Evers Law Group Blog

Additional Clients of Alfred C. Chen of Wells Fargo Investments, LLC retain Evers Law Group to recover losses in Reverse Convertible Securities

2009-06-01T22:49:55Z

The Evers Law Group, PC has again been retained by former clients of Alfred C. Chen, a financial advisor with Wells Fargo Investments, LLC in Roseville, California, as a result of substantial losses sustained in their investment accounts following their purchase of high risk securities known as Reverse Convertible Securities. According to FINRA and its public disclosure of events and details arising from Mr. Chen's activities as a licensed broker, as of May 22, 2009, Mr. Chen has had approximately four complaints brought against him by former clients for placing them in investments that were not suitable for their risk profile. These complaints and unsuitable investments center around the sale of Reverse Convertible Notes. According to Mr. Chen's CRD, there have been over a quarter million dollars in settlement monies paid to various investors who were improperly recommended high risk investment in Reverse Convertible Notes. A further review of Mr. Chen's FINRA CRD report indicates that as a result of Mr. Chen's actions, he was discharged on November 26, 2008, from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC. It would appear, based upon the FINRA CRD report that this termination and the previously mentioned customer complaints arose from the sale of Reverse Convertibles Notes and exchange traded funds. Should you or your relatives be victims of investment losses arising from the purchase of Reverse Convertible Securities or Mr. Chen's investment strategy, please contact the Evers Law Group for a complimentary analysis of any potential claims you may have. You can contact Evers Law Group by phone at (916) 974-3000 or by email at g.evers@everslaw.com.

Evers Law Group files claims against Wells Fargo Investments, LLC for fraud, negligence and over concentration of unsuitable, aggressive products known as Reverse Convertible Securities.

2009-01-30T18:22:27Z

The Evers Law Group has brought suit against Wells Fargo Investments, LLC for losses suffered by a 92 year old retired widow wherein her retirement investment portfolio suffered a loss of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of the stock broker who was handling her investments at Wells Fargo Investments, LLC placing her in high risk securities known as Reverse Convertible Securities. The stockbroker continued to make these unsuitable investments over a period of eighteen months which resulted in almost a total loss of her $500,000 "nest egg." Claims of fraud, negligent supervision, financial elder abuse and utilizing false, misleading and/or untrue statements in the connection with the purchase or sale of a security have been asserted on her behalf. The actions of the broker included, but were not limited to, taking the widow out of annuities, CDs and/or other secured investments which protected her entire principal amount and moved her to unsecured and unsuitable, aggressive investments. These investments, known as Reverse Convertible Securities, are structured financial products that have both 1) a debt portion and 2) a put option. Effectively, at the end of the term of purchase of the Reverse Convertible Securities, the investor, in this case the 92 year old widow, received undesirable , devalued common stock in companies based upon a "knock-in-level" formula. The victim's "nest egg," which allegedly was being "supervised" by Wells Fargo Investments, LLC and its broker, was eviscerated. To add insult to injury, when Wells Fargo Investments, LLC realized the egregious conduct of the broker, who is now terminated, they then removed her from those high risk securities and moved the remaining principal, as small as it was, back to safe and secure investments. They did, however, charge the widow well over $4,000 in commissions to do so without a blink of an eye. The action that has been brought on behalf of the victim will seek the return of all principal lost, lost investment opportunities, interest and as well reimbursement for any and all attorney fees that she has suffered as a result of the actions of Wells Fargo Investments, LLC. It is clear that this type of investment, especially in light of the fact of the claimant's age and fixed income, certainly constitutes a claim for Financial Elder Abuse in that the broker and his employer, Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, had a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the widow but failed to do so. If you or a relative have suffered these same type and/or similar losses as a result of a stock broker's advice, you may contact the Evers Law Group for a review of the investment portfolio to see if viable claims exist for a return of all monies lost.

First District Court of Appeals Overturns Award of Campaign Costs

2008-04-18T17:18:05Z

The First District Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the appeal filed by Torren Colcord, President of NEMSA, against SEIU, Local 250 reversing the lower court’s ruling which awarded SEIU, Local 250 an amount in excess of $300,000 incurred by SEIU, Local 250 in a campaign to retain all paramedics statewide in their union. As addressed in another blog article, Torren Colcord and two other individuals organized a new union known as NEMSA that would be for the sole and singular purpose of representing paramedics, EMTs and other emergency service personnel statewide.

In short, the First District Court of Appeals found that an award of campaign costs is so speculative that it cannot be sustained by law and thus remanded this case back to the Alameda County Superior Court, more specifically Judge Wynne Carvill, to issue a new award that would strike the campaign costs and further suggested to the trial court that they reassess and examine their prior award of punitive damages in that the $300,000 plus underlying award could very well impact and/or potentially negate the punitive damages awarded in this case.

This was a case of paramount importance to all union employees and members in that it safeguards their right to create and select union representation without fear of economic ruin by way of an award of campaign costs to an international union such as Service Employees International Union, Local 250.

This appeal was brought and argued by the Evers Law Group on behalf of defendants Torren Colcord and Stacy Rutherford on February 22, 2008, in the California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division.

United Contractors Association has selected Evers Law Group as its general counsel

2007-12-19T22:27:53Z

The statewide organization known as United Contractors Association has retained the services of the Evers Law Group as general counsel to provide them information, guidance and assistance in promoting the Association’s interests in improving and maintaining high ethical standards for contractors statewide.

United Contractors Association was founded by contractors for contractors and has a stated mission of furthering the interests of its members by achieving and maintaining the highest standard of work ethics, professionalism and business practices.

United Contractors Association not only promotes and supports the notion that all contractors should be licensed but further works closely with the State Contractors Licensing Board in seeking out unlicensed, uninsured and unbonded contractors, either by way of false advertising and/or fictional license numbers, who are providing work to consumers who then expose themselves to damages as a result of poor workmanship by these unlicensed contractors. The Association at its website advises that the State Contractors Licensing Board is an overwhelmed entity who receives hundreds of complaints daily by unsuspecting consumers who have been ripped off. Generally, most of these consumers have paid for work that was not completed or are seeking damages for substandard work by unlicensed individuals, day laborers and underground tradesmen passing themselves as licensed, bonded and insured contractors. This type of activity causes millions of dollars in damages annually to personal, commercial and residential property. It is estimated there are well over one million unlicensed individuals or entities doing business as contractors in the State of California. Therefore, it is a daunting task which will require a united effort by contractors, consumers and state agencies to eradicate these unlicensed contractors and ensure that consumers are allowed to choose from licensed, bonded and ethical contractors when seeking such services. The United Contractors Association can be found at its website of www.gouca.org.

HOW TO AVOID BEING SUED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE BY A HOME BUYER

2007-12-06T21:11:46Z

As a home seller your most obvious risk following the sale of your home is having the buyer discover a defect in the house that was not disclosed during escrow. These buyers will generally express feelings of being the subjects of fraud and that you, the seller, knew of should have known of the defect that the buyer discovered. As well, these same buyers will convince themselves that you, the seller, should be held responsible for any and all damages suffered by the buyer. Translated, this means that you, the seller, should pay for any and all repair, replacement or construction costs necessary to remedy the defect.

In addition to these damages that arise from the repair or construction necessary to remedy the defect, the buyer will also demand payment of all their attorney fees incurred in resolving the defect claim. The Standard California Real Estate form provides for the reimbursement of any attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of any claimed non-disclosure on behalf of the seller.

Thus, the question for any seller becomes ... "how do I protect myself from these types of claims by a buyer?" Initially, and most obvious, is the advice that sellers disclose truthfully and accurately the conditions, whether they be negative or positive, of the home. However, even if the seller and its agent are truthful, this will not eliminate a lawsuit being brought by the buyer.

There is, however, a little used or known method of further insulating and in fact immunizing a seller from liability for non-disclosure, imagined or otherwise. More to the point, California Civil Code §1102.4 provides an immunity for sellers or transferors of a residential property who transfer the property with no personal knowledge of any known error, inaccuracy or omission as it relates to the disclosure of defects to a potential buyer. That is based upon the requirement that the seller or transferor retains the services of a licensed engineer, land surveyor, geologist, structural pest control operator, contractor or other expert including home inspectors that prepare and deliver to buyer and seller a report of those findings following an inspection or investigation as to any potential defects that may exist at the property.

In plain English, that means if you as a seller insure that during the escrow process a home inspection is done by a licensed home inspector or other licensed contractor or engineer, any defect that was not found or disclosed during escrow cannot be used as a method or means to assert liability and obtain monetary relief from you as a seller from your buyer.

Thus, if a buyer makes a decision not to have a home inspection performed, you as a seller may choose, and I would suggest you do so, to pay for the inspection yourself and provide a copy of that report to the buyer. This would then insulate and protect you and in fact provide immunity for you for any lawsuit brought by the buyer at some time in the future for non-disclosure of a known or even unknown defect. When considering the fact that a home inspection costs generally anywhere from $300 - $500, this equates to only one or two hours of attorney’s time defending a lawsuit brought by a buyer against you.

An attorney could charge you as a seller anywhere from $10,000 - $50,000 to defend such a case. Clearly, spending a minute percentage of that amount at the outset during the sale could save you literally thousands of dollars in the future. One could safely assume that if this type of immunity is provided, it would act as a buffer and deterrence to a greedy plaintiff’s attorney who represents the buyer in these types of lawsuits. Remember, you as a seller are not covered by insurance policies for these types of claims. If you are interested in other means and methods of protecting yourself during and after the sale of your home, please do not hesitate in contacting the Evers Law Group.

INSURANCE COVERAGE OBTAINED FOR CLIENT IN ASBESTOS LAWSUIT

2007-12-06T21:08:46Z

The Evers Law Group again forced a client’s prior insurance carriers from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to pay for the defense and settlement of a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff diagnosed with mesothelioma following thirty plus years of exposure to asbestos.

The Evers Law Group has successfully obtained insurance coverage for clients under policies that were sometimes issued forty years ago. By procuring insurance coverage for these clients, Evers Law Group has saved its clients literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, expert costs and ultimately settlement of these lawsuits.

The Evers Law Group has obtained coverage in some instances without actual insurance policies but rather by way of secondary evidence such as canceled checks, insurance certificates and other public documents. Recognizing the fact that these lawsuits brought in asbestos and mesothelioma cases can result in settlements and/or jury verdicts in the millions of dollars, obtaining insurance coverage can save a business from financial ruin.

The Evers Law Group has defended asbestos claims brought by major plaintiff law firms specializing in asbestos and mesothelioma cases such as Brayton * Purcell, Harowitz & Tigerman, Baron & Budd and Kazen, McClain et al. Based upon the development of ongoing relationships with these major law firms, the Evers Law Group has obtained quick and efficient settlements and in some cases outright dismissals of its clients. If your business has been sued and now finds themselves in an asbestos-related lawsuit, you may contact the Evers Law Group to explore not only the defense of the actual lawsuit but exploring the reimbursement of any and all costs you may incur from your prior insurance carriers.

Judge awards union election costs to loser of election

2007-09-28T20:44:03Z

Judge Wynne Carvill of the Alameda County Superior Court has awarded SEIU Local 250 in excess of $300,000 in damages for costs incurred in a losing decertification election for the rights to representation of all paramedics statewide. This ruling, the first of its kind nationwide, effectively has reimbursed a loser of an election for all costs incurred in that losing battle, purportedly under the Unfair Competition prong of the Business and Professions Code. This first of its kind ruling is now being appealed by the Evers Law Group to the First District Court of Appeals in the State of California. Such a ruling, if it is allowed to stand, would put a chilling effect upon or frighten away potential candidates or competing unions from entering into the constitutionally protected area of freedom of choice and election. If other courts were to follow this reasoning, as authored by Judge Carvill, individuals and unions would be put in the position where they would expose themselves to large damages for monies spent by international unions, such as SEIU, if they were to succeed in their decertification campaign. In short, this would mean that even though they could potentially win an election, they could actually become a loser in that not only would you have to absorb your own election costs but also those of the losing party. This ruling has caused a ripple throughout businesses and unions not only statewide but nationwide as well. Clearly, if this result stands, small unions, businesses and individuals will because of fear of economic ruin forego participating in the election process thus promoting the demise of competition and a free marketplace.