REIT Attorneys - Helping Investors with non-traded REIT losses and frozen investments

Vernon Healy Again Warns Investors About Pitfalls of Non-Traded REITs

Securities attorneys at Vernon Healy continue to warn investors about buying into non-traded REITs as they watch those who bought shares in Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund I LP join the growing ranks of investors – many of them retirees -- suffering REIT losses.

According to an Investment News article about Behringer Harvard losses, “At the end of December, investors in the Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund I LP, which had about $130 million in total assets, saw its valuation drop to 40 cents a share, down drastically from $6.48 a share Dec. 31, 2010.”

Some of those investors have begun to seek the help of regulators, contacting the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and stepping forward with questions for the SEC.

Most investors are sold non-traded real estate investment trusts with the promise of “steady income.” However, Vernon Healy’s investigation of non-traded REITs has uncovered that the dividends received by investors every month are often made up of new investors’ money or from loans made to the REIT.

The investigation identified more than 10 non-traded REITs that have either severely restricted, or suspended all distributions indefinitely. This means that many non-traded REIT investors are currently stuck in the investment, and their only way out is to sell their shares in an inefficient secondary market at a deep discount.

Investors considering non-traded REITs should be aware that FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-09 requires REITs to re-assess the value of their shares no later than 18 months after the conclusion of the offering. Consequently, many non-traded REITs are now re-assessing share value and notifying investors that their shares are worth far less than what they paid for them, despite the initial sales pitch of price stability. Quarterly reports reviewed by Vernon Healy, reveal that this re-pricing has caused billions of dollars in investor losses. Despite the free-fall in value, many investors cannot sell their shares because the REIT has frozen redemptions.

Vernon Healy continues to urge investors to seek second opinions from investment professionals before investing in these very complex non-traded REIT products.  In October 2011, The Financial Industry Regulatory Association (FINRA), issued an investor alert cautioning investors on the dangers of non-traded REITs, including illiquidity risks, valuation methods, and excessive fees.

Be Wary of Sales Pitch Used by Financial Advisors Selling Non-Traded REITs

Many sellers of non-traded REITs tout their list of top high profile tenants, using them as a vehicle to convey to investors and potential investors a sense of investment security. In reality, however, the existence of high profile tenants in a large real estate holdings pool is by no means an assurance against REIT losses.

The above is true with Cole Credit Property Trust III. According to its 2009 and 2010 annual statements, Cole Credit Property Trust III reported an occupancy rate of 99 percent of its properties. Cole’s website shows pictures of current tenants such as Walmart, Home Depot, Walgreens, and Staples, to name a few. On Cole’s own YouTube channel, the head of Real Estate Investments for Cole Capital Acquisitions accentuates high profile tenants as a crucial strategy “to be able to pay dividends on a monthly basis.”  It is therefore understandable that investors might feel that investing in this non-traded REIT is a safe undertaking. 

But even with almost 100 percent of its properties fully occupied and leased, Cole Credit Property Trust III managed to report losses of almost $8 million in 2009.  Despite the reported losses, the Chairman and President of Cole Properties Christopher H. Cole decided that it was proper to announce in a letter to stockholders dated April 6, 2010, that the REIT was increasing its distribution rates from 6.5 percent to 7 percent.  From our perspective, the increased rate of distribution and the source of the distributions raise concerns, given the losses reported by this non-traded REIT.

We continue to have concerns about Cole Property Trust III in 2010 and 2011, year to date. To this day, public records reflect that Cole is far from covering its dividends with funds coming from operations. In its third quarter report for 2011, Cole Credit Property Trust III reported total revenues for $81,414,000 and operating expenses for $52,079,000; leaving a net income of $10,491,000. Nevertheless, Cole paid dividends to its shareholders of $46,755,845 or $36 million in excess of its net income. In other words, Cole Credit Property Trust III continues to pay most of its dividends with loans or proceeds from new investor’s money.

    Cole Credit Property Trust III’s business practices could be accentuated when its offering concludes on Sept. 22, 2012.  As a reference for investors, below is the 2010 year-end status of the other two Cole REITs now closed to new investors, according to annual reports filed by Cole with the SEC.

--   Cole Credit Property Trust  -approximately 100 percent of all properties leased-

--   Initial offering 2004. Now closed to investors.

--   Re-priced shares from $10 to $7.65 (34 percent decline in price assigned by the REIT)

--    Declared a net income loss of $2,626,000.

--    Distributions reduced from 7 percent to 5.5 percent. More than 67 percent of all distributions were treated by this REIT as a return of the investors’ capital.

--    Redemptions suspended indefinitely.  As a practical matter, investors cannot redeem their shares unless they sell them in the secondary market at a deep discount.

--    Leverage ratio of the REIT’s portfolio: 60 percent, i.e. the ratio of debt to total gross real estate assets.

--  Cole Credit Property Trust II  -approximately 94 percent of all properties leased-

--    Initial Offering 2005. Now closed to investors.

--    Re-priced shares from $10 to $8.05 (20 percent decline in price assigned by the REIT).

--    Distributions suspended and then reinstated in Sept. 2010 at 6.25 percent More than 64 percent of all distributions were treated by the REIT as a return of the investors’ capital.

--    2010 distributions included return of capital from unconsolidated joint ventures of $1.6 million, proceeds from the Offerings of $3.4 million, and borrowings of $18.7 million.

--    Redemptions were suspended indefinitely, and then reinstated with several amendments. Now, the REIT will not redeem in excess of 3 percent of the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the prior calendar year and the cash available for redemption is limited to the proceeds from the sale of shares pursuant to their share re-investment program (DRP) during such calendar year.

--    Leverage ratio of the REIT’s portfolio: 50 percent (i.e. the ratio of debt to total gross real estate assets).

Based on the performance of the two Cole REITs described above, investors may want to have an objective and competent investment professional closely evaluate Cole Credit Property Trust III, especially because 1) it is run and managed by virtually the same group or individuals, and 2) it is similarly promoted as seeking and having high-profile and reliable tenants.  

Vernon Healy continues to urge investors to seek second opinions from investment professionals before investing in these very complex non-traded REIT products.  Just three weeks ago, The Financial Industry Regulatory Association (FINRA), issued an investor alert cautioning investors on the dangers of non-traded REITs, including illiquidity risks, valuation methods, and excessive fees.

Retiree loses much of $1.2 million nest egg on Behringer Harvard REITs, Vernon Healy Claim Asserts

A financial advisor looking to line his own pockets with high commissions rather than protecting the hard-earned $1.2 million nest egg of his Illinois businessman client improperly sold high risk Behringer Harvard REITs and other unsuitable investments to the man’s Trust, according to a claim filed today by Vernon Healy, the investor rights law firm. 

The non-traded REIT investments, which are now illiquid and worth far less than when the financial advisor sold them to the man, have robbed him of a secure retirement and left him wondering if he must now return to work, the claim asserts.

The man, who now lives in Florida, chose a financial advisor who he believed understood his need for protecting his nest egg for his upcoming retirement. 

The advisor recommended that the best course for his $1.2 million from the sale of his business was diversification in secure financial vehicles with the intention of wealth protection and growth, according to the claim. But the advisor failed to follow his own recommendations, instead concentrating more and more of the man’s Trust in ultra-high commission, high-risk, non-traded REITs, specifically in only one company – Behringer Harvard, according to the claim.

The financial consulting relationship that began with plans for diversification and wealth protection ended in 2007 with more than $830,000 of the $1.2 million nest egg invested in high risk Behringer Harvard REITs, the claim states. These REITs have suspended distributions and redemptions and are currently worth roughly 25 cents on the dollar on the limited secondary market. As well another $85,000 was also invested in Ridgewood Energy, another illiquid and in appropriate investment for the Trust, according to the claim.

As it now stands, the Trust that was put in place to provide a secure retirement for Vernon Healy’s client will be insolvent by 2012 due to the advisor’s investment recommendations, according to the claim.

The Vernon Healy Law Firm is conducting ongoing investigations into the sales of non-traded REITS, including Behringer Harvard, Cole REITs, Inland REITs and Apple REITs offered by David Lerner & Associates, to clients who need stability and wealth protection. Vernon Healy believes its investigations have revealed that non-traded REITs are one of the most defectively designed investment products on the market.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed a complaint Tuesday against David Lerner & Associates and charged the firm with selling shares in Apple REIT Ten, a $2 billion non-traded REIT, to elderly and unsophisticated investors without investigating whether it was suitable for them. The firm was also charged with giving misleading information about Apple REIT Ten distributions.

Vernon Healy has found that some non-traded REITs are financial engineering schemes that falsely entice new, often conservative investors with the promise of owning a piece of real estate that they would never otherwise be able to own while receiving a stream of income for years. Such sales pitches are bolstered by claims that these investments are not affected by stock market volatility. 

Part of the enticement comes from the robust returns that investors initially see. What they don’t know is that the distributions are often actually coming from more recent investors. Some REITs are actually borrowing to provide returns rather than generating them from the REIT’s operations.

In carrying out this operation of paying old investors with new investors’ money, Behringer Harvard was creating a false yield simply to make investing in its REITs more attractive to the investor seeking income from his investments, according to the claim.

Chris Vernon, founder of Vernon Healy, has spoken to and warned regulators in several states regarding the sale of these high-risk, ultra-high commission investments that unscrupulous financial advisors are pushing on traditionally risk averse clients, many of them retirees with irreplaceable nest eggs.

Vernon Healy is a Naples, Florida law firm that represents investors nationwide who are victims of stock fraud and stock losses due to broker fraud and brokerage firm fraud and misconduct.

Vernon Healy’s investment fraud attorneys were among the first to caution investors about the dangers of non-traded REITs. The firm’s REIT attorneys have written about the dangers of these products in numerous articles. They are currently representing investors who have collectively suffered millions of dollars in REIT losses, and they have warned regulators about them.

CONTACT:  Vernon Healy
Christopher T. Vernon, attorney at law
Susan R. Healy, attorney at law
(239) 649-5390
Toll Free: (877) 649-5394
info@vernonhealy.com
http://www.vernonhealy.com
http://www.reitattorneys.com
http://www.protectinginvestors.com

The sales pitch for non-traded REITs is back but don’t believe the hype

By Chris Vernon

In the universe of non-traded REITs, it looks like history is about to repeat itself and investors should be wary of any financial advisor pushing these risky products. Contrary to the “next big thing” claim by certain investment professionals hawking non-traded REITs, this is not the first time these products have infected fixed income investors’ portfolios.  

In the early to mid-1990s, as the US was coming out of a recession, my team represented multiple fixed income investors who were improperly sold these high commission products. We were so incensed by some of the activity, in more than one case we filed FINRA arbitration claims and obtained arbitration awards not only against the brokerage firm, but also against the owner of the brokerage firm that improperly sold the non-traded REITs.

“I’m disappointed to see that history is now repeating itself as more and more investors who sought low risk, income producing investments contact Vernon Healy regarding problems with non-traded REITS. They invested in these products only to find later on that redemptions could be suspended, dividends could be reduced or suspended, and their money locked up  just as dividends are reduced or suspended. Often, they are stuck with non-traded REITs that are losing value in the declining market for commercial real estate, and they can’t even sell to cut their losses.”

The recent sales pitch for these investments often urges retail investors to jump at the chance to buy commercial property at “fire sale” prices. The investors are told banks would normally do the lending for these properties but don’t because of the current economic climate. The truth is that no one knows for sure when commercial real estate will hit bottom, and investors holding these products stand to lose if, as many suspect, the freefall of commercial real estate values continues. Even more offensive in this new round of non-traded REIT pushing is that the effort to dump these risky products on retail investors may be the salvation of the big players in commercial real estate who see the trouble that is ahead for the sector.

Vernon Healy is a Naples, Florida law firm that represents investors nationwide who are victims of stock fraud and investment losses due to broker incompetence and brokerage firm misconduct. The firm's securities attorneys focus their practice on complex business litigation, including financial litigation and securities arbitration.

For more information contact,
Chris Vernon, attorney at law

Vernon Healy
Naples, Florida
www.vernonhealy.com
239-649-5390
Toll Free: 1-877-649-5394

Investor Caution: Brokers pushing billions of dollars of illiquid, non-traded REITs that lockup unwitting retirees’ money

Billions of dollars are pouring into the coffers of non-traded REITs thanks to fat commissions and even kick back schemes offered to the brokers and firms hawking them.

At Vernon Healy, we’ve cautioned investors about the dangers of these high-risk and mostly illiquid investments and reported that securities regulators are increasingly alarmed at the tactics used to sell these products to retail investors. Misrepresentations about these REIT products, which aren’t publicly traded on a regular market exchange, continue to proliferate to the detriment of public investors.

Consider this alarming industry-touted data that shows that the non-traded REIT industry’s aggressive marketing campaign appears to be working: Organizers of the 2009 IMN Non-traded REIT Industry Symposium released information saying that $9 billion flowed into non-traded REITs in 2008, with $2 billion of that pouring in during the fourth quarter alone.

The industry also touts an industry-sponsored survey conducted on behalf of the IPA, a trade group for non-traded REITs, that says almost two thirds of financial advisors who regularly recommend non-traded REITs anticipate increasing sales volume to investors.

At Vernon Healy, we are increasingly hearing horror stories from investors who are now shocked to discover that their money is locked-up in an illiquid product because non-traded REIT fund managers have frozen redemptions.

Brokers and brokerage firms have turned to selling high-commission products like non-traded REITs. These high commissions paid by non-traded or unlisted REITs serve as a powerful motivator for brokers and brokerage firms to sell these products – especially in this economy. This creates a significant conflict of interest: Brokers and brokerage firms may shy away from objectively recommending products and strategies that are more appropriate and suitable — and instead push their clients to high-commission investment products.

If you are concerned about your non-traded REIT assets and the circumstances under which they were sold to you, please call Vernon Healy at (239) 649-5390.

SEC Charges Ameriprise with fraud for secret REIT payments

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. with fraud today and accused the Minneapolis-based broker-dealer of receiving millions of dollars in secret payments as a condition of offering and selling certain REITs to its brokerage clients.

Ameriprise agreed to settle the charges without admitting wrongdoing and pay $17.3 million, the SEC said.

According to the SEC order: “Ameriprise received approximately $30.8 million in undisclosed compensation in connection with Ameriprise’s offer and sale to its brokerage customers of certain real estate investment trusts (‘REITs’) between 2000 and May 2004 ... Ameriprise demanded this undisclosed compensation, which it referred to as ‘revenue sharing,’ in exchange for including the REITs on Ameriprise’s brokerage platform.”

 

Download SEC_Ameriprise_33-9051

Ameriprise also sold more than $100 million of unregistered shares of one REIT in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws, the SEC said.

"Few things are more important to investors than getting unbiased advice from their financial advisers," Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. "Ameriprise customers were not informed about the incentives its brokers had to sell these investments."

The SEC said its investigation is continuing.

The Vernon Healy law firm is currently investigating claims on behalf of investors surrounding misrepresentations about the safety and liquidity of unlisted REITs and the suitability of marketing of these products to certain investors, including older, risk-averse investors. For more information, contact Vernon Healy by phone at 239-649-5390 or by e-mail at info@vernonhealy.com.

Securities regulators eye fat commissions used to motivate brokerage firms to sell unlisted REITs to unwitting investors

Anyone contemplating an investment in a private or unlisted Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT, should consider the motivations of the broker and brokerage firm hawking it. 

Unlisted REITs are investments that aren’t traded on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq market. As such, they can be difficult for investors to sell and difficult for investors to value. To overcome marketplace concerns, the managers and operators of private REITs have offered brokers and brokerage firms high commissions to sell these products to retail investors.

At this point in history, most brokerage firms and brokers have seen revenues drop significantly from just a few years ago. Looking to fill the void, brokers and brokerage firms have turned to selling high-commission products such as unlisted REITs to maintain their incomes. High commissions paid by unlisted REITs serve as a powerful motivator for brokers and brokerage firms to sell these products.

This creates a significant conflict of interest: Brokers and brokerage firms may shy away from objectively recommending products and strategies that are more appropriate and suitable — but less lucrative than high-commission unlisted REITs for the broker and brokerage firm to sell.
 
This strong commission-based motivation to sell unlisted REITs has not gone unnoticed by regulators.  In March 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), began questioning multiple brokerage firms about their sales and promotion practices related to private or non-traded REITs.

Some unlisted REITS are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and some are sold using an exemption to registration. FINRA is questioning what investors were led to believe by the brokerage firms and brokers who sold them these private REITs. 

Among FINRA’s questions to brokerage firms selling unlisted REITs: Which REITs did the firm promote? How many shares were sold? How many customers of the firms were sold these products? What were the ages of the customers who bought these products? How much were brokers to sell these unlisted REITs? What documentation was obtained from the customer in connection with these sales? What compliance and supervision procedures were employed to monitor these sales to customers in terms of risks and activity in general?

As a precursor to questioning brokerage firms, FINRA issued a regulatory notice (09-09) in February 2009 regarding additional concerns about post-sale representations surrounding private and unlisted REITs. In the regulatory notice, FINRA reminded brokers and brokerage firms of some of their obligations to investors: Specifically, once unlisted REIT customers have owned their investment for a while, their monthly statements should begin to contain a reasonably current estimated per share value of the unlisted REIT investment.

Specifically, brokers and brokerage firms are prohibited from using a per share estimated value that’s based on data that’s more than 18 months old compared to the customer’s account statement date.  According to FINRA, “ … firms must not use par value in a customer account statement more than 18 months following the conclusion of an offering, unless an appraisal of the program’s assets and operations yields the same value.”

The staleness of data used to value these unlisted REITs is particularly important due to the illiquid nature of these investments.

In the current economic environment, the NASD Rule allowing an 18-month window is inadequate: With data that old, how can a broker or broker-dealer actually carry out their duties and obligations to the customer?  Additionally, even prompt data reporting without an 18-month lag time is suspect without a transparent and liquid market for trading the unlisted REIT shares.   

Vernon Healy is currently investigating claims on behalf of investors surrounding misrepresentations about the safety and liquidity of unlisted REITs and the suitability of marketing of these products to certain investors, including older, risk-averse investors. For more information, contact Vernon Healy by phone at 239-649-5390 or by e-mail at info@vernonhealy.com.

Unlisted REITs illustrate redemption and valuation risks for investors: Piedmont/Wells, Inland, Behringer Harvard, Cole, Desert Capital, Dividend Capital, Grubb & Ellis, Whitestone, and KBS

More and more investors in unlisted REITs are awakening to the “Hotel California” effect: They can’t get out of their REIT investment. 

According to “The Non-Listed REIT Blog,” a subscription newsletter covering non-listed REITs for due diligence analysts and others, six of the biggest REITs  have halted their redemption programs.  These six REITS are:  Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Behringer Harvard REIT I and Cole Credit Property Trust II.   The same Non-Listed REIT Blog is also reporting that other REITS such as Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Desert Capital REIT, Dividend Capital Total Realty Trust, Grubb & Ellis Apartment REIT, KBS Real Estate Investment Trust and Whitestone REIT have stopped redeeming or been unable to redeem all the submitted shares. 

Accompanying this illiquidity problem, are potential valuation problems.  For example,  after closing the redemption program, Piedmont/Wells reported a net asset value decline of 15 percent — from $8.38 to $7.40 per share — along with a dividend reduction.   

These examples highlight the valuation and liquidity risk issues faced by investors with unlisted REITs.  Arguments that private and non-traded REITs perform better than publicly traded REITs is cold comfort if an investor can’t redeem at par or above — or can’t redeem at all because redemptions have been frozen or limited to a small number of investors. 

A potential inability to trade and liquidate shares, coupled with a decreased dividend, places unlisted REIT investors in dangerous financial waters. These investors find themselves with essentially illiquid assets with decreasing yields in a deteriorating economic environment.  We believe this is an especially troubling situation with respect to REITs that have a concentration of commercial properties purchased around 2006 or 2007 in bubble areas such as Florida or California and/or REITs with weak commercial tenants and/or high leverage and low liquidity.   

The value of shares in a publicly traded REIT is more reliable and discernible because these investments are priced daily by way of investors’ purchases and sales in an open market. In contrast, shares of privately traded REITs with little or no market are priced by the same REIT managers and operators who selected properties for inclusion in the REIT portfolio. In essence, they are giving themselves their own report cards. 

What is most troubling about this pricing issue for unlisted REITs is that it enables incompetent or unethical financial advisors who heavily promote and sell these products to inappropriately downplay the true risks of these unlisted REITs simply because the prices don’t move daily on an exchange.   When this lack of price transparency is coupled with the high commissions that unlisted REITs pay to financial advisors to sell these REITs, the REITs are dramatically oversold to investors looking to avoid the risks of the equities markets, we believe.  

In our opinion, investors who believe they were not informed of the true characteristics and risks of unlisted REITS and/or investors who are in or near retirement with significant portions of their investable assets in nonpublic or private REITs should have their portfolios independently evaluated. 

Vernon Healy represents investors who have been the victims of negligence or unethical behavior by investment professionals and who have suffered significant investment losses.  For more information about Vernon Healy’s efforts on behalf of investors click here.

Private and unlisted REITs can place investors in a precarious financial position

As attorneys who regularly represent investors, we believe the unique problems and risks associated with unlisted REITs are now coming home to roost. Although unlisted REITs may tout the fact they have outperformed public REITs, we believe these products have added risks relating to valuation and redemption rights. 

 

These risks and concerns call in to question the appropriateness of these products for many investors, especially those with a limited liquid net worth or those with a significant portion of their remaining  net worth already invested in real estate.  We are also concerned about the accuracy and appropriateness of the marketing efforts employed by some “financial professionals” to sell these products to retail investors. 

 

How REITs work

Real Estate Investment Trusts, or REITs, such as those issued by Inland, Wells (now known as Piedmont), and KBS are “pass-through” entities for tax purposes that invest in real estate.  These types of investments offer an equity interest in a pool of real estate assets, including land, buildings, shopping centers, hotels, and office properties. 

 

Essentially, as an investor, you are giving your money to the REIT to go out and buy property that will conceptually generate enough appreciation or income to overcome costs that you might otherwise avoid by directly buying real estate for yourself.

Unlisted REITs include both private REITs and non-traded REITs that are not traded on a public market like the New York Stock Exchange or over the counter through Nasdaq.

 

Fatter commissions

A Feb. 25, 2009 Wall Street Journal article dubbed unlisted REITs controversial.
The controversy includes criticism by some analysts who point out that unlisted REITs are typically sold by brokers and brokerage firms who receive much higher commissions than they would receive from selling publicly traded REITs.  These higher broker commissions, typically paid by the unlisted REIT from the funds invested in the REIT, significantly reduce the amount available to invest and, by extension, reduce the ability of the REIT to generate returns. 

 

Difficulty Selling

The Wall Street Journal has also noted the increased liquidity risk of unlisted REITs compared to publicly traded REITs. 

 

According to a March 31, 2009 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Slip Sliding Away,” there are more than $200 billion of securitized mortgages on retail properties.  Over the past year, the delinquency rate on these securitized mortgages is up approximately 800 percent. This means eight times as many mortgage payments are more than 30 days past due than the number that existed just one year ago.

 

Due to concerns over the economy or a need for funds because of  current economic conditions, some REIT investors have decided to get out of their REIT investments. To their dismay, selling an unlisted REIT isn’t what many investors expected.  Although selling a publicly traded REIT is like selling a stock —  the sale goes through immediately — this is not so with unlisted REITs.

 

Financial professionals selling unlisted REITs may have represented that investors could redeem their investment after a holding period, which is typically a year’s time. But despite such representations, attempts to redeem may now be denied. This is because most unlisted REITs reserve the right to suspend redemptions or limit redemptions if too many investors try to redeem at once. 

 

The potential inability to trade and liquidate shares, coupled with likely decreased dividends, places unlisted REIT investors in a precarious financial position.  Assets that are essentially illiquid with decreasing yields in a deteriorating economic environment can hardly be counted on for future financial needs.

 

Seeking help

In our opinion, investors who believe they were not informed of the true characteristics and risks of unlisted REITs and/or who are in or near retirement with more than a small portion of their liquid assets in nonpublic or private REITs, should have their portfolios independently evaluated. 

 

Vernon Healy represents investors nationwide who have been the victims of negligence or unethical behavior by investment professionals and who have suffered significant investment losses.  For more information about Vernon Healy’s efforts on behalf of investors click here.