Geneos Wealth Management

Advisor Richard Braverman Has Complaints Over Alternative Investments

September 29, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor Richard Braverman (Braverman), currently employed by Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. (Geneos Wealth) has been subject to at least five customer complaints during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report the customer complaints mostly concerns alternative investments such as direct participation products (DPPs) like non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, annuities, and equipment leasing programs. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented investors who suffered losses caused by these types of products.

In August 2018 a customer complained that Braverman violated the securities laws by alleging that the investments were subject to unsuitable recommendations, breach of fiduciary duty and failure to adequately disclose the risks in real estate investments and direct investments interests purchased between March of 2008 and November of 2015. The claim is currently pending.

In July 2017 a customer complained that Braverman violated the securities laws by alleging that the investments were subject to unsuitable recommendations of an oil & gas investment in June 2008. The claim sought $47,000 in damages and was denied by the firm.

In September 2008 Braverman was permitted to resign from FSC Securities Corporation (FSC) over allegations that he violated the firm’s policies with respect to non-traded REITs.

Advisor Samuel Monchik Subject to Complaints Over Alternative Investments

December 31, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor Samuel Monchik (Monchik), currently employed by Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. (Geneos Wealth) has been subject to at least two customer complaints. According to a BrokerCheck report many of the customer complaints concern alternative investments and direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, annuities, and equipment leasing programs. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have extensive experience handling investor losses caused by these types of products.

In August 2018, a customer filed a complaint alleging that Monchik made unsuitable recommendations, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to adequately disclose the risks in REITs and direct investments – DPP & LP interests purchased between March of 2008 and November of 2015. The complaint is currently pending.

In July 2017 a customer filed a complaint alleging that Monchik made unsuitable recommendation of an oil & gas investment in June 2008. The complaint was denied by the firm.

In September 2008 FSC Securities Corporation terminated Monchik’s alleging that he violated the firm’s policies with respect to transactions in Non-Traded REITs.

Geneos Wealth Broker Bradley Tennison Barred for Selling Away Practices

October 3, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

The investment fraud attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have currently been investigating previously registered broker Bradley Tennison (Tennison). According to BrokerCheck Records kept by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Tennison was barred from the financial industry due to a customer complaint alleging Tennison’s selling away activities during his employment at Geneos Wealth Management Inc (Geneos Wealth). In addition, Tennison has been subject to two other customer disputes and termination from employment at two firms.

In January 2018, the customer alleged that in January 2016, Tennison recommended the client to wire $300,000 of her funds into “The Joseph Project” away from the member firm, with a promise of a 5% enhancement. Geneos Wealth had no record of such investment, and the customer never received any statements or return on the principal of the investment. Subsequently after, in April 2018, Geneos Wealth discharged Tennison from employment after failing to locate any record of investment and for being unable to retrieve information from Tennison regarding the investment. This complaint is currently still pending.

Shortly after, in July 2018, Tennison was barred from the financial industry for failing to show up to on-the-record testimony regarding the selling away allegations of “The Joseph Project” at Geneos Wealth. By failing to provide information and show up to the testimony, Tennison was in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010. Without admitting or denying the findings, Tennison consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings.

In addition, Tennison has been subject to two preceding customer disputes. In March 2010, a customer alleged that Tennison placed the Continue Reading

FINRA Bars Bradley Tennison for Alleged Selling Away Practices

August 3, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating previously registered broker Bradley Tennison (Tennison). According to BrokerCheck Records, the Financial Industry Regulative Authority (FINRA) barred Tennison indefinitely from the financial industry for failing to appear to an on the record testimony regarding an investigation of Tennison’s outside business activities at Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. (Geneos Wealth Management). In addition, Tennison has been subject to three customer disputes, one of which is still pending. The majority of these disputes involve unsuitable limited partnerships and selling away. Tennison has also been subject to termination from two firms of employment.

In April 2018, a customer alleged that in 2016, Tennison recommended a former client to invest $300,000 in “The Joseph Project”, which he represented to be a 12 month investment with 5 % returns. The customer never received any statements or returns on her principal payment. The customer has requested $300,000 in damages. This dispute is currently still pending.

Subsequently, in April 2018, Tennison was terminated from Geneos Wealth Management for failing to be in compliance with the firm’s policies and regulations regarding outside business activities and selling away.

Broker Joseph Sterling Subject to Customer Complaints Over Real Estate Investments

November 15, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

The investment fraud attorneys with Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Joseph Sterling (Sterling) currently associated with Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. (Geneos Wealth). According to brokercheck records Sterling has been subject to three customer complaints. Two of the most recent complaints involve his conduct concerning direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and potentially other alternative investments.

In August 2017 a customer filed a complaint alleging that Sterling made unsuitable recommendations of real estate securities in 2012 and 2013 and other causes of action. The customer alleges $290,000 in damages and the claim is currently pending. Another customer filed a complaint in July 2017 alleging that in 2013 and 2014, Sterling made unsuitable recommendations of real estate securities and other direct investments and other causes of action. The claim alleged $500,000 in damages and is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients in illiquid alternative investments products. All of these investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them and have created a large market for a failed product. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Broker Thomas Edward Gackle Barred For Failing To Cooperate With Regulatory Investigation

April 25, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

The investment fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating regulatory complaints of broker Thomas Edward Gackle (Gackle). According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Thomas Edward Gackle was permanently barred in July 2016 from the securities industry for failing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA during the course of an investigation. In addition, the broker has been subject to at least one customer complaint and one employment separation for cause among other claims. The customer complaint against Gackle involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs).

In April 2015, a customer filed a complaint alleging that the amount of income ($100,000.00) stated on the suitability form was invalid and an investment purchased March 2015 caused $1,000,000.00 in damages. This complaint is currently pending.

This customer complaint resulted in Gackle to resign from his position at Lowell & Company in April 2015. This was based on allegations of failure to disclose material levents prior to association with Lowell & Company, which was an order issued by the Kansas Bar for the indefinite suspension from practicing law in the state of Kansas. Gackle’s resignation preceded FINRA’s sanctions, barring him from securities industry.

Joseph Sturniolo Wipes Investor Complaints From Record Using FINRA’s Flawed Expungement Process

December 14, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Recently, Joseph Sturniolo’s (Sturniolo) attorney reached out to our firm to inform us that our post on Sturniolo was inaccurate. The post detailed that Sturniolo had been subject to at least eight customer complaints and that the many of these complaints involved the recommendation of unsuitable and misrepresented recommendations concerning tenants-in-common (TICs).

The post also detailed how TICs have virtually disappeared as an investment option because they are almost always unsuitable. According to InvestmentNews “At the height of the TIC market in 2006, 71 sponsors raised $3.65 billion in equity from TICs and DSTs…TICs now are all but extinct because of the fallout from the credit crisis.” In fact, TICs recommendations have been a major contributor to bankrupting brokerage firms. For example, 43 of the 92 broker-dealers that sold TICs sponsored by DBSI Inc., a company whose executives were later charged with running a Ponzi scheme, a staggering 47% of firms that sold DBSI are no longer in business.

TIC investments entail significant risks. A TIC investor runs the risk of holding the property for a significant amount of time and that subsequent sales of the property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest. FINRA has also warned that the fees and expenses associated with TICs, including sponsor costs, can, and in our opinion, do outweigh the any potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. That is, the TIC product itself may be a defective product because its costs outweigh any potential investment value or tax benefit offered to the customer.

Sturniolo’s attorney has brought it to our attention that Sturniolo has succeeded in using FINRA’s flawed expungement process system to remove five complaints from his BrokerCheck record. Sturniolo’s “award” does not even detail how much Sturniolo’s employer paid to settle all of the claims. As shown in Sturniolo’s expungement award Sturniolo’s sued his own employer, Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. (Geneos Wealth) for damages of $1.00 due to the placement on his record of five customer complaints. The “hearing” that took place appears to have been perfunctory at best. The hearing concerning five customer complaints was stretched out over a one year period of time in which the arbitrator participated in four hearing sessions on non-consecutive days. Usually there are two hearing sessions a day – meaning in this case the five cases were heard on four half-day hearings stretched out over the course of a full year. The total cost to Sturniolo by FINRA to expunge five customer complaints from his record was $250 – excluding any fees he privately paid his counsel.

SEC Sanctions Gary Arford Over Allegations of Securities Fraud and Misappropriation

December 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against broker Gary Arford (Arford) resulting in a monetary sanctions of $4,226,684. In addition, according to the BrokerCheck records kept by FINRA, Arford has been the subject of at least 10 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Arford allege unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, and fraud among other claims. Many of the complaints involve products such as oil and gas and penny stocks. Arford was also permitted to resign from Comprehensive Wealth Management, LLC (Comprehensive Wealth Management) after allegations were made that Arford attempted to directly settle a customer complaint. In March 2014, Arford was also terminated from Independent Financial Group, LLC (IFG) after allegations were made that Arford was the subject of customer complaints.

The most recent complaint against Arford alleged $560,000 in damages concerning allegations that Arford as an owner of Comprehensive Wealth Management breach his fiduciary duty by recommending unsuitable oil and gas products from 2011 through 2014 and misrepresented the investments. Another customer complaint filed in September 2014 alleges similar issues with oil and gas and penny stock investment made between 2012 and 2013 which resulted in $500,000 in alleged damages.

In the SEC action, the regulator alleged that between approximately December 2010 and October 2013, Arford acted as an investment adviser to a private fund (Fund) and provided advice for real estate-related investments. The SEC alleged that Arford defrauded the Fund and its investors in at least four ways by: 1) inducing the Fund to commit a total of $4 million to an investment in a company, referred to as Suburban Hotel, that was purportedly planning to build and operate a hotel on undeveloped land in Seattle by misrepresenting and concealing material facts about the company’s debt and the encumbrances; 2) after obtaining the Fund’s investment commitment Respondent took personal ownership of the company’s undeveloped property, and then pledged it as collateral for personal debts; 3) inducing the Fund to continue fulfilling its investment commitment by concealing his personal ownership and use of the company’s undeveloped property and by misrepresenting and hiding material facts about the use of Fund assets; and 4) by misappropriating Fund assets for unrelated purposes.