fbpixel
888-840-1571

National Investment Fraud Lawyers

¿Perdió en bonos y fondos de Puerto Rico?

Former Morgan Stanley Broker Ian M. Deliz Morales Puerto Rico Bond Losses

Posted on Sunday, January 5th, 2020 at 8:33 pm    

Puerto Rico flag

Erez Law is currently investigating former Morgan Stanley broker Ian M. Deliz Morales (CRD# 4697350) regarding Puerto Rico bond losses. Morales was registered with Morgan Stanley in Tampa, Florida from 2014 to 2016. Previously, Morales was registered with Popular Securities, LLC in San Juan, Puerto Rico from 2007 to 2014.

Puerto Rico suffers from long-term financial and economic deficiencies that rendered its credit increasingly more speculative. The deterioration of Puerto Rico’s financial condition culminated in its debt being downgraded to junk status or speculative (below investment grade). For the past several years, Puerto Rico has been struggling with compounding debt and economic decline. As a result, the value of Puerto Rico’s municipal tax-free bonds has considerably fallen. Since September 2013, when the steep decline in Puerto Rico bond values began, investors holding these bonds have suffered massive losses. In May 2017, Puerto Rico filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors in what is being described as the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in history.

Morales has been the subject of 27 customer complaints between 2014 and 2019, according to his CRD report:

October 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $200,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

October 2019. “Claimants allege, inter alia, unsuitability with respect to Puerto Rico municipal bonds investments – Aug, 2014 – Sep, 2019.” The customer is seeking $750,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

August 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $230,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

August 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $525,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

August 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.”
The customer is seeking $290,853.14 in damages and the case is currently pending.

June 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $315,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

March 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $400,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

January 2019. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the stated client’s risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that Financial Consultant made misleading representations regarding the products risks and liquidity. Claimant also states that the Financial Consultant arranged to have the Claimant borrow using margin loan.” The customer is seeking $5,818,315 in damages and the case is currently pending.

November 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $410,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

July 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking 420,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

July 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $170,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

June 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $185,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

June 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $1,757,849.27 in damages and the case is currently pending.

April 2018. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $680,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.

March 2018. “Claimant alleged that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. securities were unsuitable in light of the clients’ risk tolerance. Claimants also alleged that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer is seeking $1 million in damages and the case is currently pending.

October 2017. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. Government Development Bonds resulted in an over-concentrated and high-risk portfolio,which were unsuitable positions in light of the client’s risk tolerance. Claimant also alleges that recommendations made by the Financial Consultant were particularly egregious in light of Puerto Rico’s well known deteriorating financial condition.” The customer sought $340,000 in damages and the case was settled for $50,000.

July 2017. “Claimant alleged unsuitability with respect to investments in Puerto Rico bonds and bond funds.” The customer sought $635,472 in damages and the case was settled for $20,000.

March 2016. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant made recommendations to purchase P.R. closed-end funds and P.R. bonds resulting in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which was unsuitable in light of the client’s stated risk tolerance and investment objective.” The customer sought $1 million in damages and the case was settled for $200,000.

March 2016. “Ian Deliz Morales was a subject of the customer’s complaint against his member firm, Popular Securities, LLC, that asserted the following causes of action: misrepresentation; negligence; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; overconcentration in violation of FINRA and NASD rules; unsuitability; unauthorized trading and use of loan facilities; failure to supervise in violation of FINRA and NASD rules; unjust enrichment; market manipulation; and violation of the Puerto Rico and Federal Securities Acts. The causes of action relate to Respondent’s recommended investments in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico bonds and closed end funds, primarily comprised of bonds issued by the Government Development Bank and the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation.” The customer was awarded $5 million in damages.

February 2016. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant made recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. closed-end funds and P.R. bonds resulting in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which was unsuitable in light of the client’s stated risk tolerance and investment objective.” The customer sought $289,273 in damages and the case was settled for $50,000.

January 2016. “Claimant alleges that Financial Consultant made recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. closed-end funds and P.R. bonds resulting in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which was unsuitable in light of the client’s stated risk tolerance and investment objective.” The customer sought $60,153.69 in damages and the case was settled for $30,000.

October 2015. “Claimants allege that Financial Consultant’s investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the stated client’s risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that Financial Consultant made misleading representations regarding the products’ risks and liquidity. Claimants also allege that the Financial Consultant arranged to have the Claimants borrow using margin loan.” The customer is seeking $5,818,315 in damages and the case is currently pending.

October 2015. “Claimants allege that Financial Consultant’s investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the stated client’s risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that Financial Consultant made misleading representations regarding the products’ risks and liquidity. Claimant also states that the Financial Consultant arranged to have the Claimant borrow using margin loan.” The customer sought $850,000 in damages and the case was settled for $260,000.

August 2015. “Claimants allege that financial consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold p.R. Close-end funds and p.R. Bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable in light of the client’s risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that financial consultant made misleading representations regarding the products risks and liquidity. Claimant also states that the financial consultant recommended to have the claimant borrow against the securities using margin loan and failed to disclosed the risks attendant to the use of leverage.” The customer sought $800,000 in damages and the case was settled for $225,000.

December 2014. “Claimants allege that financial consultant investment recommendations to purchase P.R. Close end funds and p.R. Bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the client’s risk tolerance and wish to preserve his capital. Claimants also allege that financial consultant made false and misleading representations regarding the products risks. Claimant also states that the financial consultant was churning in the claimant’s account.” The customer sought $400,000 in damages and the case was settled for $85,000.

September 2014. “Claimants allege that financial consultant investment recommendations to hold pr bond funds resulted in an over concentrated and risky portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the client’s risk tolerance. Claimants also allege that financial consultant did not fully explain the risks involving the margin account.” The customer sought $285,000 in damages and the customer was granted $354,855.89 in damages.

August 2014. “Claimants allege that financial consultant investment recommendations to purchase various pr securities resulted in an over concentrated portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the client’s risk tolerance.” The customer sought $300,000 and the case was settled for $50,000.

Pursuant to FINRA Rules, member firms are responsible for supervising a broker’s activities during the time the broker is registered with the firm. Therefore, FIRM may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Morales’s customers.

Erez Law represents investors in the United States for claims against brokers and brokerage firms for wrongdoing. If and have experienced investment losses, please call us at 888-840-1571 or complete our contact form for a free consultation. Erez Law is a nationally recognized law firm representing individuals, trusts, corporations and institutions in claims against brokerage firms, banks and insurance companies on a contingency fee basis.