards of care may result in a legal cause of action which might result in the recovery of damages from member firms and their employees. Brokerage firm and stockbroker misconduct can be characterized by many different acts which can result in a legal cause of action. Such misconduct can result in the following claims for damages. 
 
  • Unsuitable Investment Advice  
  • Churning/Excessive Trading  
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty/ Conflicts of Interest  
  • Negligence  
  • Material Misrepresentation or Omission  
  • Unauthorized Trading  
  • Margin Abuse    
  • Failure to Diversify/Securities Concentration      
  • Switching (Mutual Fund and Variable Annuity)  
  • Failure to Supervise  
Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

 

Class Actions vs Individual Arbitrations Lawsuits
 
Individual lawsuits or arbitrations provide another avenue to pursue recovery of damages sustained from stock market losses. Individual lawsuits or arbitrations, if economically feasible, provided an opportunity to recover a greater percentage of losses sustained than to class action lawsuits. A review of your options can be made with the assistance of an attorney experienced in this area.
 
Class action lawsuits are designed to recover damages for a class of individuals who lost money from the same cause. For example, you may have a class action comprised of investors who lost their investments as a result of fraudulent opinions from the same research analyst or in the internet/technology bubble. Class actions serve an important public purpose. By consolidating numerous claims into a single proceeding, class actions make it economically feasible to bring lawsuits that otherwise could not be justified by the expense involved. This feature is particularly important in securities class actions, which often involve large numbers of small claims that could not realistically be enforced in individual litigation. Class actions, however, also have a certain negative attributes that should be considered by the investor determining whether to be part of a class action or to file a claim individually. Being one of many class members will result in a class action member having only a fractional interest in the case, and therefore that member may have very little influence or effect on his attorney’s conduct. This creates that dynamic where a class member may not be able to prevent class counsel from serving their own interest at the expense of the interest of the class. These problems are particularly sailing the matter of settlement, when a class counsel may face a tradeoff between counsel fees and obtaining the best possible relief for the class. In other words what may be in the best interest of the lawyers is not necessarily in the best interest of the class member, and what may be in the best interest of certain class members may not be in the best interest of others.
 
Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

 

Disclaimer
 
The information contained in this Website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site. The Firm expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any and all of the contents of this Website.
Any information sent to The Firm by Internet e-mail or through the Website is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. Transmission of information from this Website does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Firm, nor is intended to do so. The transmission of the Website, in part or in whole, and/or any communication with us via Internet e-mail through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between us and any recipients.
 
Some links within the Website may lead to other web-sites, including those operated and maintained by third parties. The Firm includes these links solely as a convenience to you, and the presence of such a link does not imply a responsibility for the linked site or an endorsement of the linked site, its operator, or its contents.
 
Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or retransmission of material contained within The Firm Website is prohibited unless the prior written permission of The Firm has been obtained.
 
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.
Tramont Guerra & Núñez P.A.

IS ALLEGED FRAUD IN MEDICAL CAPITAL OFFERINGS THE “TIP OF AN ICEBERG”


 A recent article in Investment News, which has provided extensive coverage of the Medical Capital fiasco, focuses on problems surrounding so-called “private placement” deals.  Rather than complying with the much more rigorous process required for ordinary public offerings of stocks, bonds or other securities traded on the recognized exchanges, “Reg D” offers brokers an alternative which requires little if any review by regulators.  There were over 26,000 Reg D offerings filed with the SEC last year.  In the case of Medical Capital, we know what that has meant to investors: the Receiver for Medical Capital has concluded that about 87% of all the accounts receivable Medical Capital controlled are “nonexistent.”  Lack of proper due diligence is cited as one of the major problems with Reg D offerings.  Certainly, there is no excuse for the failure of brokers involved in putting together, and promoting, these offers to conduct proper due diligence.  The brokerage firms who distributed the securities issued by Medical Capital and other Reg D offerings were obligated to conduct due diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the investments. Unfortunately, financial advisors told many investors that these securities were suitable for current income investment objectives.  Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon brokerage firms for, competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA Rules and Regulations.  Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for individual claims filed with FINRA by investors seeking to recover losses in Medical Capital investments.


Of course, Medical Capital is not the only Reg D offering with serious problems.  The SEC recently charged Provident Royalties LLC and a number of its related entities with operating an alleged fraud and a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of $485 million of preferred stock and limited-partnership offerings in oil and gas deals.  The question is: what other fraud “lurks” in the 26,000 plus lightly regulated Reg D offerings filed last year?  Are Medical Capital and Provident Royalties just the tip of an iceberg?  Time will tell . . ..  In the meantime, investors are increasingly coming to the realization that the non-existent Medical Capital receivables will not provide a viable source of recovery.  The brokers and financial advisors who skimped on due diligence ahead of the offerings may well find that they are now stuck with the much higher cost of making investors whole for their losses.