Source: https://www.stoltmannlaw.com/case-results.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:22:01+00:00

Document:
Stoltmann Law Offices has a depth of experience representing investors who have suffered losses as a result of stockbroker misconduct, securities frauds and ponzi schemes.
1. Avelar, et al. v. ING, Proequities, First Heartland, Nevin Gillette, et al.: ING financial advisor Nevin Gillette sold “Guaranteed Investment Contracts” (GICs) to clients but in reality the advisor was converting his clients’ funds for personal use see here. The firm’s liability stemmed from its failure to supervise Gillette.
2. Schmidt, et al. v. LPL: LPL financial advisor Raymond Londo solicited purported direct investments from clients but in reality Londo stole the funds and spent it on gambling and personal uses see here. The firm’s liability derived from failure to supervise claims.
3. May, et al v. Stifel Nicolaus and Regald Smith: Stifel Nicolaus financial advisor Regald Smith converted funds directly from clients in fictitious bonds and other activity see here. The firm was held responsible because of its ignoring of multiple supervisory red flags that should have alerted the firm of Smith’s conduct.
4. Walker, et al. v. Wachovia Securities and William Sirls: Wachovia financial advisor William Sirls engaged in a direct investment ponzi scheme where Sirls converted $40 million for personal purposes, including gambling purposes. The firm failed to reasonably supervise Sirls who was engaging in extraordinarily aggressive trading in his personal account at Wachovia with stolen client funds.
5. Pingatore, et al. v. Madison Avenue, Algird Norkus, et al.: Madison Avenue financial advisor Algird Norkus sold bogus promissory notes in a $10 million ponzi scheme. The firm’s liability was derived from its failure to identify and stop the ponzi scheme.
6. Shipman, et al. v. ING, Richard Wells, et al.: ING financial advisor Richard Wells sold “mutual bond trusts” but in reality was operating a ponzi scheme. The firm’s liability stemmed from supervisory lapses over an extended period of time.
7. Bridges, et al. v. LPL and Ameriprise and James Buchanan: LPL and Ameriprise financial advisor Richard Buchanan sold $3 million of bogus debentures in Clean Coal Tech Inc. The funds were converted for the advisor’s personal use. The firm failed to supervise Buchanan despite multiple red flags that should have alerted the firm to his scam.
8. Lovegren, et al. v. AG Edwards: AG Edwards financial advisor Paul Lovegren sold bogus “Bond Management” investments. In reality, he stole his clients’ money. The firm failed to detect the scheme despite multiple warning signs.
9. Knopp v. NEXT Financial: Next Financial advisor Jeremy McGilvrey sold fictitious income notes guaranteeing a 5% return. Instead the funds were converted for the broker’s own use.
10. Norris, et al. v. Ameriprise: Ameriprise financial advisor Don Overbey engaged in a direct investment ponzi scheme. The funds were used for his personal purposes. The firm ignored supervisory warnings signs that should have alerted them of this scheme.
1. May v. Stifel Nicolaus: Arbitrators awarded $4,500,000 for a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
2. Horace Grant v. Morgan Keegan: Arbitrators awarded $1,500,000 for fraud and misrepresentation and omission involving mutual funds.
3. Josephine Desparte v. William Blair & Co: FINRA arbitrators awarded over $1,100,000 million for an elderly, 90 year client for various breaches of fiduciary duty and unauthorized trading.
4. King v. Morgan Keegan: We recovered approximately $700,000 for client losses, attorney fees and costs for a fraud and suitability case involving mutual funds.
5. Baldwin v. Wachovia: Panel awarded full losses (over $300,000) plus another $100,000 in attorney fees for unauthorized trading leading to a massive capital gains tax bill.
6. Landau v. Morgan Keegan: The client recovered losses, attorney fees, interest and punitive damages for the financial exploitation of the elderly.
7. Post v. Linsco: Arbitrators assessed full losses, attorney fees, and costs for the unsuitable concentration of an investors portfolio in a high risk stock.
8. Fitzerald v. Morgan Keegan: Arbitrators awarded full losses and interest for unsuitable mutual fund recommendations.
9. Ziem And Shantz v. Linsco: In a suitability and fraud case, the client recovered full losses, attorney fees, costs and punitive damages.
10. Carico v. Stifel Nicolaus: In a reasoned award, the arbitrators assessed full losses, interest, attorney fees and punitive damages for unsuitable investment recommendations and failure to supervise.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.