A TIC Investment Allegedly Recommended By Broker James Lamont And Independent Financial Group Ends In Financial Disaster For Retiree

Share Article

The Law Offices Of Jeffrey A. Feldman Filed A FINRA Arbitration Claim On Behalf Of A Retiree Who Lost More Than $600,000 Dollars On A TIC Investment. The TIC Was Allegedly Misrepresented To The Claimant By Broker James Lamont Of Independent Financial Group As An Investment Providing Safety Of Principal And Reliable Income.

The Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Feldman recently filed a FINRA arbitration claim on behalf of a Bay Area retiree, alleging that broker James Lamont and Independent Financial Group recommended a TIC interest as a safe income producing investment for the Claimant’s retirement funds (FINRA Case No.11-02940). According to allegations in the FINRA arbitration claim, the Claimant contacted broker James Lamont for investment advice, prompted by a solicitation for an investment seminar. Mr. Lamont suggested that the Claimant should consider purchasing a TIC interest, an investment that neither the Claimant nor her husband had any experience with, according to the claim filed with FINRA. Lamont explained tenancies-in-common, or “TICs,” as an investment whereby somebody could purchase an undivided interest in real property with a group of investors, and as alleged in the FINRA statement of claim, they would receive regular income payments and care-free professional management of the property. More information about the Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Feldman can be found at http://www.jeffreyfeldman.com.

Per allegations in the FINRA claim, Lamont recommended Northpark Southland, a TIC sponsored by Cabot Investment Properties LLC (“Cabot”), as an investment that would meet the Claimant’s needs for income and safety. The Northpark Southland TIC consisted of two shopping malls in the Midwest per allegations in the claim filed with FINRA. This investment was a disaster from the beginning, according to the FINRA arbitration claim. As alleged in the FINRA statement of claim, distributions were short lived, and by mid 2011 both of the malls had been sold in foreclosure. Because the malls were sold for less than the value of the mortgage that secured them, all of the TIC investors lost their entire principal investments, per the FINRA arbitration claim.

Mr. Feldman, the Claimant’s attorney, explained that “TICs are usually considered speculative investments, and generally they are only approved for sale to accredited investors who can meet specific criteria for income and investment experience. However, mom and pop investors can sometimes meet these criteria, but the investment can still be unsuitable for them.” Mr. Feldman went on to say that, “Historically speaking, large commercial properties have been purchased by pension funds, insurance companies, REITs and extremely wealthy individuals . . . when such properties are packaged for sale to average investors who cannot afford to support the properties in times of distress, the result can be a complete loss on the property for all of the investors.”


Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Jeffrey Feldman
Law Offices of Jeffrey Feldman
(415) 391-5555
Email >
Visit website