Securities Lawyers Blog

Adviser Stuart Henley Sanctioned by Regulator Over Trading Activity

April 9, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Adviser Stuart Henley, previously employed at Calton and Associates, Inc. (Calton), has been subject to a customer complaint, discharged for his handling of client accounts, and was suspended and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Additionally, Henley has also been subject to a tax lien. His most recent customer complaint alleges churning, excessive trading, and unsuitable trading.

According to a BrokerCheck report, in September 2016, a customer alleged that Henley excessively traded their account to gain commission. The matter was settled for $800,000. Moreover, in March 2018, Morgan Stanley discharged Henley for engaging in unauthorized trading. Thereafter, FINRA sanctioned Henley and he consented to findings that he exercised discretion in an elderly customer’s account without receiving acceptance of the account as discretionary by his member firm. Further, FINRA stated that although Henley had been given express or implied authority to exercise discretion in the account, the customer did not provide written authorization for Henley to exercise discretion. Moreover, according to FINRA Henley provided inaccurate responses on annual compliance questionnaires submitted to the firm by falsely indicating that he not exercised discretion in any customer account.

Wedbush Advisor David Hirons Has Suitability Customer Complaints

April 9, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial advisor David Hirons (Hirons), currently employed by Wedbush Securities Inc. (Wedbush Securities), has been subject to at least four customer complaints and one termination for cause during the course of his career. Hirons’s customer complaints alleges that Hirons recommended unsuitable investments in various investments including equities, futures funds, and options.

In April 2018 Hirons was discharged by RBC Capital Markets, LLC when the firm alleged that he was terminated for violating the firm’s order execution policy.

In August 2019 a customer complained that Hirons violated the securities laws by alleging that Hirons made investments recommendations that the client alleges involved options trading from June 2018 until December 2018 resulted in liquidations and losing funds. The claim alleged $712,080 in damages and settled for $65,000.

Advisor Stuart Pearl Sanctioned By Regulatory and Subject to Customer Complaints

April 8, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Stuart Pearl (Pearl), currently employed by International Assets Investment Management, LLC (International Assets) and formerly employed by David A. Noyes & Company (David A. Noyes) has been subject to five customer complaints, two terminations for cause, and one regulatory action during his career. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the complaints against Pearl concern allegations of unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and margin trading among other causes of action.

In June 2015 Pearl was terminated by Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise Financial) for violation of company policy related to use of discretion in non-discretionary accounts and complying with supervision.

In October 2017 FINRA sanctioned Pearl finding that Pearl consented to the sanctions and findings that he effected securities transactions in a customer’s account on several occasions on a discretionary basis without prior written authorization from the customer and without prior written acceptance of the account as discretionary from his member firm. FINRA also found that Pearl made unsuitable recommendations in two other customers’ joint brokerage account when he recommended the customers use margin to effect several trades. According to FINRA, the recommendations made by Pearl to purchase securities on margin were unsuitable in light of the customers’ investment objectives, risk tolerances, and their financial situation and needs. FINRA found that these purchases caused the account to be subject to seven margin calls during the relevant period.

In March 2019 David A. Noyes permitted Pearl to resign stating that Stuart Pearl resigned while on heightened supervision. The firm claims that Pearl had not followed his heightened supervision plan and would have been terminated had he not resigned.

Broker Audrey Croft Subject to Multiple Tax Liens and Several Customer Complaints

April 8, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Broker Audrey Croft (Croft), currently employed at Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC (Ameriprise), has been subject to at least three customer complaints and an astonishing ten tax liens during the course of her career. Her customer complaints allege misrepresentation and unsuitable recommendation.

Croft’s BrokerCheck report shows a substantial amount of disclosures (13). Over the course of her career, Croft has disclosed ten tax liens totaling approximately $80,000.00. Most recently, Croft disclosed two tax liens in April and October 2019 totaling approximately $600.00. In February 2012, Croft disclosed her largest tax lien totaling approximately $64,000.00. Large tax liens on a broker’s CRD can be a red flag that the broker may be influenced to engage in high commission activity in order to satisfy personal debts. FINRA discloses information concerning a broker’s financial condition because a broker’s inability to handle their own personal finances has also been found to be material information in helping investors determine if they should allow the broker to handle their finances.

Additionally, Croft has been alleged of making misrepresentations and unsuitable recommendations. In January 2019, a customer alleged Croft misrepresented the surrender charges and premium payments of an insurance policy. Additionally, in February 2009 a customer alleged Croft did not disclose the full details of a policy. The Broker Comment stated, “THE VUL POLICIES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE SUITABLE FOR THE CLIENTS’ INSURANCE NEEDS OR ABILITY TO SUSTAIN LARGE PAYMENTS AND THEY DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THERE COULD BE SURRENDER CHARGES OR THE POLICIES COULD LAPSE.” This matter settled for approximately $37,000.00. Similarly, in September 2008, a customer alleged Croft of making unsuitable recommendations. This matter also settled in favor of the customer for approximately $44,000.00.

Broker Paul Porter Accused of Unauthorized Trading and Making Unsuitable Recommendations

April 7, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Financial advisor Paul Porter, currently employed at Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC (Wells Fargo), has been subject to at least four customer complaints during the course of his career. His most recent customer complaints allege unauthorized trading and unsuitability. All of Porter’s complaints have occurred at Wells Fargo – his most recent place of employment. According to a BrokerCheck report, in 2018 Porter was accused of selling the client’s stock without her knowledge. This matter against him settled approximately $61,000.00. In 2012, another client accused porter of engaging in unauthorized trading. Then, in October 2008, another client accused porter of making unsuitable investments. This matter ultimately settled for $30,000.00.

Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker sells securities without the prior consent from the investor. All brokers, who do not have discretionary authority to trade an account, are under an obligation to first discuss trades with the investor before executing them under NYSE Rule 408(a) and FINRA Rules 2510(b). Under the NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b), a broker is prohibited from trading in a non-discretionary customer account without prior written authorization from the customer. Unauthorized trading is a type of investment fraud because the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has found that disclosures of trades being made are essential and material to an investor. Unauthorized trading is often a gateway violation to other securities violations including churning, unsuitable investments, and excessive use of margin.

Broker John Timberlake Accused of Making Unsuitable Recommendations and Failure to Supervise

April 6, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

John Timberlake (Timberlake), a previously registered broker formerly employed at Carter Terry & Company, Inc. (Carter Terry), has been subject to at least four customer complaints during the course of his career. His most recent customer complaints allege Timberlake of making unsuitable trading recommendations. Additionally, Timberlake was recently discharged from Cater Terry & Company for violating the firm’s policies.

According to a BrokerCheck report, there have been four complaints against Timberlake in the past 5 years alleging him of making unsuitable recommendations. Collectively, the allegations brought up against Timberlake have settled for over $200,000.00. In October 2019, a customer filed a complaint against Timberlake for unsuitably recommending a speculative investment strategy. This matter settled for $50,000.00. Additionally, In March 2019, a customer alleged that Timberlake failed to make suitable investments, implement a proper investment strategy and properly manage the account. This matter settled in favor of the client for $55,000.00. Similarly, in January 2016, another customer alleged Timberlake of making unsuitable recommendations. Here, the customer settled for over $105,000.00.

Brokers have an obligation to make only suitable recommendations for investments to the client. There are many investments that are not appropriate for the majority of investors or for certain investors given their risk tolerance, age, and other factors. Brokers should not present these investment options to clients. There are two screens that brokers must employ to determine whether an investment is suitable for a client. First, there must be a reasonable basis for the recommendation – meaning that the product has been investigated and due diligence conducted into the investment’s features, benefits, risks, and other relevant factors. The broker must conclude that the investment is suitable for at least some investors and some securities may be suitable for no one. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short-term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Broker Sebastian Wyczawski Accused of Making Unsuitable Recommendations and Failure to Supervise

April 6, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Broker Sebastian Wyczawski, currently employed at Joseph Stone Capital, LLC., (Joseph Stone) has been subject to at least three customer complaints during the course of his career. His most recent customer complaints allege unsuitability and failure to supervise. According to a BrokerCheck report, in June 2018, Wyczawski was alleged of making unsuitable recommendations. This matter against him settled for $17,500. Additionally in December 2019, a customer complaint was filed against Wyczawski for his alleged failure to supervise. In his Broker Comment, Wyczawski states: “I am being named in this arbitration due to the fact that I was the OSJ branch owner.” The matter, for the requested amount of $235,000 is still pending. Moreover, in March 2004, Wyczawski was alleged to have engaged in unauthorized trading. This matter ultimately settled for $37,500.

Brokers have an obligation to make only suitable recommendations for investments to the client. There are many investments that are not appropriate for the majority of investors or for certain investors given their risk tolerance, age, and other factors. Brokers should not present these investment options to clients. There are two screens that brokers must employ to determine whether an investment is suitable for a client. First, there must be a reasonable basis for the recommendation – meaning that the product has been investigated and due diligence conducted into the investment’s features, benefits, risks, and other relevant factors. The broker must conclude that the investment is suitable for at least some investors and some securities may be suitable for no one. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short-term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Advisor and Broker Ralph Byer Accused of Making Unsuitable Investment Recommendations

April 5, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor and broker Ralph Byer (Byer), currently employed by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch), has a substantial complaint history. Byer has been subject to at least seven customer complaints during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report, the majority of his customer complaints (four out of seven) concern unsuitable investment recommendations.

In June 2018, a customer alleged Byer engaged making unsuitable investment recommendations and excessive trading from 1990 until 2018. Ultimately this matter settled for $565,000.00. Additionally, from 2001 through 2009, three other known customer complaints were brought against Byer for making unsuitable investments. Moreover, in 1999, a customer alleged Byer engaged in churning. That matter ultimately settled in favor of the client for $22,500.00.

Advisors have an obligation to make only suitable recommendations for investments to the client. There are many investments that are not appropriate for the majority of investors or for certain investors given their risk tolerance, age, and other factors. Advisors should not present these investment options to clients. There are two screens that advisors must employ to determine whether an investment is suitable for a client. First, there must be a reasonable basis for the recommendation – meaning that the product has been investigated and due diligence conducted into the investment’s features, benefits, risks, and other relevant factors. The advisor must conclude that the investment is suitable for at least some investors and some securities may be suitable for no one. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short-term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

National Securities Advisor Troy Goldberg Has Private Placement Complaints

April 5, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor Troy Goldberg (Goldberg), currently employed by National Securities (National Securities) has been subject to at least 13 customer complaints during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report the six most recent customer complaints filed since 2019 appear to concern unsuitable investments in private placements investments. These allegations may concern investments in GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments. National Securities is known to have approved their brokers to sell GPB Capital to their clients.

On February 4, 2021 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (DOJ), and seven states filed separate simultaneous actions against GPB Capital and other defendants connected to the firm accusing it of being a Ponzi-like scheme. In a press release the SEC stated that it “charged three individuals and their affiliated entities with running a Ponzi-like scheme that raised over $1.7 billion…”

As reported by Bloomberg “If proved, [GPB] would be one of the largest such schemes to target individual investors since the massive frauds of Bernard Madoff and Robert Allen Stanford came to light.” The DOJ indicted David Gentile, the founder of GPB, Jeffry Schneider, the owner and CEO of Ascendant Capital LLC, and Jeffrey Lash, a former managing partner of GPB relating to the fraud. If convicted, the defendants each face up to 20 years’ imprisonment.[1]

Broker Chadwick David Carrick Accused of Churning and Making Unsuitable Investments

April 4, 2021 | by Staff Attorney

Broker, Chadwick Carrick (Carrick), currently employed at The Jefferey Matthews Financial Group, LLC, has been subject to at least two customer complaints and one employment termination for cause over the course of his career. The two most recent occurring in 2018. According to a BrokerCheck report, the customer complaints include churning, allegations of unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and altering a journal form and a letter of authorization.

As of January 2018, there is a matter pending for allegations made by a client against Carrick for, among other things, churning and breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, in September 2018, another client alleged that Carrick made unsuitable investments and engaged in unauthorized trading. This matter settled for $35,000. Moreover, in 2009, Carrick was discharged from Morgan Stanley after working there for five years for altering a journal form and a letter of authorization previously signed by the client.

When brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typically trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.