Securities Lawyers Blog
According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Kevin Kane (Kane), previously associated with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one tax lien, alleging that Kane recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on November 20, 2024.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Kevin John Kane (‘Respondent’). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the ‘Offer’) which the Commission has determined to accept. The commission finds that on October 29, 2024, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’), 15 U.S.C. \\u00a7\\u00a7 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2) as set forth in the judgment entered in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kevin John Kane et al., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00371-CCC, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleged Investment Adviser 1 terminated Respondent because he violated its policies and procedures and, following that termination, and in an efforts to convince clients to join Respondent at a new investment advisory firm, Respondent repeatedly defrauded and breached his fiduciary duty to these clients by: (1) falsely telling clients that Respondent voluntarily ended his association with Investment Adviser 1, despite having been terminated for cause; (2) falsely telling clients that he was still associated with Investment Adviser 1 and could continue to effect transactions in their accounts; (3) failing to alert clients of Respondent’s termination and inability to perform transactions in their accounts; and (4) to prevent clients from discovering the truth, impersonating clients in telephone calls with Investment Adviser 1 to effect securities transactions.
