The week of October 26, 2026: Customer complaints, firings after allegations and regulatory actions newly filed on advisors' public records, quoted exactly as filed.
Week of October 26, 2026
Customer Dispute9/26/2026Pending
ALEX IGOR AYZENBERG CRD 1835439
RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVISORS, INC · Garden City, NY
Respondent invested clients 100% in PSLV. PSLV invests 99.8% in physical silver bullion in London Good Delivery bar form. For many of the clients, this accounted for all of the assets they had for retirement. Respondent continued to collect 1.5% fee of all assets under management from the clients despite the lack of trading. Respondent's concentration of client accounts in PSLV to levels that exceeded the risk tolerance client were willing to endure constitutes an inequitable practice in rendering services as an investment adviser representative.
Terminated in connection with investigation into whether the financial professional drafted a communication that the financial professional represented to former partner adviser as being received directly from a client and reflecting the client’s intentions, which the client allegedly denies.
Complainant alleges that the financial professional's recommendation to surrender a fixed annuity and invest the proceeds into mutual funds in October 2025 was unsuitable and a violation of Regulation Best Interest.
The client claims the representative gave poor advice by recommending a managed account.
Broker Comment
The firm's review found no sales practice violations by the representative. To address the poor client experience, the firm applied an $8,000.00 cash credit to the client’s account.
Customer alleges the registered representative did not act in the best interest of the customer by allowing the customer to take a total distribution from their investment account for an
undisclosed, fraudulent third-party scheme.
Broker Comment
The representative denies any wrongdoing and asserts that the allegations are without merit. The withdrawals made to the customer’s bank account, about which the customer complained, were discussed with the customer who insisted on the withdrawals. At all times, the representative put the customer’s interest first.
The client alleges the representative provided incorrect and poor information by withdrawing large amount of funds from the two variable annuities.
Broker Comment
Upon discovery of the issue, I phoned the client immediately and began to work to rectify the situation through the insurance company via emails and written communication to the CEO. I am still working on a solution currently.
On September 1, 2011, Respondent Post registered as an investment adviser representative with the Securities Commissioner. Since September 1, 2011, Respondent Post's registration has expired eight (8) times. From December 31, 2013, through February 10, 2022, Respondent Post was
unregistered eight (8) different times for a total of nine hundred eighty-seven (987) days. It is therefore ORDERED that Tyre Post is hereby REPRIMANDED.It is further ORDERED that the registration of Tyre Post as an investment adviser
representative is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) weeks.
MR. PRATER'S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED FOR VIOLATING FIRM POLICY BY USING DISCRETION IN CLIENT ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS PROVIDING INACCURATE INFORMATION DURING A COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATION.
Without admitting or denying the findings, Prater consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he effected unauthorized trades, both sales and purchases of mutual funds, in the accounts of customers without their knowledge, authorization, or consent. The findings stated that Prater also executed discretionary trades in the accounts of customers despite the fact that his member firm's WSPs prohibited its registered representatives from exercising discretion in customer accounts. Further, at no time did the firm accept any of Prater's customer accounts for discretionary trading. The findings also stated that Prater made misstatements to the firm in connection with its investigation of this misconduct.
CETERA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LLC · SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Allegations
Registered representative voluntarily resigned after allegations that he interacted with a vulnerable customer regarding financial matters despite the presence of a Power of Attorney on file. Not related to any unauthorized transactions.
Plaintiff alleges that, from approximately 2022 through 2026, Jonathan Hagan Hicks and J. Hagan Capital recommended and directed approximately $682,600 of Plaintiff’s rollover IRA into anunregistered private offering issued by a British Virgin Islands-based hedge fund. Plaintiff alleges that the investment was unsuitable and overly concentrated and that material informationconcerning risk, illiquidity, alleged conflicts and compensation, valuations, redemption, and fees was misrepresented or omitted. The complaint alleges violations of the Kentucky SecuritiesAct, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by omission, breach of contract, and negligence. Hicks denies the allegations.
Broker Comment
Hicks denies all allegations of wrongdoing and denies that Plaintiff suffered compensable loss. Defendants contend that Plaintiff chose the investment after its characteristics, risks, andilliquidity were disclosed orally and in writing. Defendants further state that Plaintiff redeemed the investment and received more than $600,000. The civil action remains pending, and nofindings have been made against Hicks.
Client alleged his stated investment objective of capital preservation was not followed and that he incurred unrealized losses of approximately $50,000 across his portfolio. Client did not allege intentional misconduct and acknowledged the firm's professionalism during the relationship.
Broker Comment
The client came aboard in March and signed a discretionary investment advisory agreement and completed a risk questionnaire along with other onboarding materials. I met with the client multiple times since onboarding (March 23 & 25, April 20, 23, and 27, May 11, June 24, and August 10, 2026. ) and included members of the investment team on occasion where we explained the investment options to the client both verbally and in writing, to which he agreed. Client replied in an email before investment implementation that he wanted to “hold the short-term Treasuries and CDs that he had brought in and were maturing over the next few months to a year” in his accounts and, in bold, “I think we are all set to move forward right away.” The Client declined to follow the firm’s recommendation to invest in a theoretical minimum-risk portfolio consisting of 20% equities and 80% fixed income. The client’s portfolio was instead invested entirely in fixed-income securities, which experienced broad, index-like declines during the summer amid Federal Reserve interest rate increases. The firm investigated and found no instances of wrongdoing, but chose to make a good-faith settlement.
*SEE ATTACHED DBCC LETTER; KC, MISSOURI
BETTY SNYDER, A CLIENT, PURCHASED $10,000 OF
BONDS @ 104. THE BONDS WERE CALLED AT PAR A SHORT TIME LATER.
BETTY CALLED ME ON THE PHONE DISPLEASED ABOUT THE FACT SHE
WOULD LOSE THE PREMIUM SHE HAD PAID-$400. I COMMUNICATED
BETTY'S DISPLEASURE TO MY SUPERVISOR, DICK RICKETTS. BETTY DID
NOT COMPLAIN IN WRITING TO EITHER FIRST NATIONAL OR THE
NASD-SEC.
Broker Comment
NONE
THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BETTY'S VERBAL COMPLAINT
WAS INITIATED BY DICK RICKETTS AFTER MY TEMINATION AND NOT
BETTY SNYDER. BETTY SNYDER WAS, AND IS, COMPLETELEY SATISFIED
WITH NY HANDELING OF HER ACCOUNT. MY TERMINATION FROM FIRST
NATIONAL INC WAS CAUSED SOLEY BY PERSONALITY ISSUES WITH DICK
RICKETTS.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · SAN DIEGO, CA
Allegations
Allegation regarding whether employee recorded credit for customer appointments that did not meet Firm's definition of an appointment, impacting performance metrics.
Broker Comment
Mr. Adler strongly disagrees with the above allegations. The description of the employment separation as "Employment Separation After Allegations" is untrue.
In fact, Mr. Adler was never made aware of, nor given an opportunity to respond to, any such allegations prior to his decision to resign. This makes the allegations highly suspect.
His resignation was based, not on any threat of termination, but because Fidelity was violating his clients' best interests through a variety of unethical business practices. Mr. Adler complained to management on numerous occasions without any positive results. Consequently, he could not in good conscience continue to work for Fidelity. This was the sole reason for his resignation.
The false claims by Fidelity are punitive and mean-spirited in nature. Fidelity clearly intended to damage Mr. Adler's reputation so as to make it more difficult for him to find future employment and earn a living.
Making false statements regarding the reasons an employee resigns violates industry rules. It is also grounds for expungement of the disclosure and may include the award of punitive economic damages. Mr. Adler intends to file for arbitration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to have this matter expunged from his record.
Mr. Adler strongly encourages any prospective or current clients that have any concerns regarding this matter to discuss it with him personally.
BENJAMIN F. EDWARDS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED · Chesterton, IN
Allegations
Customer alleged the recommendation to purchase an investment caused her account to lose money despite the monthly reinvestment of dividends. Customer alleged account losses of approximately $29,000. (timeframe August 2025 to October 2026)
This incident occurred while I was in college. The charge relates to possession of a falsified identification document. The forged instrument was a fake ID, and the matter did not involve checks, financial instruments, or attempts to obtain funds.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · NAPLES, FL
Allegations
CUSTOMER ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING A MUTUAL FUND PURCHASED ON 07/27/2006.
Broker Comment
THE FIRM SETTLED THE COMPLAINT TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF LITIGATION WITH NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING AND NO MONETARY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THIS WAS AN ARREST DURING MY FRESHMAN YEAR IN COLLEGE WHEN I WAS 18 YEARS OLD. ALL CHARGES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DISMISSED IN 1997. I APPOLIGIZE FOR MY INDESCRETIONS.
MS. JOST OBTAINED ORIGINAL SIGNATURES ON INCOMPLETE LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION AND WAS AWARE THAT HER BRANCH OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR WAS PHOTOCOPYING THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS TO CREATE NEW LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SAME CLIENTS
Broker Comment
ALL SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED WITH CLIENTS CONSENT ON COMPANY APPROVED FORMS.
UNSUITABILITY; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; GROSS NEGLIGENCE; MISREPRESENTATIONS; AND OMISSION OF FACTS
Broker Comment
ALL THE TSO TRANSACTIONS PROCESSED UNDER MY REP ID WERE BASED UPON INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENT. THE INDIVIDUAL WAS AWARE OF EVERY SINGLE TRADE MADE IN HIS ACCOUNT BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CLIENT. THE CONFIRMATION OF ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE SENT TO THE CLIENT BY THE FIRM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE WAS MADE. HE ALSO RECEIVED MONTHLY STATEMENTS TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD BY THE FIRM, WHICH SHOWED THE ACTIVITY AND POSITIONS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT. THESE CONFIRMATIONS AND STATEMENTS PLAINLY IDENTIFIED THE TSO AS PART OF THE ASSETS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT, AND ALSO CONTAINED DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THE NATURE AND PERFORMANCE OF THIS INVESTMENT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CLIENT WAITED NEARLY 5 YEARS BEFORE OBJECTING TO THESE INVESTMENTS, DESPITE HAVING AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT DURING THAT TIME, THE CLIENT DID NOT REALIZE A LOSS IN ANY OF THESE TSO TRANSACTIONS; ON THE CONTRARY THEY GENERATED INCOME. THE INVESTMENTS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLIENT'S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE, RISK TOLERANCE AND FINANCIAL PROFILE AS PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. OTHER THAN CONFIRMING THE TSO RENEWALS AT MATURITY, I DO NOT RECALL ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WITH [CUSTOMER] RELATED TO OTHER INVESTMENTS IN HIS ACCOUNT.
CLAIMANT HEIRS ALLEGE THAT LOSSES IN THE ACCOUNT WERE THE RESULT OF OVER CONCENTRATION ON THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. THE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE BY RESPONDENT ON OR AROUND DECEMBER 2005.
Broker Comment
"I STRONGLY DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS. I FULLY INVOLVED THE CLIENT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND I PROVIDED HER WITH THE
DISCLOSURES AND RISKS INVOLVED WITH THE INVESTMENTS. I PROPOSED THE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON HER INVESTMENT
OBJECTIVES AND RISK TOLERANCE LEVEL."
DISCHARGED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, NA FOR REASONS UNRELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC. MR. TRAN OPENED BANK ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THE CUSTOMER BEING PRESENT AND COMPLETED NEW ACCOUNT APPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS ACCOUNTS LISTING A NON-OWNER INDIVIDUAL AS AN OWNER OF THE BUSINESS.
Broker Comment
The disclosure mentioned something about me adding a non-owner as a owner on a business account which is incorrect. I never opened an account and added a person as a owner when they have no ownership rights. The account would not be approved anyhow. A customer of mine asked me to set up a new business account for them and add an account manager to their to an existing account. I completed the customer request when they were not present as they called in and ask me to take care of it for them like usual and I could collect the signature from them later on. Unfortunately they had an internal dispute between owners/partners and the account opened and adding the signer was disputed. Since I didn't get a chance to collect the signatures before the dispute happen, I was asked to resign which I did. Even my manager didn't think it was a big deal but the investigator working on the case was pretty strict on it for some reason. It's not like I committed fraud or stole from the bank or customers. I was not aware that Wells Fargo listed this on my U4. They told me that for employment verification, people would not know my reason for leaving. They would just know my position at the bank and salary.
Beacon failed to supervise that Mr. Radford was appropriately registered as an investment adviser representative in Tennessee; Beacon employed Mr. Radford as an investment adviser representative in Tennessee without him being properly registered; and Mr. Radford engaged in investment adviser representative business in Tennessee while not registered with the Division.
STATE FARM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. · Syosset, NY
Allegations
The internal review concluded the individual failed to supervise the team members and ensure proper information was provided to the enterprise during the auto quote process. No securities products involved.
CLAIMANT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION; UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; UNSUITABILITY, CHURNING; FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. INCIDENT DATES: JANUARY 2000 - MARCH 2001.
Broker Comment
THE CLAIMANT IS A FORMER CLIENT OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR. THIS WAS DURING THE PERIOD OF 3/2000 2/2001 IN WHICH A WELL DOCUMENTED MARKET DOWNTURN OCCURRED.
THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO HOLD RJFS AND MR. YIM RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSSES THEY INCURRED IN THEIR SECURITIES PORTFOLIO. CLAIMANTS ASSERT IN THEIR STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT THEY WERE INEXPERIENCED, CONSERVATIVE INVESTORS WHOSE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES WERE FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE AND LESS RISKY THAN THE SECURITIES RECOMMENDED TO THEM BY YIM. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
THE REALITY IS THAT THE PORTFOLIO OF CLAIMANTS WAS INVESTED ACCORDING TO CLAIMANTS' EXPLICIT INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES. CLAIMANTS STATED THAT THEIR PRIMARY INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE WAS LONG-TERM GROWTH, THEY HAD A HIGH-RISK TOLERANCE, THEIR TIME HORIZON WAS GREATER THAN TEN YEARS AND THAT THE ASSET ALLOCATION THAT THEY RECEIVED WAS MOST SUITABLE FOR THEM.
AS SET FORTH BELOW, CLAIMANTS SUFFERED LOSSES DUE TO THE HISTORIC DECLINE IN THE STOCK MARKET THAT BEGAN WHEN CLAIMANTS INVESTED THEIR MONEY WITH RESPONDENTS IN MARCH OF 2000. RATHER THAN ACCEPTING THE RESULTS THAT THE BEAR MARKET AND A DECLINING ECONOMY HAD ON THEIR INVESTMENTS, CLAIMANTS SEEKS TO HAVE RESPONDENTS GUARANTEE THEIR INVESTMENTS FROM MARKET LOSS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS CASE INVOLVES NOTHING MORE THAN BUYER'S REMORSE.
OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF CHURNING FOR COMMISSIONS IS CLEARLY UNTRUE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE TRADES WERE DONE IN A FEE BASED ACCOUNT WITH NO LOAD MUTUAL FUNDS.
THE CLAIMANT REQUEST DAMAGES OF $110,000 PLUS LEGAL COSTS AND ALL OTHER FEES. THIS WAS FOR HIS COMPANY PROFIT SHARING PLAN, INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS AND IRA ACCOUNTS. THE REDUCED JUDGEMENT OF $44,000 WAS ONLY FOR THE PROFIT SHARING PLAN. ALL OTHER ALLEGATIONS FOR THE OTHER ACCOUNTS AND LEGAL, ARBITRATION AND PUNITIVE FEES BY THE CLAIMANT WAS DENIED.
The company became aware of Mr. Dozier's continued participation in an unapproved outside business activity involved in marketing business consulting services. No securities products were involved.
Termination after allegations of submitting multiple inaccurate annuity applications to reflect a state other than where the annuity application was signed.
AMERITAS ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC · San Francisco, CA
Allegations
Claimant filed a civil action against the registered representative and other defendants, including Charles Schwab, arising from the ownership and disposition of certain account assets following the death of a family member. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants failed to properly recognize claimant's ownership interests and failed to distribute assets in accordance with applicable agreements and state law.
The authorized third party alleged that the advisors failed to implement a strategy of rolling $250,000.00 into 30-day brokered Certificates of Deposit per the client's instructions in April of 2025.
Time Frame: January 4th, 2010 to December 31st, 2025
What were the allegations against the individual? The customer alleges that Freides improperly managed accounts held jointly in both their names, and for which he was the investment advisor, including thru inaccurate account documentation and improper asset transfers, including misappropriation of procedes of sale of customers real estate.
COMPLAINANT ALLEGES PRIVATE PLACEMENTS SOLD TO THEM WERE THE RESULT OF A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, AND VIOLATED WISCONSIN STATUTE 100.18 FOR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND WISCONSIN STATUTES SECTION 551.501
Client alleges an unsuitable 1035 exchange was processed and was not made aware of the costs inside the newpolicy. The client alleges the Registered Rep churned the new policy for is own personal financial gain.
Broker Comment
This matter is being reported consistent with FINRA rules pertaining to certain written customer complaints. The company by this filing makes no allegations regarding the actions of the Registered Rep.
Following the suicide of Plaintiff’s husband in February 2020, a number of irregularities regarding the decedent’s financial and business affairs came to light. However, the decedent was the custodian for the UTMA accounts identified in the Complaint, fully authorized to take the withdrawals in question. Resurgent was sympathetic to the family’s predicament and made the business decision to settle the case for less than it would have cost to litigate the case.
Allegation involving the representative's adherence to appropriate client authentication practices, including discussing information with a husband about a wife's account and providing education about how to fill out a trade for the account, inaccurately recording that the wife participated in the call, and recording compensation credit from wife's account, all without the wife's participation.
The complainant alleges that beginning in/and around August 2019, the registered representative misrepresented investments, securities and insurance products and had no basis to believe these were suitable products.
Broker Comment
Case #202510070060
The products and recommendations were suitable based on information provided by the customer. This settlement was entered as a business decision to avoid the cost of litigation.
On November 28, 2023 a group of ten (10) investors in the TCW Special Purpose Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor") filed a complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court seeking to recover $3,550,000 that they invested in the Sponsor. The complaint named, among others, TCW, TCW's then CEO, TCW's CFO and Joseph Shaposhnik (who was CEO of the Sponsor) as defendants. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement and/or negligent misrepresentation. TCW concluded the case wholly lacked merit and it was settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement for what TCW believes was less than the cost of defense. Mr. Shaposhnik was not asked to, and did not, contribute to the settlement or the costs associated with defending the claim.
SPAC Sponsor Claims--Altman, et al, v Lippman, et al C.A. #2023-1153-56
On November 28, 2023 a group of ten (10) investors in the TCW Special Purpose Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor") filed a complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court seeking to recover $3,550,000 that they invested in the Sponsor. The complaint named, among others, TCW, TCW's then CEO, TCW's CFO and Joseph Shaposhnik (who was CEO of the Sponsor) as defendants. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement and/or negligent misrepresentation. TCW concluded the case wholly lacked merit and it was settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement for what TCW believes was less than the cost of defense. Mr. Shaposhnik was not asked to, and did not, contribute to the settlement or the costs associated with defending the claim.
Time frame: September 2017 - present
Claimant's counsel alleges unsuitability and misrepresentation with respect to recommendations to invest in and hold an options overlay strategy.
Broker Comment
This complaint is related to a product that UBS had promoted when I was at UBS. I am not named in this complaint and UBS on their own volition decided to make this disclosure on my record. The client remains a client to this day and has signed a notarized affidavit stating the following "Mr. Lichtenfeld is not the subject of the claims in the statement of claim and the sales practice violations in Statement of Claim do not involve Mr. Lichtenfeld"? "In my view, there would be no investor protection value or regulatory value to reporting the above-captioned matter on Mr. Lichtenfeld's CRD record.
Time Frame: 2016 - Present
Allegations: Claimant's Counsel alleges unsuitability and misrepresentation regarding an options overly strategy investment.
Broker Comment
This complaint is related to a product that UBS had promoted when I was at UBS. I am not named in this complaint and UBS on their own volition decided to make this disclosure on my record. The client remains a client to this day and has signed a notarized affidavit stating the following "Mr. Lichtenfeld is not the subject of the claims in the statement of claim and the sales practice violations in Statement of Claim do not involve Mr. Lichtenfeld"? "In my view, there would be no investor protection value or regulatory value to reporting the above-captioned matter on Mr. Lichtenfeld's CRD record.
Colletti was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he placed trades with total principal
value of approximately $157,231 in the account of an elderly customer without the customer's prior
authorization. The complaint alleges that the customer was an unsophisticated investor and outside of
Colletti's excessive trading of his account, the customer mainly bought and held mutual funds and stocks of
well-established companies. Colletti's unauthorized trading resulted in realized losses of $5,417.17 in the
customer's account. The complaint also alleges that Colletti unsuitably and excessively traded the customer's
account by frequently purchasing and selling various equity positions that caused the customer to incur high
cumulative costs. Colletti exercised de facto control over the account by placing trades without first obtaining
the customer's authorization. Colletti effected securities transactions in the customer's account that
generated $4,981 in commissions and $256 in other trading costs. Colletti's excessive trading in the
customer's account resulted in a turnover rate of 10.28 (annualized to 12.33) and a cost-to-equity ratio of
72.14 percent (annualized to 86.57 percent).
Broker Comment
Hearing Panel Decision rendered February 28, 2024 wherein Colletti is fined $10,000, suspended from
associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity for eight months, ordered to pay restitution in the
amount of $5,417 to customer, and required to requalify by examination as a General Securities
Representative before he re-enters the securities industry. Colletti is also assessed hearing costs in the
amount of $5,902.66, which includes an administrative fee of $750. The sanctions are based on the findings
that Colletti engaged in unauthorized trading without obtaining specific authorization from the customer
before executing each trade. The findings also stated that Colletti engaged in unsuitable and excessive
trading. Colletti's excessive trading activity was inconsistent with the customer's financial circumstances andinvestment objectives. The customer was in his 60s, nearing retirement, and his account was an IRA
account. He had a moderate risk tolerance and investment objectives of income and growth. RM's account
never exceeded $10,000, yet Colletti's excessive trading resulted in relatively significant losses of $5,417,
while Colletti received $5,081 in commissions. On March 21, 2024, Colletti appealed the decision to the
NAC. The sanctions are not in effect pending the review. On April 29, 2024, an order imposing interim
conditions and restrictions pursuant to FINRA Rule 9285 was entered as to Colletti.
Customer alleges registered representative was involved in unauthorized estate account access by an outside third-party.
Broker Comment
I vehemently deny the allegations against me. The plaintiff asserts a wide-ranging collection of frivolous and unsupported claims against me, while also naming his own mother and JPMorgan Chase & Co. as defendants. Plaintiff has never been a client of mine, I have never served as a branch manager as plaintiff alleges, nor have I ever engaged in any of the associated allegations.
Breach of written contract, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, negligence and gross negligence, misrepresentations and omissions, violation of the NC Securities Act, violation of Reg BI
The client alleges that the FA recommended and purchased $135,000 of a 25-year bond that was unsuitable for his financial circumstances and investment objectives. The client alleges he requested that the funds be placed in a CD. He alleges the long-term bond was inconsistent with his need for income and liquidity. The client further alleges he did not authorize the bond purchase and only became aware of the investment approximately one year later.
Broker Comment
After completion of the firm's investigation, client's claim was resolved in the amount of $4,734.57 as a service gesture. Financial advisor was not required to contribute to the resolution.
On or about March 22, 2001, in connection with an annuity replacement transaction, the New York State Department of Insurance alleged that the representative failed to provide the applicant with a Definition of Replacement form and a Disclosure Statement form prior to the applicant signing the annuity contract application and failed to leave a copy of the completed and signed Disclosure Statement with the applicant. The matter was resolved by stipulation and consent, and a $750 fine was imposed.
Broker Comment
THE STIPULATION STATES THAT (1) APPLICANT HAS NO DISCIPLINARY OR COMPLAINT HISTORY, (2) HE RECEIVED INADEQUATE TRAINING REGARDING REG 60 AND INSTEAD RELIED ON HIS EMPLOYER'S ANNUITY SALES DESK TO EFFECTUATE THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE AND (3) THE ANNUITANT(S) NEVER FILED ANY COMPLAINTS.
VIOLATED COMPANY COMPLIANCE RULES CONCERNING STATE CONTINUING EDUCATION.
Broker Comment
LINCOLN FOUND AN EMAIL I SENT TO A MEETING COORDINATOR THAT INCLUDED A CONTINUING EDUCATION MEETING I WAS DOING FOR THAT OFFICE AND I STATED NEXT TO AN OUTLINE OF WHAT I WAS COVERING IN THE MEETING THAT THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING WOULD LAST 25 MINUTES.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · MELVILLE, NY
Allegations
The client alleges unauthorized trading and unsuitable investments
Broker Comment
Mr. Blair denies the allegations and states that he did not provide any investment advice or recommendations to the claimant or even communicate with the claimant prior to the purchase of the subject investments.
Arbitration: Claimant alleges that between June and November 2025, unsuitable investments recommendations were made. Complaint: Clients attorney complains that the Financial Advisor recommended investments that were not suitable, inconsistent with their investment objectives and were not made in the client’s best interest, and seeks to be made whole of any losses incurred upon dispositioning of the securities. (10/14/2025 - 6/4/2026)
Claimants allege that Somerset Securities and Thomas Hamlin steered them into unsuitable and complex alternative investments. Claimants relationship with Hamlin began in 2003. In 2017, 2018, 2022 and in 2023, Claimants invested in various private placement issues, which the Claimants now claim became illiquid and apparently decreased in value.
XENITH FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC · FORT WORTH, TX
Allegations
In March of 2025, a civil litigation was initiated against Timothy Douglas Walsh seeking $1,000,000 in damages based on allegations that Mr. Walsh failed to manage a client portfolio in light of their age, investment objectives, and risk tolerances.
Broker Comment
All claims against Timothy Douglas Walsh were permanently dismissed by the court. The remaining matter against Xenith was resolved separately. Mr. Walsh paid $0 toward the settlement. There was no finding of liability or wrongdoing against Mr. Walsh.
Customer alleges that certain stocks in her portfolio were unsuitable.
Broker Comment
I WAS NOT A RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER AND DENY THE ALLEGATIONS. THE CLAIM WAS RESOLVED THROUGH MEDIATION. I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.
CLAIMANT ALLEGES CLAIMS OF FORGERY, UNAUTHORIZED TRADING AND UNSUITABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH CLAIMANT'S INVESTMENTS IN MANULIFE ANNUITY AND WITH HER CHILDREN'S INVESTMENTS IN VARIABLE ANNUITIES.
Broker Comment
REPRESENTAIVE DENIES THE CLIENT'S ALLEGATIONS. CLIENT SIGNED THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK ACKNOWLEDGING THE INVESTMENT WAS SUITABLE AND AUTHORIZED. REPRESENTATIVE BELIEVES THE COMPLAINT WAS SOLICITED, WRITTEN AND SENT TO UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. HIS PREVIOUS B/D BY A DISGRUNTLED FORMER PARTNER, WHO IS MARRIED TO THE CLIENT. THIS MATTER WAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AS A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT THROUGHT RAYMOND JAMES AND WAS DENIED.
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Arbitration. Aaron Graham denies the clients claims and allegations. Aaron made a business decision to contribute towards and enter into a settlement with the client where he denied the allegations.
Violations of the Utah Securities Act, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unsuitability, violation of FINRA Code of Conduct, and breach of advisory and brokerage agreements.
The client alleged that she was unaware of surrender charges or penalties associated with her variable annuity and that she did not receive related disclosure documents.
I WAS PLEDGE IN A FRATERNITY. ONE OF THE STEPS OF
BECOMING A BROTHER IN OUR FRATERNITY IS FOR EACH PLEDGE CLASS
TO RETREIVE LISTED ITEMS THAT THE BROTHERHOOD COMPILED FOR THE
PLEDGE CLASS SCAVENGER HUNT. ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE LIST WAS A
CHAIR FROM THE LOBBY OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING. ANOTHER PLEDGE
BROTHER AND MYSELF WERE UNFORTUNATELY DESIGNATED THIS ITEM ON
THE LIST. UPON RETREIVING THE ITEM WE WERE APPREHENDED AND
ARRESTED BY A POLICE OFFICER OUTSIDE OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING.
THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED.
VANDERBILT ADVISORY SERVICES · Incline Village, NV
Allegations
CLAIMANTS ALLEGE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OMMISION AND NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRADING IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 26, 2017, AT WHICH TESTIMONY WAS HEARD AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED RELATED TO GRANTING THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THIS CLAIM. AARON A. DELSIGNORE IS EXONERATED OF ALL ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT RELATING TO THIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM WERE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND HE, AS A REGISTERED PERSON AT THE TIME OF THIS CLAIM, WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF INVESTMENT-RELATED PRODUCTS.
Broker Comment
FINRA Evidentiary Hearing was later held. Aaron Delsignore was EXONERATED of ALL ALLEGATIONS of misconduct relating to this claim.
ST. BERNARD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. · Broken Arrow, OK
Allegations
CLIENT PURCHASED SHARES OF THE VAN KAMPEN SENIOR LOAN FUND IN JULY 2007 AND CLAIMS THE SAFETY OF THE PRINCIPAL WAS MISREPRESENTED.
Broker Comment
I HAD THE CLIENT SIGN A DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE STATING THE FUND WAS NOT INSURED AND COULD LOSE VALUE. I USED THE LONG TERM HISTORY OF THE FUND TO DEMONSTRATE THE FUND'S NAV DID NOT FLUCTUATE MORE THAT 10% IN ANY YEAR. OVER THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS, THE CUSTOMER LOST OVER 50% IN PRINCIPAL.
ST. BERNARD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. · Broken Arrow, OK
Allegations
CUSTOMER CLAIMS THAT THE VARIABLE ANNUITY SHE PURCHASED IN JULY 2006 WAS AN UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATION.
Broker Comment
ARVEST ASSET MANAGEMENT SAID THEY FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SUITABILITY OF THE ANNUITY IN THE CLIENT'S IRA. ARVEST ASSET MANAGEMENT CHOSE TO SETTLE WITH THE CLIENT INSTEAD OF HIRING LEGAL REPRESENTATION. THE VARIABLE ANNUITY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE WAS LESS THAN 15% OF THE CLIENT'S CASH AVAILABLE.
Customer alleges that a business development company investment sold to him in 2014 was an unsuitable, high risk, speculative, high commission investment, and he suffered damages of at least $20,000.
Broker Comment
Client filed a complaint with VOYA as named, not the advisor. VOYA decided to settle to avoid additional costs of further litigation. No wrong doing was found on part of the advisor and suitability requirements were found to have been met.
CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE PURCHASES OF THE VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS, AND VIOLATION OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER AND MR. BOEHM FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN EXCHANGE FOR A JEEP AND TWO MOTORCYCLES.
Broker Comment
THE CLAIM IS WITHOUT BASIS. THE CUSTOMER HAD A DISCRETIONARY SCHWAB MANAGED PORTFOLIOS ACCOUNT. SCHWAB CHOSE MUTUAL FUNDS BASED ON THE AGGRESSIVE ALLOCATION THE CUSTOMER REQUESTED IN HIS APPLICATION. CUSTOMER LATER SOLD ALL FUNDS ON AN UNSOLICITED BASIS WHEN PRICES FELL IN 2008. NEITHER SCHWAB NOR I RECOMMENDED THE SALES. ALL DISCLOSURES ON MY RECORD RELATES TO THIS ONE CLIENT.
CUSTOMER ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE SCHWAB YIELD PLUS FUND IN JUNE 2007.
Broker Comment
THE FIRM SETTLED THE CLAIMS TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF LITIGATION, WITH NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING AND NO MONETARY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE.
NASD RULES 2110, 3030: BOEHM ENTERED INTO A HANDWRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH A CUSTOMER OF HIS MEMBER FIRM WHILE AT THE CUSTOMER'S GARAGE SALE WHEREIN HE AGREED TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMER IN EXCHANGE FOR THREE OLDER VEHICLES WHICH THE CUSTOMER SOLD TO HIM AT A DISCOUNTED PRICE. PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT, THE CUSTOMER'S FUNDS WERE HELD IN A FIRM MANAGED PORTFOLIOS WRAP ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER PAID AN ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HIS MUTUAL FUNDS WITHIN THE ACCOUNT. AFTER HAVING THE MANAGED PORTFOLIOS ACCOUNT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINED TO BOEHM ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, THE CUSTOMER AND BOEHM ENTERED INTO A HANDWRITTEN AGREEMENT WHEREIN BOEHM AGREED TO PROVIDE THE CUSTOMER WITH FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN EXCHANGE FOR THE THREE OLDER VEHICLES. THE CUSTOMER THEN PROCEEDED TO JOURNAL ALL OF HIS POSITIONS OUT OF THE WRAP ACCOUNT AND BACK INTO A PREVIOUSLY HELD NO-FEE ACCOUNT AT THE FIRM. APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR LATER, DURING THE MARKET RECESSION, THE CUSTOMER INSTRUCTED BOEHM TO LIQUIDATE HIS POSITIONS, ALL AT A SIGNIFICANT LOSS. ALTHOUGH BOEHM ADVISED AGAINST THE LIQUIDATION, THE CUSTOMER PERSISTED IN HAVING BOEHM LIQUIDATE THE POSITIONS. BOEHM DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OTHER FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMER DURING THE DURATION OF THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT (WHICH ENDED ON DECEMBER 11, 2008). NOR DID BOEHM RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT FOR HIS SERVICES OTHER THAN THE RECEIPT OF THE VEHICLES. BOEHM ENTERED INTO THE BUSINESS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES TO A FIRM CUSTOMER, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FIRM, AND WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE FIRM OR OBTAINING THE FIRM'S WRITTEN APPROVAL FOR THE ARRANGEMENT. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES ALSO SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES FROM ENTERING INTO OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT OR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHOUT OBTAINING PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE FIRM.
Broker Comment
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, BOEHM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE HE IS FINED $5,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMEBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 30 DAYS. THE SUSPENSION IS IN EFFECT FROM JULY 5, 2011 THROUGH AUGUST 3, 2011.
DocketNumberAAO
2010022029101
DocketNumberFDA
2010022029101
Initiated By
FINRA
Regulator Statement
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, BOEHM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE HE IS FINED $5,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 30 DAYS. THE SUSPENSION IS IN EFFECT FROM JULY 5, 2011 THROUGH AUGUST 3, 2011.
CUSTOMER CLAIMED SHE WAS A CONSERVATIVE INVESTER AFTER THE MARKET CRASHED AND BLAMED ME FOR HER LOSSES. HOWEVER,SHE STATED ON HER NEW ACCOUNT APPLICATION THAT SHE WAS AGRESSIVE AND HAD 5 YEARS STOCK MARKET EXPERIENCE.ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHE REQUESTED ME TO PLACE A STOP LOSS ORDER ON HER STOCK BUT THIS CLAIMS IS FALSE.
CUSTOMER ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING A MUTUAL FUND PURCHASED ON 3/30/07 & 4/19/07.
Broker Comment
THE FIRM SETTLED THE COMPLAINT TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF LITIGATION, WITH NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING AND NO MONETARY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE.
CUSTOMER ALLEGED THE REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 2008 TO REALLOCATE THE SUBACCOUNTS WITHIN HIS VARIABLE ANNUITY. NO SPECIFIC COMPENSATORY DAMAGES WERE ALLEGED.
Broker Comment
REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO SETTLEMENT. SETTLEMENT WAS PAID BY METLIFE.
CLIENT INDICATES THE IR SUGGESTED SELLING A METLIFE ANNUITY AND PURCHASING THE HARTFORD EDGE ANNUITY. CLIENT STATES IR INFORMED HER THERE WOULD BE NO TAX LIABILITY, HOWEVER, THIS INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. CLIENT BELIEVES SHE SHOULD ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 10-15% TAXES AND EJ AND/OR IR SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRS AND MARYLAND TAX REFUNDS SHE WAS DUE, 10% PENALTY AS WELL AS INTEREST AND FINES SHE HAS INCURRED FROM THE IRS AND MARYLAND. CLIENT PROVIDED A LETTER FROM HER CPA WHICH REFLECTED THE ADDITIONAL TAX/PENALTY TO BE $7,975 PLUS THE MARYLAND TAX EFFECT. CLIENT CLAIMS TOTAL LOSSES EXCEED $18,000.
Broker Comment
IT IS THE OPINION OF EDWARD JONES THAT THE CLIENT AND/OR HER HEIRS WOULD HAVE EVENTUALLY PAID TAXES ON THE DISTRIBUTION FROM THE ANNUITY. ALTHOUGH CLIENT WAS TAXED AND PENALIZED ON THE ANNUITY DISTRIBUTION, EDWARD JONES BELIEVED IT WAS THE CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE IR OF THE HISTORY OF THE ANNUITY FUNDS (SPECIFICALLY THAT THE FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN AT LEAST ONE OTHER ANNUITY PRIOR TO THE METLIFE ANNUITY). HOWEVER, AS A RESULT OF THIS INVESTIGATION EDWARD JONES MADE THE DECISION TO OFFER A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000.00, WHICH WOULD COVER A PORTION OF THE TAXES AND/OR PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION. CLOSED FILE, AS OF 2/15/07 CLIENT DID NOT ACCEPT OFFER. 5/25/2007 RECEIVED LETTER FROM CLIENT'S ATTORNEY AND FILE WAS AGAIN REVIEWED. A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 WAS OFFERED TO THE CLIENT AND THE ACCEPTED OUR OFFER ON 8/14/2007.REP COMMENTS: I ALWAYS ACTED WITH THE CLIENTS BEST INTERESTS AT HEART, AND THAT HAD THE CLIENT ADVISED ME OF THE HISTORY OF THE FUNDS, I WOULD HAVE PERFORMED A 1035 EXCHANGE RATHER THAN LIQUIDATING THE OLD ANNUITY. UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A CAPITAL LOSS ON THE ANNUITY THAT WAS LIQUIDATED, I WAS UNAWARE THAT THE ANNUITY WAS FUNDED BY A 1035 EXCHANGE MANY YEARS AGO AND THAT THE BASIS WAS MUCH LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THE CLIENT INVESTED IN THE ANNUITY THAT WAS LIQUIDATED. I CONSULTED WITH THE ANNUITY SERVICE CENTER AT EDWARD JONES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, AND THEY ALSO FAILED TO POINT OUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE COST BASIS TO BE LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT INVESTED. THE CLIENT FAILED TO PROVIDE ME WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION, THE EDWARD JONES ANNUITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FAILED TO POINT OUT THE POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAINS, AND I FAILED BY RELYING ON OTHERS TO PROVIDE ME WITH INFORMATION I SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED. WHEN I LEFT EDWARD JONES IN FEBRUARY OF 2007 THE COMPLAINT WAS CLOSED. THE COMPLAINT WAS REOPENED AND EDWARD JONES NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT OF WHICH I WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OF UNTIL REFLECTED ON MY U4.
CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE DURING THE SALE OF A 2002 ISSUE VARIABLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY. CLIENT REQUESTED A 1035 EXCHANGE, BUT DID NOT SPECIFY ANY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.
Broker Comment
EQUITABLE AGREED TO REISSUE THE POLICY AND MAKE A SPECIAL DEPOSIT OF $3,057.93.
The complainant alleges that there are signature irregularities on paperwork related to the whole life insurance policy that he purchased from the rep in 2016.
Broker Comment
The traditional life insurance policies were cancelled and the premiums returned to the customer. The internal case #201728163.
The Claimant alleges compensatory damages, breach of written contract pursuant to the customer agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, negligence and gross negligence, misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent concealment and violation of FINRA Rules.
Claimants allege that Financial Consultant made investment 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 investment profile.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFENDS THEM VIGOROUSLY.
Complainant 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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies these allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFENDS THEM VIGOROUSLY. This case is still pending for [REDACTED]. However, the arbitration case has been severed between claimants, and the case for [REDACTED] has been filed under case Id. 21-01229.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
The financial consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
STATE FARM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. · Greensboro, NC
Allegations
The review concluded the individual failed to supervise the team members and ensure proper information was provided to the customer and enterprise during the offering of insurance products. No securities products involved.
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED · Louisville, KY
Allegations
Without admitting or denying the findings, Estes consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he participated in private securities transactions totaling over $1.2 million without providing prior written notice to his employing member firm, nor sought or obtained the firm's permission to participate in them. These transactions involved small businesses in which Estes and others, including a firm customer, invested. The findings stated that Estes also engaged in outside businesses which were formed by him and others without providing prior written notice to the firm, and were outside the course and scope of his employment with the firm. The findings also stated Estes made misrepresentations and omissions concerning the above private securities transactions and outside business activities in firm annual questionnaires and other compliance documents.
Broker Comment
Mr. Estes and his friends made personal investments in a number of local businesses. There were no allegations that the companies were not legitimate businesses, or that any of Mr. Estes' friends suffered any losses. Without admitting or denying the findings, and in order to fully resolve FINRA's inquiry into his private securities transactions and outside business activities, Mr. Estes consented to the issuance of an AWC. Mr. Estes paid his fine, and the agreed upon suspension period ended December 5, 2017.
CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED ARS AS LIQUID.
Broker Comment
CUSTOMER, A SOPHISTICATED CORPORATE ATTORNEY, FAILED TO ACCEPT TWO SEC ORDERED OFFERS BY CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. TO RE-PURCHASE HIS AUCTION RATE SECURITIES AT THEIR FACE AMOUNT. CUSTOMER THEN SUGGESTED THAT RR WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLIQUIDITY OF THE FAILED AUCTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE SECURITIES WERE AT ALL TIMES PRIOR TO SALE REPRESENTED TO RR AS LIQUID BY CITIGROUP. RATHER THAN INCUR THE COST OF A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE, RR AND RR BRANCH OFFICE AGREED TO PURCHASE THE SECURITIES FROM THE CUSTOMER AT THEIR FACE AMOUNT.
Sharing commissions and fees with an unregistered person.
Broker Comment
Mr. Makkai agreed, in principle, to purchase the "book of business" of a terminated LPL Financial employee. However, at the time of the seller's termination, all of the seller's client relationships were transferred by LPL Financial to Mr. Makkai prior to a written agreement being signed by the parties. This created a drastic imbalance of negotiating power between the seller and Mr. Makkai. In an effort to address this imbalance, Mr. Makkai agreed to provide payments to the seller that were based on the revenue generated by the seller's "book of business". LPL Financial determined that these payments were "sharing of commissions and advisory fees with an unregistered person," whereas Mr. Makkai viewed them as part of the purchase of the seller's "book of business," which LPL Financial was aware of and helped support.
Makkai was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he improperly shared approximately $27,037 in commissions with an unregistered person. The complaint alleges that the unregistered person was a former colleague who had been terminated by Makkai's member firm for borrowing over $100,000 from an elderly firm customer. Shortly after the unregistered person's termination, Makkai began negotiating the purchase of the unregistered person's book of business. Although Makkai knew he was prohibited from sharing commissions with the unregistered person without the firm's prior written approval, Makkai agreed to pay the unregistered person all of the commissions generated from the accounts of his former firm customers, less $1,000 per month, until Makkai and the unregistered person entered into a formal agreement for the purchase and sale of the book of business. Makkai did so even though, after he began paying commissions to the unregistered person, he was expressly instructed by his firm branch manager that he could not share commissions with the unregistered person.
Broker Comment
The case against Makkai involved the purchase of a book of business from a fellow advisor with the support and guidance of his member firm and branch office. The payments in question were made solely for the business purchase. No clients were solicited by the selling advisor or engaged in securities transactions as a result of his communication with them after the sale. Makkai acted ethically and in good faith throughout the purchase process.
In 2017 Makkai was approached by his member firm branch supervisor with the offer to purchase a book of business owned by an advisor in the branch. The supervisor disclosed the selling advisor was planning to retire but was being terminated by the member firm. The selling advisor allegedly borrowed money from and had a joint bank account with a client without giving the firm prior notice, which was in violation of firm policies. The supervisor indicated the advisor's termination presented no issues limiting the purchase of the business. Makkai agreed to purchase the business at the recommendation, and with the ongoing oversight and guidance of the member firm and his branch supervisor. The member firm transferred the business to Makkai in the manner consistent with and specific to the purchase of a business while all parties continued to work on the written agreement.
Shortly after acquiring the business Makkai began making payments to the seller for the purchase of the business. Makkai disclosed to his supervisor that he was making payments and was expressly instructed by his supervisor that he could make the payments. All payment confirmations were sent via the firm's monitored and archived email system to ensure transaction tracking and visibility. The selling advisor maintained an office in the member firm's branch and met with clients to help with the transition of the business. The supervisor testified under oath that during the transition of the business the selling advisor made no securities recommendations and did not solicit any transactions from clients after his termination. FINRA NAC determined there was insufficient evidence to infer that any customer engaged in a securities transaction as a result of a recommendation that the selling advisor made after the firm dismissed him.
Ultimately, Makkai and the seller mutually decided to nullify the purchase agreement. Makkai determined his capacity to service all of the clients was limited. Shortly thereafter the book of business was purchased by an alternate buyer within another financial firm and the selling advisor promptly retired. The verbal agreement between Makkai and the seller included the essential elements of a legal contract per U.S. contract law. All the payments Makkai made to the seller were for the explicit purpose of purchasing the business. Throughout the purchase process Makkai never believed the payments were improper and never intended to violate any industry regulations.
DocketNumberAAO
2018058924502
DocketNumberFDA
2018058924502
Initiated By
FINRA
Regulator Statement
Hearing Panel decision rendered June 3, 2021 wherein Makkai is fined $2,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for ten business days. Makkai is also ordered to pay the hearing costs of $5,565.38. The sanctions are based on findings that Makkai improperly paid commissions to an unregistered person. The findings stated Makkai's member firm terminated the employment of a colleague of Makkai for allegedly borrowing money from a client without giving the firm prior notice and for being a joint owner of a bank account with a client in violation of firm policies. The colleague did not associate with another FINRA member firm again until after the period at issue. Makkai agreed in principle to buy the colleague's entire book of business. Immediately after the colleague's termination, the firm transferred all his brokerage and advisory accounts to Makkai. While Makkai and the colleague were still negotiating the terms of the sale of the business, the colleague asked Makkai to pay him the brokerage commissions and advisory fees that his former accounts generated and Makkai agreed to this arrangement. The firm paid Makkai commissions and advisory fees twice per month by directly depositing them into a new personal checking account that Makkai had opened for that specific purpose. Using his firm email account, Makkai sent his colleague copies of his firm brokerage commission and advisory fee statements for the colleague's former accounts, together with pages from his personal bank account showing that the firm had transferred the funds to him. Makkai made commission payments to his colleague totaling $27,037. The colleague was not registered when he received the commissions from Makkai. During this same time period, Makkai completed the firm's annual compliance questionnaire, certifying that he understood that he was prohibited from paying or otherwise directing transaction-based compensation to another person without prior firm approval. Makkai did not disclose to the firm that he was paying commissions to the colleague.
On June 28, 2021, Makkai appealed the Hearing Panel decision to the FINRA NAC. The sanctions are not in effect pending the appeal.
NAC decision rendered January 6, 2023 wherein the findings made are affirmed and the sanctions imposed by the Hearing Panel are modified wherein Makkai is fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days. The NAC affirmed the Hearing Panel's order that Makkai pay hearing costs of $5,565.38, and imposed appeal costs of $1,555.02. Decision became final on February 6, 2023.
AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BELIEF THAT MR. FLIKERSKI EITHER VIOLATED FIRM POLICY OR BREACHED HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. ANY AND ALL PRIOR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS REGARD SHOULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED OUTSTANDING AND THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED AMICABLY.
The complainant alleges that, beginning in or around 2019, the rep was involved in a matter where unsuitable recommendations and material misrepresentations were made in relation to annuity products and fraudulent real estate investments, which resulted in financial harm to the complainant.
TRUSTEE CLAIMS THE PURCHASE OF A LEHMAN BOND IN NOVEMBER 2007 WAS A POOR RECOMMENDATION AND THAT THE PURCHASE USING 10% OF HER RETIREMENT FUNDS WAS TOO LARGE A PERCENTAGE OF HER ASSETS. ADDITIONALLY, SHE CLAIMS THAT EARLY REDEMPTION PENALTIES ON B SHARE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE NOT DISCLOSED. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SPECIFIED OF APPROXIMATELY $9,300.
THIS VERBAL COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SALE OF AN AUCTION RATE SECURITY (ARS) THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE WIDESPREAD ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY 2008.
Broker Comment
THIS MATTER INVOLVES THE SALE OF AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS). THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE EVENTS OF MID-FEBRUARY 2008, WHEN THE ARS MARKET SUFFERED WIDESPREAD AUCTION FAILURES AND ILLIQUIDITY. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CAUSE, CONTRIBUTE OR HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THESE EVENTS. THE FIRM REPURCHASED THE ARS AT ISSUE FOR THEIR FULL PAR VALUE. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CLIENT, WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT REPORTED ABOVE IS BASED ON FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF ARS MATTERS SUCH AS THIS ONE MUST BE REPORTED AS THE FULL PAR VALUE OF THE REPURCHASED ARS
ACCEPTED AN ORDER FROM A CLIENT TO LIQUIDATE SECURITIES FOR THE CLIENT'S GRANDCHILDREN'S ACCOUNT WITHOUT A POWER OF ATTORNEY ON FILE. TO DATE THE FIRM HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS.
TRUIST ADVISORY SERVICES, INC. · PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL
Allegations
ALLEGATIONS OF MISSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE INVESTMENTS.
Broker Comment
IN LIGHT OF THE ARS MARKET CONDITIONS AT THE TIME, STIS CHOSE TO REPURCHASE THE SECURITIES FROM THE CLIENT. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE REPURCHASE PRICE.
The customer alleged RR Holmes mispresented the terms and conditions of the fixed annuity he purchased in or around September 2017 using proceeds from liquidated mutual funds. Specifically, the customer did not understand that the fixed annuity policy was not liquid.
Broker Comment
I don't agree with this complaint and this was settled by my prior firm without my knowledge
CUSTOMER PURCHASED VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACT IN MARCH, 2012. CUSTOMER CLAIMS VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACT IS UNSUITABLE.
Broker Comment
INSURANCE CARRIER AGREED TO ALLOW CUSTOMER TO SURRENDER CONTRACT AND RECEIVE CURRENT VALUE WITHOUT SURRENDER CHARGE. THE FIRM GAVE UP IT'S COMMISSION AMOUNT OF $9,095.68 TO THE CARRIER.
Claimant alleges that a June 2008 REIT purchase was unsuitable and misrepresented by the advisor and that Respondents inserted his initials on his subscription agreement. Claimant alleges compensatory and interest income damages from June 2008 to present.
Broker Comment
The parties settled the matter to avoid the costs of FINRA arbitration and I was dismissed from the case as part of the settlement.
THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR MADE UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.
Broker Comment
I HAVE BEEN GONE FROM MERRILL LYNCH SINCE NOVEMBER 2005. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITHT HE CLIENT SINCE THEN, AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR CURRENT PORTFOLIO AT THIS TIME. AT THE TIME OF INVESTMENT, CLIENT WAS AWARE OF THE BENEFITS AND RISK OF THE PRODUCT AND WAS APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME.
ML REPURCHASED THE DEBT SECURITY FROM THE CLIENT. THE BROKER WAS NOT ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLMENT.
THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, MISREPRESENTATION AND OMISSION OF MATERIAL FACTS REGARDING INVESTMENTS PURCHASED IN DECEMBER 2003.
Broker Comment
AS THIS ISSUE DATES BACK TO A PURCHASE MADE IN 2003, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS PRODUCT WAS SUITABLE FOR THE CLIENT GIVEN HER FINANCIAL STATUS AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF HER RISK TOLERANCE & OVERALL PORTFOLIO ALLOCATION AS STATED BY THE CLIENT. THE VALUE OF THIS INVESTMENT WAS GREATLY REDUCED DUE TO THE FINANCIAL CREDIT CRISIS AND COLLAPSE IN 2007 AND 2008. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT BACK IN 2003, I WAS A JUNIOR PARTNER ON THE TEAM OF THREE BROKERS INVOLVED WITH THE CLIENT. FURTHERMORE. I LEFT THE FIRM (MERRILL LYNCH) IN LATE 2005. DURING THE DECLINE OF THE INVESTMENT, I WAS EMPLOYEED BY ANOTHER FIRM AND HAD NOT ADVISED THE CLIENT AND HER ACCOUNT IN OVER 6 YEARS
CUSTOMER CLAIMS SALLIE MAE NOTE WAS AN INAPPRORIATE INVESTMENT FOR A CONSERVATIVE INVESTOR AS IT CAN NOT BE LIQUIDATED AS A RESULT OF A FAILD AUCTION. THIS CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVOLVES ONE OR MORE AUCTION RATE SECURITIES WITH A NOTIONAL VALUE OF $600,000 THAT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ONE OR MORE FAILED AUCTIONS.
Broker Comment
ON MAY 12, 2008, HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC. AGREED TO VOLUNTARILY REPURCHASE THE ARS SECURITIES AT ISSUE FROM THE CUSTOMER AT PAR VALUE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE LIQUIDITY UNDER UNPRECEDENTED MARKET DEVELOPMENTS TO THE EXTENT THAT A CUSTOMER'S ARS POSITION(S) COULD NOT BE SOLD AND WAS NOT REDEEMED BY THE ISSUER. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT A PARTY TO, AND DID NOT AGREE TO OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE CUSTOMER; THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CUSTOMER; AND THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THIS MATTER IS BEING REPORTED AS A SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.
BERTHEL FISHER & COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. · SUWANEE, GA
Allegations
A CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED THAT INFORMATION, WHILE GENERALLY ACCURATE, WAS ADDED TO THE NEW ACCOUNT DOCUMENT AFTER THE CUSTOMER'S SIGNATURE.
Broker Comment
I MET WITH THE CLIENT PERSONALLY TO GET THE PAPERWORK COMPLETED. NO INFORMATION WAS ADDED TO THE APPLICATION AFTER THE CLIENT HAD SIGNED THE PAPERWORK. EQUITY SERVICES, INC. HAS CLOSED THEIR REVIEW OF THIS MATTER WITHOUT TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION.
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. · GARDEN CITY, NY
Allegations
ALLEGED REPONDENT HAD THE APPLICATS SIGN UNDATED DEFINITION OF REPLACEMENT AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS FORMS AND ANNUITY CONTRACT APPLICATIONS PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORMS.
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. · GARDEN CITY, NY
Allegations
BREACH OF CONTRACT; FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION; COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY; NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY & CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; UNSUITABILITY; AND OVER CONCENTRATION. ACTIVITY DATE IS 5/2008 THRU 6/2009
Broker Comment
CLIENT'S CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT. CLIENT WAS A MEDIUM RISK INVESTOR AND WAS INVESTED APPROPRIATELY FOR HIS RISK TOLERANCE AND TIME HORIZON. THE CLIENT POSSESSED THE APPROPRIATE NET WORTH FOR THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY EMPLOYED AND WAS NEVER MISLED OR NEGLECTED. SETTLED FOR LEGAL COSTS WITH NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING.
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. · GARDEN CITY, NY
Allegations
Client alleges Suitability; Violation of FINRA Rule; Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Date of Activity is: 9/20/07 thru 1/29/16.
Broker Comment
I was not personally named in this matter, but am referenced therein. I deny any impropriety in the handling of the customer's accounts and state that all transactions were properly authorized and suitable for the customer. Further, the client received a net gain during the relevant investment time period with the Firm. This matter was settled through direct negotiation primarily based on cost of defense.
10/24/2018 - The FA liability portion was bases off two combined cases. The total legal amount paid was subtracted from the combined liability to determine remaining balance owed. There is no break down by each case since it is a combined legal matter.
FLORIDA RESIDENTS WRITE THAT THEY ASKED FA TO MOVE THEIR 4-YEAROLD DAUGHTER'S 529 FUNDS FROM AN AGE-BASED PORTFOLIO TO MONEY MARKET. THEY CLAIM THAT FA DID NOT MAKE THE CHANGE, RESULTING IN A $14,000 LOSS.
(04/01/2008 - 10/09/2008)
Broker Comment
SETTLED FOR $7,423.06 IN THE INTEREST OF CLIENT RELATIONS AND TO AVOID MORE COSTLY FORMAL PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY LIABLITY WHATSOEVER.
**FA'S RESPONSE:FA NEVER SPOKE TO THE OWNER/CUSTODIAN OF THIS 529 ACCOUNT. THE CUSTODIAN NEVER CALLED FA TO CHANGE THE FUNDS FROM AN AGE-BASED PORTFOLIO TO MONEY MARKET. THE CUSTODIAN'S WIFE, WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED, CALLED FA ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 TO INQUIRE REGARDING INSURANCE COVERAGE, I.E., FDIC AND INSTRUCTED THE FA TO CHANGE THE FUNDS TO MONEY MARKET. FA INFORMED CUSTODIAN'S WIFE THAT HE NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH THE CUSTODIAN/OWNER IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE CHANGE. THE CUSTODIAN/OWNER NEVER CALLED OR SPOKE TO THE FA.
CLIENT'S ALLEGE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE MUTUAL FUND AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE ON 02/05/2008.
Broker Comment
CANCELLED ORIGINAL PURCHASES OF (PCFCY) AND PURCHASED FCTFX AS OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE DATE. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT DID NOT INVOLVE PAYMENT OF MONETARY SETTLEMENT TO CLIENT.
TRUSTEE ALLEGES THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR MISREPRESENTED THE MUTUAL FUND PURCHASED IN APRIL 2008. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SPECIFIED AS $60,329.17.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR ADAMANTLY DISAGREES WITH THE ALLEGATIONS. THE MUTUAL FUND THAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE CLIENT WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE CLIENT AND THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR IN PERSON. FURTHERMORE, THE FEES, RISKS, BENEFITS, AND INTRICATE DETAILS OF THE MUTUAL FUND WERE DISCLOSED IN THE PROSPECTUS AND PROPRIETARY MUTUAL FUND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM SIGNED BY THE CLIENT. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE SETTLEMENT, DID NOT CONTRIBUTE ANY MONEY TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND NEVER MADE A MISREPRESENTATION.
Representative received an email from a client requesting to terminate a systematic withdrawal. Firm protocols require associates to confirm such instructions verbally, which associate failed to do.
CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS IN A PR CLOSED END FUNDS WAS UNSUITABLE OVER-CONCENTRATED AND AT RISK FOR SUBSTANTIAL LOSS. CLAIMANTS ALSO ALLEGE THAT HE WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO RISKS NOR THE INCREASING RISKS DURING 2013.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies these allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOROUSLY.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies these allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
CAMBRIDGE INVESTMENT RESEARCH ADVISORS, INC. · Henderson, NV
Allegations
THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE VIOLATED COMPANY POLICY AND PARTICIPATED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOTICE OFHER 11/3/05 TERMINATION DATE. SHE SUBMITTED HER RESIGNATION ON 11/1/05.
Broker Comment
THE REPRESERNTATIVE ALSO VIOLATED COMPANY POLICY AND CHARGED WRITTEN ADVICE FEES OUTSIDE OF POLICY, PROVIDED CLIENTS WITH UNAPPROVED BUSINESS CARDS, CONTROLLED THE ADDRESS OF TWO CLIENTS WHO WERE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND EXECUTED TRANSACTIONS FOR A CLIENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
THE NASD FOUND NO PRIVATE SECURITIES VIOLATION.
Mr. Ali El Sayed was permitted to resign from BWM Advisory, LLC ("the Firm") effective May 21, 2025. This separation occurred while Mr. El Sayed was under an ongoing internal compliance review initiated by the Firm on or about April 16, 2025, concerning his adherence to critical firm policies and regulatory obligations. Mr. El Sayed had been formally notified of this review on April 18, 2025.
The internal review pertained to Mr. El Sayed's compliance with SEC Rule 204-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69W-600.0131, and related firm policies. These policies and regulations mandate the creation, maintenance, timely submission, and completeness of required books and records associated with his investment advisory activities. Allegations communicated to Mr. El Sayed during this review included, but were not limited to:
Failure to Submit Advertising Materials: Use of advertising materials not submitted for requisite internal Firm review and approval prior to dissemination.
Incomplete Client Communication Records: Failure to ensure the Firm possessed complete records of client communications across various platforms related to his advisory services.
Deficient Submission of Client Agreements and Product Paperwork: Failure to submit complete and timely client documentation, including instances where Mr. El Sayed acknowledged obtaining client signatures on Firm agreements and facilitating the sale of annuity and life insurance products, yet failed to submit the corresponding signed paperwork to the Firm for processing and record-keeping, even when client funds for these transactions were directed to the Firm. These specific documents are essential for the Firm's supervisory and regulatory compliance.
Prior to any communication from Mr. El Sayed's counsel regarding his separation, the Firm had made multiple documented requests for the complete production of all outstanding books and records. This included a written ultimatum to Mr.
CLIENT ALLEGES SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS RECEIVING AN INCOME BENEFIT. CANNOT MAKE A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION THAT THE DAMAGES FROM THE ALLEGED CONDUCT WOULD BE LESS THAN $5000.00. (03/23/2007)
Broker Comment
I DENY THE CLIENT'S COMPLAINT. I PROVIDED FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE CLIENT AND REVIEWED ALL ASPECTS OF THE PRODUCT PRIOR TO THE CLIENT'S PURCHASE.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · PASADENA, CA
Allegations
CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT A SECURITY THAT WAS PURCHASED FOR HIS ACCOUNT WAS UNSUITABLE.
Broker Comment
THIS MATTER INVOLVES THE SALE OF AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS). THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE TOOK PLACE BEFORE MID-FEBRUARY 2008, WHEN THE ARS MARKET SUFFERED WIDESPREAD AUCTION FAILURES AND ILLIQUIDITY. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CAUSE, CONTRIBUTE OR HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THESE MARKET EVENTS. THE FIRM REACHED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN OF ITS REGULATORS, PURSUANT TO WHICH IT REPURCHASED ARS FOR THEIR FULL PAR VALUE FROM CERTAIN CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTANT CLIENT, WHERE THEY COMPLAINED OR NOT. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE CLIENT, AND WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IN ITEM 11 ABOVE REFLECTS THE PAR VALUE OF THE REPURCHASED ARS, AS REQUIRED BY FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.
ON AUGUST 8, 2011, THE CLIENTS REGISTERED A VERBAL COMPLAINT WITH ALLAN BUDELMAN CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD SINCE THEIR REVIEW MEETING WITH MR. BUDELMAN ON JUNE 14. DURING THE REVIEW MEETING, THE CLIENTS HAD REQUESTED TO HAVE THEIR ACCOUNTS POSITIONED SUCH THAT THEY WERE NEUTRAL VERSUS THE STOCK MARKET. WHEN THEY RECEIVED A PERFORMANCE UPDATE, THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THEIR PORTFOLIO'S PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO THE STOCK MARKET.THEY BELIEVED INADEQUATE ACTION WAS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT A MARKET NEUTRAL STRATEGY IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. MR. BUDELMAN HAD REDUCED THE PORTFOLIOS EXPOSURE TO THE STOCK MARKET POST REVIEW; HOWEVER, THE CLIENT'S EXPECTATION WAS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NO LOSSES IN CASE OF A MARKET DOWNTURN. MR. BUDELMAN, IN LIGHT OF THE CLIENT'S WISH TO REMAIN INVESTED (I.E., NOT TO GO TO CASH), FELT THAT THE RELATIVE PERFORMANCE WAS ACCEPTABLE. DUE TO LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING THE CLIENT'S MANDATE, THE FIRM FELT A MISCOMMUNICATION TOOK PLACE. IN VIEW OF THE LONG-STANDING CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, THE FIRM SETTLED WITH THE CLIENT FOR $28,000 IN CASH PAYMENTS AND FIVE QUARTERS OF WAIVED MANAGEMENT FEES (APPRX. $25,000).
Broker Comment
This complaint Disclosure was originally filed in error. [customer] has signed an affidavit stating that the disclosure event that occurred on 08/08/2011 with Allan Budelman at Emerald Asset Advisors was a misunderstanding between Allan and [customer]. [customer] never intended for it to be a formal complaint rather a discussion concerning the positioning of his portfolio. [customer] continues to maintain his relationship with Allan and Emerald.
CAMBRIDGE INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC. · Asheville, NC
Allegations
CLIENT'S REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGES THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO PLACE THE FUNDS THE CLIENT RECEIVED AS A BENEFICIARY OF HIS DECEASED FATHER'S IRA INTO A TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AS THE FUNDS WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED TO BE TAX DEFERRED SINCE THEY WERE IN AN IRA ACCOUNT. DECEMBER 2005. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED.
THE CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY.
2/00 CLIENTS CALLED TO PARTICIPATE IN IPO. ACCOUNT OPENED WITH$3K.
3/00 CLIENTS SOLD HOME.
4/00 CLIENTS COMPLETE FF QUESTIONNAIRE.
4/00 CLIENTS TRANSFER $300K INTO ML.
4/00 FF REPORT PRESENTED TO CLIENTS. INFORMED THEM THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THEIR RETIREMENT GOALS UNDER ANY ASSET ALLOCATION GIVEN THEIR SAVINGS.
4/00 IGNORING MY ALLOCATION ADVICE, CLIENTS REQUESTED I CONSTRUCT A MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE STOCK PORTFOLIO FOR THEM.
4/00 CLIENTS WERE PRESENTED WITH PORTFOLIO OF MOSTLY BLUE-CHIP STOCKS THAT HAD BEEN PERFORMING WELL. THEY RESEARCHED THE STOCKS AND REJECTED THE OIL & GAS STOCKS ON PERSONAL GROUNDS, THEREBY INCREASING THEIR EXPOSURE TO MORE VOLATILE SECTORS.
5/00 CLIENTS BOUGHT 16 STOCKS IN THEIR ACCOUNT AFTER HAVING RESEARCHED THEM. THE CLIENTS WERE LATER CAUGHT IN A LIE DURING ARBITRATION THAT THEY HAD NOT RESEARCHED THE STOCKS.
SUMMER '00 CLIENTS BEGIN FRIVOLOUSLY SPENDING ON MARGIN WHILE I WAS AWAY ON VACATION ROUGHLY ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE MARKET BEGINS TO FALTER. THEY SOLD THEIR POORER PERFORMING STOCKS. THE CLIENTS WERE LATER CAUGHT LYING DURING ARBITRATION THAT I HAD NOT GIVEN THEM ADVICE ON HOW TO MANAGE THEIR SITUATION.
9/00 CLIENTS BUY HOUSE ON SIGNIFICANT ACREAGE USING A PORTION OF THEIR ACCOUNT ON MARGIN.
10/00 PROMPTLY REPAY MARGIN BALANCE WITH PROCEEDS FROM OUTSIDE CD THAT MATURED.
FALL '00 THROUGH SUMMER '01 ACCOUNT VALUE FALLS. CLIENTS CONTINUE TO HOLD STOCKS, AGAINST MY ADVICE. CLIENTS IRRESPONSIBLY SPEND ON MARGIN AGAIN, AGAINST MY ADVICE. CLIENTS LATER CAUGHT IN LIE DURING ARBITRATION THAT THERE WAS LITTLE CONTACT BETWEEN THEM AND I DURING THIS TIME.
FALL '01 CLIENTS BEGIN RECEIVING MARGIN CALL. I ADVISE THEM TO SELL EVERYTHING AND REALLOCATE. THEY ELECTED, AGAINST MY ADVICE, TO SELL ONLY ENOUGH TO MEET THE MARGIN CALLS.
FALL '01 I TERMINATE MY RELATIONSHIP WITH CLIENTS AND TRANSFER THEIR ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER BROKER.
SPRING '02 CLIENTS FILE COMPLAINT LETTER WITH ML AND NASD CITING UNSUITABILITY.
SUMMER '02 STILL NOT LISTENING TO ADVICE, CLIENTS RECEIVE LETTER FROM ML STATING THAT IF THEY CONTINUED TO HOLD STOCKS IN THEIR ML ACCOUNT THEY WOULD BE DOING SO AT THEIR OWN RISK.
SUMMER '02 CLIENTS EVENTUALLY SELL THE REMAINING STOCKS IN THEIR ACCOUNT.
FALL '02 NASD ISSUES LETTER OF CAUTION FINDING UNSUITABILITY.
WE WERE STUNNED THAT 1) THEY WERE AWARDED A MONETARY AMOUNT AFTER HAVING BEEN CAUGHT IN SO MANY LIES, AND 2) THEY WERE THE ONES THAT HAD REQUESTED THE STOCK PORTFOLIO IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY FOLLOWED MY ADVICE (NOT SPENT ON MARGIN) AND ADHERED TO MY AND MERRILL'S ADVICE AND RESEARCH TO STAY-THE-COURSE OF THEIR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE EVENTUALLY RECOUPED MOST OF THEIR LOSSES, AND PERHAPS COME OUT AHEAD.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · MCKINNEY, TX
Allegations
CLAIMANT ALLEGES SUITABILITY AND OMISSIONS REGARDING THE STRUCTURED PRODUCT INVESTMENTS. TIME FRAME 2008.
Broker Comment
I AM NOT THE RESPONDENT IN THIS ARBITRATION CASE, WHICH WAS BROUGHT BY A CLAIMANT WHO REMAINS A GOOD CLIENT OF MINE TO THIS DAY. MY CUSTOMER CHALLENGES A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT FAILED BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 2008 AND, SPECIFICALLY, THE BANKRUPTCY OF LEHMAN BROTHERS. WHILE HE ALLEGES THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEHMAN BROTHERS STRUCTURED PRODUCT INVESTMENT WERE NOT FULLY DISCLOSED, HE ADMITS HE SAT DOWN WITH ME AND A PRODUCT SPECIALIST WHO MADE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION THAT DESCRIBED THE INVESTMENT. WE HAD A FOLLOW UP MEETING AT WHICH WE COMPLETED A FULL FINANCIAL PLAN AND DURING WHICH WE MADE SPECIFIC PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS. THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM STATES THAT I PROMISED TO RECOMMEND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS, MONITOR THOSE INVESTMENTS, AND REPORT IF MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGED. WHILE I DID NOT SAY THOSE EXACT WORDS TO THE CLIENT, I DO BELIEVE I DID THOSE THINGS. I DID WATCH OUT FOR MY CLIENT'S HOLDINGS, AND I CALLED HIM AS SOON AS I FOUND OUT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE INVESTMENT. IN MY VIEW, I DID NOTHING WRONG. I MAINTAIN THIS WAS A SUITABLE INVESTMENT TO A HIGH NET WORTH CLIENT CONSISTENT WITH HIS OBJECTIVES.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED · MCKINNEY, TX
Allegations
CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE PURCHASE OF THE STRUCTURED NOTES. TIME FRAME: 10/07-03/09.
Broker Comment
I AM NOT THE RESPONDENT IN THIS ARBITRATION CASE. MY CUSTOMER CHALLENGES A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT FAILED BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 2008 AND, SPECIFICALLY, THE BANKRUPTCY OF LEHMAN BROTHERS. THE CLIENT SAT DOWN WITH ME AND A PRODUCT SPECIALIST FROM UBS WHO MADE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION THAT DESCRIBED THE INVESTMENT. WE HAD A FOLLOW UP MEETING WHERE WE COMPLETED A FULL FINANCIAL PLAN AND DURING WHICH WE MADE SPECIFIC PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS. I MAINTAIN THIS WAS A SUITABLE INVESTMENT FOR A HIGH NET WORTH CLIENT CONSISTENT WITH HER OBJECTIVES BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME. IN MY VIEW, I DID NOTHING WRONG. I RECOMMENDED SUITABLE INVESTMENTS, MONITORED THOSE INVESTMENTS AND CALLED HER AS SOON AS I FOUND OUT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE INVESTMENT.
Client indicated financial professional misrepresented this product as safe and secure.
Broker Comment
Client signed disclosures on Infinex approved product and the transaction and rationale was then reviewed and approved by Infinex compliance. As per Infinex, client withdrew more than initially invested.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC · Port Arthur, TX
Allegations
FAILING TO OBTAIN APPROVAL TO BORROW MONEY FROM A CUSTOMER AND FOR PROVIDING INACCURATE INFORMATION ON NEW ACCOUNT FORMS.
Broker Comment
I VOLUNTARILY RESIGNED AFTER ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE. INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS WERE DONE AND NO WRONG DOING WAS FOUND REGARDING THE INACCURATE INFO. ON ACCTS. LETTER OF CAUTION ISSUED BY FINRA REGARDING APPARENT VIOLATION OF NASD CONDUCT RULE 2370 ON BORROWING MONEY FROM SECURITIES CUSTOMER THAT WAS A LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND.
Firm Name
CAPITAL ONE INVESTMENTS, LLC (FORMERLY HIBERNIA INVESTMENTS)
THIS SETTLEMENT IS THE RESULT OF A FIRM WIDE AGREEMENT TO REPURCHASE AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS) THAT EXPERIENCED FAILED AUCTIONS AND LIMITED LIQUIDITY THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY. THE SETTLEMENT REPURCHASE OF THE ARS WAS EXECUTED AT PAR AND THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.
CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE 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 MADE FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE PRODUCTS RISKS; AND RECOMMENDED TO HOLD SUCH POSITIONS.
Broker Comment
THE CLIENT HAD OTHER ACCOUNTS AT SEVERAL BROKER DEALERS WHEN THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED. AT THE TIME WHEN THE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE THE CUSTOMER REQUESTED AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE WHICH WAS TAX EXEMPT AND PRODUCED INCOME. THE CUSTOMER EXPRESSED HE HAD A MODERATE RISK TOLERANCE SINCE HE HAD HIS OWN BUSINESS AND HAD NO PLANS TO RETIRE AT THE TIME. SINCE WE BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE CLIENT WE EMPHASIZED ON THE RISK OF HAVING ONE TYPE OF INVESTMENT ON THE ACCOUNT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PORTFOLIO DIVERSIFICATION. THE CUSTOMER DID NOT WAS TO DIVULGE HIS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AT OTHER BROKERAGE HOUSES. HE WAS ADVISED THAT WE COULD NOT ENSURE PROPER DIVERSIFICATION IN HIS ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION. AT THE TIME WHEN THE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE THE PRODUCT FULFILLED THE CUSTOMER NEEDS AND WAS ALIGNED WITH HIS RISK TOLERANCE AND INVESTMENT PROFILE.
CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT FINANCIAL CONSULTANT MISLED INTO BELIEVING THAT HER INVESTMENTS AND ACCOUNTS WERE SUITABLE AND SAFE. CLAIMANTS ALSO ALLEGE THAT SHE WAS NOT ADVISED ABOUT THE INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVESTMENTS IN HER ACCOUNT.
CLIENT ALLEGES 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 POSITIONS IN LIGHT OF THE CLIENT'S 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.
Broker Comment
THE AFOREMENTIONED SECURITIES WERE PURCHASED AS REQUESTED BY THE CLAIMANT. THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED THE CLAIMANT TO HAVE A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO, INCLUDING GNMA AND US BONDS, AND SUGGESTED THE SELL OF PR BONDS IN THE PORTFOLIO DUE TO THE POSSIBLE RATING DOWNGRADE.
Claimants allege that Financial Consultant made recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R. bonds and Popular High Grade Fixed-Income Fund resulting in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which was unsuitable in light of the client's stated risk tolerance and investment objective.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOROUSLY.
Claimants allege that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold a P.R. closed end fund and P.R. municipal bonds resulted in an over concentrated and high risk portfolio, which were unsuitable positions in light of the client's stated 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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOROUSLY.
Claimants allege that Financial Consultant investment recommendations to purchase and to hold P.R Sales Tax Financing Corporation bond (COFINA) 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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOROUSLY.
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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOROUSLY.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies these allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
Complainant 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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies these allegations and intends to defend them vigorously given the fact that the Consultant has not conducted business with Claimants and therefore shouldn't have been included or mentioned in their allegations.
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.
Broker Comment
THE FINANCIAL CONSULTANT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTENDS TO DEFEND THEM VIGOUSLY.
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.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
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 clientâ??s stated risk tolerance and investment objective.
Broker Comment
The Financial Consultant denies the allegations and intends to defend them vigorously.
EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE ALLEGES THAT INVESTMENTS WERE NOT SOLD WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. TIME PERIOD IS SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 - OCTOBER 12, 2018.
Broker Comment
I at all times conducted myself in an appropriate and professional matter, and promptly responded to customer instructions. While the firm elected to settle the matter, I continue to deny the unwarranted allegations. I did not contribute to the settlement.
Alleged breach of fiduciary duty regarding options trading strategy from January 2019 through January 2022.
Broker Comment
The firm disputes the Claimant's allegations and intends to contest the claim vigorously. At all times, the representative acted reasonably and in pursuit of the Claimant's best interests.
In June 2021, the registered representative solicited a floating rate note that resulted in a customer allegation regarding the suitability of the investment. The matter has since been resolved and closed following a settlement with the complainant.
On March 7, 2024, without admitting or denying the findings, Krause entered into an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC") with FINRA wherein Krause consented to the entry of findings that between September 2020 and August 2021, he mismarked 1,555 order tickets as unsolicited when the securities transactions were actually solicited by Krause. By mismarking the order tickets, Krause caused his member firm to make and preserve inaccurate books and records. Krause agreed to a two-month suspension from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities and to the payment of a fine in the amount of $10,000.
Broker Comment
I had dealt with a multi-year FINRA investigation that only concluded recently, related to an unintentional books and records error with trades that were marked unsolicited due to computer presets. My trading platform was preset to reflect trades as unsolicited. I never paid mind to change this preset, nor change it when placing trades; therefore, trades were marked as unsolicited, when in fact many of those trades were solicited.
This was an error and oversight on my part, not a result of any customer complaints, nor was there any intent or harm done because of this error. I complied with both my Broker Dealer and FINRA requests, providing them with all the necessary information promptly and satisfactorily.
After a very drawn-out process, which took a toll on my entire family, I reluctantly made the decision to accept an AWC from FINRA regarding this error, and I have paid all fees to the Broker Dealer and FINRA for the corrections/error. Agreeing to a suspension and fine, rather than this going on for any longer, was in my family's best interest.
Since the investigation I have been mindful of marking trades correctly and have served the suspension, which concluded June 15, 2024. I have not engaged in any dishonest or unethical practices in the securities/investment advisory or any other financial services business.
I have accepted a consent order from the state of MD, albeit reluctantly, but I did not have any active relationships with MD individuals and rather than going through a hearing process I have accepted their order of revocation.
Initiated By
Maryland
Resolution
Consent
Sanctions
Respondent agrees not to apply or reapply for registration as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser representative with the State of Maryland.
CUSTOMERS ALLEGE UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATION.
Broker Comment
I STRONGLY REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS AS THEY HAVE NO MERIT. THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER I HAD ANY DEALINGS WITH THE CLIENT. MERRILL LYNCH DECIDED TO SETTLE THIS CASE AND I WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FINANCIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.
THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, MISREPRESENTATION AND FORGERY OF THE CUSTOMER'S SIGNATURE FROM AUGUST 2004 TO NOVEMBER 2008.
Broker Comment
I STRONGLY REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS AS THEY HAVE NO MERIT AND WILL BE VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED. THIS CLAIM WAS ORIGINALLY DENIED BY MERRILL LYNCH IN 2009.
NPC TERMINATED ME AS A REP ON 10/24/02; ON MY U-5 THEY INDICATED I WAS UNDER INTERNAL REVIEW FOR VIOLATING INVESTMENT RELATED STATUTES, SPECIFICALLY FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE ONE OUTSIDE BUSINESS INTEREST. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THIS POSITION AND I WILL VIGOROUSLY CONTEST THEIR FINDINGS. NO FURTHER ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.
Broker Comment
REP DISCLOSED EMPLOYMENT BY KAFOURY ARMSTRONG & CO. TO NPC IN 11/2001 WITH ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE OUTSIDE BUSINESS INTERESTS. I DISAGREE TOTALLY WITH NPC'S ACTIONS.
***NASD ISSUED RR LETTER OF CAUTION REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ON MAY 19, 2003.***
MERRILL LYNCH ULTIMATELY MADE A BUSINESS DECISION TO SETTLE THIS MATTER TO AVOID THE COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH ARBITRATION. MR. ANDREW KAHNG DENIES THIS ALLEGATION AND WAS NOT REQUIRED BY HIS FIRM OR FINRA TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS MATTER.
RELATING TO THE SALE OF PROVIDENT SHALE, IMH SECURED LOAN FUND, AND A VARIABLE ANNUITY, CLAIMANTS ALLEGE MISREPRESENTATION, UNSUITABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND SALE OF PROVIDENT ROYALTIES, CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES OWED TO CLAIMANTS.
Broker Comment
ANDREW BURDSALL IS NOT A NAMED RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER. 10/11/2011: THIS CLAIM WAS PART OF A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT BY SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND SALE OF PROVIDENT ROYALTIES, CLAIMANT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION, AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES OWED TO CLAIMANT.
Broker Comment
ANDREW BURDSALL IS NOT A NAMED RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER. 10/11/2011: THIS CLAIM WAS PART OF A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT BY SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND SALE OF MEDICAL CAPITAL, CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION, AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES OWED TO CLAIMANTS.
Broker Comment
ANDREW BURDSALL IS NOT A NAMED RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER. 10/11/2011: THIS CLAIM WAS PART OF A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT BY SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.
Conduct involving discussing an insurance annuity product with a client without being insurance licensed.
Broker Comment
In Late October of 2015 I meet with a client regarding their relationship with Bank of America. At the time the client stated they maintained outside accounts and were interested in consolidating with Bank of America / Merrill Lynch. Since the client was not sure of the type of accounts they had a requested they bring in statements so that I could review them. The client brought me statements and after review I noticed that the client held variable annuities. As I was not insurance licensed I reached out to my market sales lead for advice. I recommended having another local representative whom is insurance licensed to meet the client and myself. My colleague recommended the client to liquidate the annuity and I help the client complete the liquidation paperwork. After the annuity was liquidated the client found out they were charged a penalty for liquidating even thought my colleague stated that they should not be charged. When the client noticed in late December that they had not received the full amount they came to my office and asked for help with the issue. I reached out to the annuity company to find out what occurred and informed the client. The clients then choose to file a complaint for the amount of the penalty. Since I filed the complaint with my compliance group on behave of the client. After the complaint was reviewed in June of 2016 since I was the only notes left on the account the firm made the decision to terminate me for speaking to a client regarding an insurance product while not being licensed.
Firm Name
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Allege that investment was in a risky, privately traded REIT which was not suitable for a portion of his retirement savings
Broker Comment
Claimant has cherry-picked an investment that is still viable (stopped paying income but still has value) and ignores other investments in the portfolio that have made money. Claim will be defended as without merit and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. An initial review of the client's file finds that risks associated with the product were timely and properly disclosed. The simple fact that an investment does not (or in this case has not, to date) performed as expected is not a sufficient basis for a claim; neither the firm nor the representative guaranteed the investment in question and no proof thereof has been provided,
THE COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SALE OF AN AUCTION RATE SECURITY (ARS) THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE WIDESPREAD ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY 2008.
Broker Comment
THE COMPLAINT AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INDUSTRY WIDE BREAKDOWN OF LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKET FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIES ("ARS"). THE FIRM AGREED TO REPURCHASE THE ARS SECURITIES AT ISSUE AT PAR VALUE FROM THE CLIENT PURSUANT TO A GLOBAL REPURCHASE AGREEMENT IT ENTERED INTO WITH SEVERAL REGULATORY BODIES. THIS WAS NOT A SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS NOT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLIENT'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR ANY FINDING OF FAULT OR WRONGDOING BY THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT A PARTY TO, AND DID NOT AGREE TO OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE RELEVANT REGULATORY BODIES. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CLIENT AND THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. THE LISTED "SETTLEMENT AMOUNT" REPRESENTS ONLY THE GROSS INITIAL PAR VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AT THE TIME THE FIRM RECEIVED IT BACK FROM THE CLIENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT. THIS MATTER IS BEING REPORTED AS A SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.
AN OFFICER FOUND AN ID ON MY PERSON THAT WAS NOT MINE. THE PICTURE LOOKED LIKE ME. HE BELIEVED IT TO BE A "FAKE"ID. IT WAS NOT A "FAKE" ID BUT ACTUALLY A REAL ID.
CLAIMANT WHO RECEIVED PROSPECTUS PRIOR TO TRANSACTION ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENTS MISREPRESENTED THE YIELD RATE OF A VARIBLE RATE CD DURING 05/2013 THROUGH 11/2014.Claimant alleges that respondent misrepresented the yield rate of a variable rate cd
Broker Comment
RESPONDENTS DENY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM. THE MATTER WAS SETTLED SOLELY TO AVOID THE COST AND EXPENSE OF LITIGATION. MR. BROOKMAN WAS A NAMED RESPONDENT IN THE ARBITRATION CLAIM, BASED ON THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, FINRA ADVISED OPPENHEIMER TO MARK 14I(5)(A) AS NO OTHER DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS WERE APPLICABLE. MR. BROOKMAN WAS NOT CONSULTED PRIOR TO BRILL SECURITIES ENGAGEMENT IN A SETTLEMENT. ALL TRADE ACTIVITY AND NEW ISSUE BOND BUSINESS WAS REVIEWED, MONTIORED AND SIGNED OFF BY PRINCIPALS OF THE FIRM.
Customers allege that between January 2021 and September 2021, representative recommended an investment strategy in certain equities that was inappropriate for the customers' investment objectives and risk tolerance.
Broker Comment
I unequivocally deny any culpability or wrongdoing. It was settled by LPL without my involvement. I did not contribute financially towards the settlement.
Claimant alleges that during the time period April 2021 to April 2022, Representative failed to diversify her portfolio, which caused risk that was inconsistent with her investment objectives and risk tolerance.
Broker Comment
I unequivocally deny any culpability or wrongdoing. It was settled by LPL without my involvement. I did not contribute financially towards the settlement.
PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT WRITES IN E-MAIL TO FA THAT HE QUESTIONED THE RISK OF VAN KAMPEN AND BLACKROCK AUCTION RATE
PREFERREDS BEFORE INVESTING $25,000 INTO EACH OF 10/24/06 AND 04/18/07 RESPECTIVELY. CLIENT WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WACHOVIA IS
DOING ABOUT THE ILLIQUIDITY PROBLEM. HE MAKES NO CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SALE OF TWO 2007 VARIABLE ANNUITIES. CLIENT IS REQUESTING THE FIRM TO INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED.
Broker Comment
BASED UPON INFORMATION AND AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS, IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WERE PROVIDED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE BENEFITS, TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THEIR CONTRACTS. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS NO MISREPRESENTATION FOUND. HOWEVER, IN AN EFFORT TO AMICABLY RESOLVE THIS MATTER [WHICH INVOLVED TWO AGENTS -A PRIMARY AND A SECONDARY], THE MATTER WAS SETTLED. AXA-EQUITABLE AGREED TO WAIVE ALL CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SURRENDER OF THE TWO VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACTS. LOSS TO FIRM: $117,515.70. RR ANDREW ZISKIN [THE SECONDARY AGENT] CONTRIBUTED 50% [$58,757.85] TOWARD THE SETTLEMENT THROUGH HIS ERRORS & OMISSIONS CARRIER.
CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF THREE VARIABLE ANNUITIES. DAMAGES NOT SPECIFIED.
Broker Comment
WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY, THE PARTIES RESOLVED THIS DISPUTE FOR $300,000.00. RR ANDREW ZISKIN'S ERRORS AND OMISSION CARRIER CONTRIBUTED 40% ($120,000.00) TO THE SETTLEMENT ON HIS BEHALF.
Client complains the investment purchased was inappropriate for their risk profile and requests that transaction be cancelled and purchase price restored. 8/24/2026 - 9/3/2026
Broker Comment
The representative believes the complaint resulted from a misunderstanding regarding the type of investment being discussed and the fixed-income strategies considered.
CLIENT ALLEGES THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR MADE AN UNAUTHORIZED TRADE WITH RESPECT TO AUCTION MARKET SECURITIES.
Broker Comment
THIS MATTER INVOLVES THE SALE OF AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS). THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE TOOK PLACE BEFORE MID-FEBRUARY 2008, WHEN THE ARS MARKET SUFFERED WIDESPREAD AUCTION FAILURES AND ILLIQUIDITY. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CAUSE, CONTRIBUTE OR HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THESE MARKET EVENTS. THE FIRM REACHED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN OF ITS REGULATORS, PURSUANT TO WHICH IT REPURCHASED ARS FOR THEIR FULL PAR VALUE FROM CERTAIN CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTANT CLIENT, WHERE THEY COMPLAINED OR NOT. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE CLIENT, AND WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IN ITEM 11 ABOVE REFLECTS THE PAR VALUE OF THE REPURCHASED ARS, AS REQUIRED BY FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.
Client claims an unsuitable trade was made in his IRA and was outside of the agreed-upon criteria.
Broker Comment
Mr. Tang, who served as Chief Investment Officer of Claraphi Advisory Network, LLC ("Clariphi") and advisor to this client the time of the complaint, wishes to clarify that this event was caused by a trading error from the portfolio management team, which he supervised, resulting in losses in the client's account. While Claraphi attempted to perform a trade correction, the trade was unable to be reversed due to the time period which lapsed.
FINRA instructs that a firm has a continuing obligation to amend an individual's Form U-5. On May 3, 2021, Judge Danielle J. Viola in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County CV 2021-000707 found that "Mr. Tang took from the firm private and sensitive confidential and valuable financial information" and that "the public interest is served by prohibiting Tang from using the firm's confidential information for his own or others' competitive advantage". During the hearing, Mr. Tang admitted that he did take this information from the Firm. In accordance with Judge Viola's order, Mr. Tang provided the Firm with a written declaration under penalty of perjury confirming that all original or copies of documents taken from the Firm have been returned and deleted. The Firm stands by its previous disclosures regarding Mr. Tang.
After Mr. Tang's departure, the Firm received documents and information indicating Mr. Tang had willfully violated certain portions of the Firm's Cyber-Security Policy, Compliance Manual and industry rules. The Firm hereby amends its initial Reason for Termination from "Other" to "Discharged."
Broker Comment
Mr. Tang fervently disagrees with Claraphi Advisory Network, LLC's ("Claraphi") termination reasons and explanations. Mr. Tang resigned as Chief Investment Officer from Claraphi on December 31, 2020 because of a hostile work environment. Claraphi first alleges that Mr. Tang was fined for failure to follow the firm's advertising policy. This alleged violation involved emailing a personal picture family holiday card to approximately seven (7) long-term clients, which he disclosed to Compliance prior to sending and only after receiving what he believed was a verbal approval from Compliance, conditioned on relaying the seven (7) client names to Compliance, which was completed within one (1) business day of sending. Moreover, the nominal fine was "recommended" by Compliance but never issued by the President, thus Mr. Tang had no duty to pay it; and if he did, he was never confronted by Claraphi regarding this matter at his point of departure or any time thereafter prior to issuance of his Form U5. Furthermore, months after the fact, Clariphi amended Mr. Tang's Form U5 to reflect that he was discharged (which he was not), alleging he violated cybersecurity policies and industry rules. Mr. Tang intends to seek legal remedies to clarify this record.
ON 9/1/87 I WAS A PASSENGER IN ANOTHER PERSONS CAR. POLICE
PULLED OVER THE AUTOMOBILE WITH FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN THE
CAR. I WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT OF THE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS,
LITTERING AND USE OF NOXIOUS SUBSTANCE, BUT ALL CHARGES WERE
DROPPED WITH NO COURT APPEARANCE.
Client alleges the RR encouraged him to invest $300,000 in a solar tax credit program called H2, which is not an approved product of the Firm. Client states he lost $191,000 in the investment.
MR. SILVERMAN'S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED AFTER THE FIRM
DETERMINED THAT HE HAD VIOLATED THE FIRM'S "GUIDELINES FOR
BUSINESS CONDUCT" RELATING TO AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM BY SEEKING COMPENSATION FROM THE FIRM TO WHICH HE WAS NOT ENTITLED.CLIENT ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AFFECTED IN THIS MATTER.
THRIVENT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC. · GOLDEN VALLEY, MN
Allegations
CUSTOMERS COMPLAINED THAT REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE HAD MINIMAL CONTACT WITH THEM AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO TELEPHOEN CALLS AND CORRESPONDENCE. THIS ALLEGED POOR SERVICE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LOSS AND POTENTIAL GROWTH TO THEIR INVESTMENT.
CLAIMANT ALLEGES IN 2007 AND 2008, RESPONDENTS RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE INLAND AMERICAN REIT. CLAIMANT ALLEGES THE INVESTMENTS WERE MISREPRESENTED AS SAFE AND CLAIMANT WAS OVER-CONCENTRATED WITH AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO 35% OF HER LIQUID NET WORTH INVESTED IN THE REIT. CLAIMANT REQUESTS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES OF LESS THAN $50,000.00 PLUS SPECIFIED COSTS AND FEES.
CLIENT ALLEGES RR PURCHASED ADDITIONAL SHARES OF FACEBOOK STOCK, WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION. CLIENT ALSO ALLEGES RR LATER SOLD ALL SHARES OF FACEBOOK STOCK, WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION.
Broker Comment
RR ASSERS ISSUE WITH CLIENT WAS MISCOMMUNICATION. RR STATES HE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CLIENT PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS OF THE STOCK WHICH WERE MISUNDERSTOOD. RR STATES HE WAS HAPPY TO ACCOMODATE CLIENT AND DEMONSTRATE HIS WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT THE ISSUE AS HE WOULD WITH ANY CLIENT.
RR CONDUCTED UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS IN A CLIENT ACCOUNT.
Broker Comment
IN MARCH OF 2014 A CLIENT SUBMITTED A WRITTEN COMPLAINT INDICATING THAT I SOLD 200 SHARES OF STOCK WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL IN 2013. WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION VERBALLY ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL SHARES AND THE CLIENT WAS OK WITH THAT PURCHASE AT THAT TIME. WE SUBSEQUENTLY HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT USING A STOP ORDER TO CAPTURE A PROFIT IN THE STOCK AND TO LIMIT ANY DOWNSIDE MOVEMENT IN THE STOCK TO HER BENEFIT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CLIENT DID NOT REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION OR FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE STRATEGY THAT WAS PRESENTED. HOWEVER, THE STOCK HAD APPRECIATED TO A HIGHER PRICE THAN WHERE IT EXECUTED AT THE TIME OF THE STOP ORDER. THE CLIENT WROTE IN SAYING THAT SHE WOULD LIKE HER INITIAL 200 SHARES TO BE REPURCHASED AND HER ACCOUNT TO BE ADJUSTED.
Claimant alleges the Respondents used a speculative strategy in her accounts that were inconsistent with her instructions, needs and financial condition.
Broker Comment
This complaint is frivolous, and it is completely without merit. The advisor handled his client's accounts in a fashion consistent with the client's goals, producing profits and providing an unbroken stream of high income, which were the client's exact investment objectives. The client recently decided on her own to transfer/liquidate her assets thus resulting in losses that were her decision. Every one of the investments at issue was appropriate at the time, and many of the stocks were actually chosen by the client herself. Both the advisor and his broker-dealer vigorously (and rightly) deny any wrongdoing. Having enjoyed years of profit and income ($72k per year), this complainant had no net losses and has no claim.
The complaint was settled by LPL for nuisance value, less than 4% of the amount sought. Mr. Rampersaud was not asked by LPL to pay any portion of the very small settlement because, as stated above, he did nothing wrong: he handled these accounts exactly as he should have, making money for his client.
Claimant alleges the Respondent used a speculative strategy in her accounts that were inconsistent with her instructions, needs and financial condition.
CLIENT HAS FILED AN ARBITRATION COMPLAINING, SUBSTANTIALLY AFTER THE FACT, ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF A MUTUAL FUND AND THREE PRIVATE PLACEMENT INVESTMENTS SHE PURCHASED BETWEEN APRIL 2007 AND JUNE 2008. WE DENY THE ALLEGATIONS AND INTEND TO VIGOROUSLY CONTEST THE CLAIM. THE FIRM HAS SETTLED THE CLAIM AND REPURCHASED THE SECURITIES FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT FOR BUSINESS REASONS. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE.
Broker Comment
THE FIRM MADE A BUSINESS DECISION TO REPURCHASE THE SECURITIES AND TO SETTLE FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE.
Concerns related to representative's involvement in client's personal finances and testamentary bequest from the client; acceptance of bequest after Firm denial; exercise of discretion in client non-discretionary account; and use of a personal device to conduct Firm written business.
FAILURE TO MONITOR THE LIFE INSURANCE APPLICATION PROCESS, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FROM OCTOBER 28, 2001 THROUGH MAY 3, 2002. ALLEGED DAMAGES ARE UNSPECIFIED.
CLAIMANTS ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION BY CGMI WITH RESPECT TO THE MAT SERIES OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT INVESTMENT FUNDS. CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT FA PASSED ALONG TO HIM FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION THAT FA RECEIVED FROM CGMI.
Broker Comment
I AM NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN THE ACTION, NO CLAIMS HAVE BEEN ASSERTED AGAINST ME, AND ALL CLAIMS ARE ASSERTED AGAINST CGMI. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT CGMI FAILED TO PROPERLY INFORM AND EXPLAIN TO ITS ADVISORS THE NATURE AND RISKS OF THE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CLAIMS.
THIS CASE WAS SETTLED TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF ARBITRATION. THE FIRM DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AS THE RISKS WERE DISCLOSED BOTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING AND THE LOSSES WERE THE RESULT OF HISTORIC MARKET EVENTS.
ALLEGED UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THREE MUNICIPAL BOND HEDGE FUNDS IN 2004, 2005 AND 2006 THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY THEN MISMANAGED BY THE FUND MANAGERS, NOT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE.
Broker Comment
I WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN THE ACTION. THE CASE WAS SETTLED BY CGMI TO AVOID THE COSTS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION. THE FIRM DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AS THE RISKS WERE DISCLOSED BOTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING AND THE LOSSES WERE THE RESULT OF HISTORIC MARKET EVENTS.
Time Frame: October 15, 2019 to November 4, 2019
The client alleges his Financial Advisor did not follow his instructions by transferring the incorrect the securities which were then sold. The alleged damages are estimated to be in excess of $5,000.00.
Broker Comment
Not a late filing, updating the settlement amount as UBS paid additional settlement of $3,388.50.
MR. D'ASCOLI INITIATED DISCRETIONARY TAX-LOSS SELLING IN A THIRD PARTY DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLIENT ON SPECIFIC TIMING. MR. D'ASCOLI INITIATED TAX-LOSS SELLING AFTER A FIRM SPONSORED ADVISOR ONLY SERVICE NETWORK FOR SAID DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT/PLATFORM INDICATED CLIENT PERMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED. MR. D'ASCOLI COMMUNICATED TAX-LOSS SELLING PROCESS TO CLIENT IN PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. MERRILL LYNCH CORRECTED THE TRADES IN THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNT.
Claimants allege they suffered losses as a result of unsuitable investments and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. From 7/1/2021-9/20/2022.
Broker Comment
I at all times conducted myself in an appropriate and professional manner. I deny all allegations of wrongdoing, and intend to vigorously defend myself against the false, unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations.
THE PARTIES CHOSE TO SETTLE THE MATTER. OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHOSE TO SETTLE THIS CASE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FINRA ARBITRATION. OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC. CHOSE TO SETTLE THIS CASE. MR. D'ASCOLI WAS NOT ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.
Claimant alleges he suffered losses due to his investment in two fixed income funds, and alleges claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of federal and FINRA regulations. 2013 - 2024
Broker Comment
I have serviced claimant's accounts for over 25 years, during which time I successfully helped claimant achieve substantial overall investment gains. Over a 10-year period, the client made five separate investments into two fixed income funds. While these specific funds recorded losses, those results were the product of adverse market conditions. I have always conducted myself with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity. I categorically deny all allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend my reputation against these unwarranted claims.
RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVISORS, INC · Shelbyville, IN
Allegations
FIFTH THIRD BANK, PARENT COMPANY OF FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, PERMITTED THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE TO RESIGN FOR A VIOLATION OF BANK POLICY. SPECIFICALLY, THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE USE BANK SYSTEM TO ACCESS INFORMATION FOR WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE A BUSINESS PURPOSE.
Every entry is quoted exactly as filed and links to its source. A disclosure is something somebody reported, not a finding that anyone did anything wrong. An entry comes down when the record changes, the filing is removed, it is resolved in the advisor's favor, or someone asks for a correction.
