Securities Lawyers Blog
According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Donald Hancock (Hancock), currently associated with Moloney Securities Co., Inc., has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one tax lien, alleging that Hancock recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a pending customer complaint with a damage request of $359,325.61 on September 30, 2024.
Suitability/negligence. 2021
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on September 27, 2024.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are against Moloney Securities Co., Inc. (Moloney), Donald R. Hancock, David F. La Grange, and Laura B. Barnes (collectively, the Respondents). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted Offers of Settlement which the Commission has determined to accept. The commission finds that These proceedings arise out of Respondents’ failures to comply with Regulation Best Interest (Regulation BI) in connection with recommendations of corporate bonds called L Bonds offered by GWG Holdings, Inc. (GWG) to retail customers between June 30, 2020, the compliance date for Regulation BI, and approximately January 15, 2022 (the Relevant Period). According to GWG’s disclosures during the Relevant Period: (a) L Bond investments involved a high degree of risk, including the risk of losing an investor’s entire investment; (b) L Bond investments May be considered speculative; (c) L Bond investments were only suitable for investors with substantial financial resources and no need for liquidity in the investment; and (d) GWG would use a portion of the L Bond proceeds to repay existing L Bond holders. In addition, in November 2021, among other things, GWG disclosed that several enumerated factors raised substantial doubt regarding its ability to continue as a going concern. Despite these disclosures, in recommending the purchase of L Bonds to certain retail customers, Moloney failed to exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill to understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the recommendations. Moloney also recommended the purchase of L Bonds to certain retail customers for whom it did not have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendations were in the customers’ best interest based on the customers’ investment profiles and the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the L Bonds. Moloney also failed to establish written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and disclose, mitigate, or eliminate conflicts of interest associated with recommendations and enforce those policies and procedures that it did have and to disclose material conflicts of interest associated with its recommendations of L Bonds created by its Chief Executive Officer’s and other employees’ personal ownership of GWG securities. Moloney further failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Regulation BI. As a result, Moloney failed to comply with Regulation BI’s Care Obligation, Conflict of Interest Obligation, Disclosure Obligation, and Compliance Obligation. During the Relevant Period, Hancock, Moloney’s CEO, was responsible for the firm’s day-to-day operations and its sales of L Bonds to retail customers and caused Moloney’s failures to comply with the Care Obligation, Conflict of Interest Obligation, and Disclosure Obligation, in violation of the General Obligation of Regulation BI. In addition, Hancock, La Grange, and Barnes failed to exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill to understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the recommendation of L Bonds to certain retail customers. La Grange and Barnes further recommended the purchase of L Bonds to certain retail customers for whom they did not have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendations were in the customers’ best interest based on the customers’ investment profiles and the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the L Bonds. As a result, Hancock, La Grange, and Barnes failed to comply with the Care Obligation and willfully violated the General Obligation of Regulation BI and Moloney willfully violated the General Obligation of Regulation BI found in Exchange Act Rule 15l-1(a)(1).
Brokers are required to adhere to the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) standard of care under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which establishes a ‘best interest’ standard for broker-dealers and associated persons. This Reg BI standard of care applies to registered representatives making recommendations to customers in the purchase, sale, or exchange of securities or the implementation of investment strategies involving securities and non-securities. The rule also applies to the handling of opening accounts such as account transfers and types of accounts being recommended to be opened. Reg BI is drawn from fiduciary principles that include an obligation to act in the retail investor’s best interest and the broker is prohibited from placing their own interests ahead of the investor’s interest.
There are several different aspects of the rule that brokers must comply with. One of which is the care obligations which requires brokers to form a reasonable belief that their investment advice and recommendations are in the retail investor’s best interest. The care obligations includes three components. First, the advisor must have an understanding of the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with a product, investment strategy, account type, or series of transactions. Next, the advisor must have a reasonable understanding of the specific retail investor’s investment profile. The customer’s profile information generally includes an investor’s financial situation and needs; investments; assets and debts; marital status; tax status; age; investment time horizon; liquidity needs; risk tolerance; investment experience; investment objectives and financial goals; and any other information the retail investor may disclose in connection with the recommendation or advice. Finally, the financial advisor must use their knowledge of both their reasonable diligence into investment options as well as their knowledge of the investor’s client specific needs to consider reasonably available investment options. Those investment options must allow the broker to determine that there is a reasonable basis that the recommendation is in the retail investor’s best interest.
Finally, an advisor must also analyze the specific account features offered and determine whether their client can benefit from them in order to meet their care obligations. While securities and investments come with costs that must be considered, the type of securities account also has changes the cost equation for the investor and can change the retail customers’ future investment returns. The associated person must consider the different types of securities accounts for their client and determine whether or not the cost or features are reasonably needed for the client or if the customer’s current account costs and features are superior to solutions available to the advisor. In any event, the type of account and services recommended must be in the investor’s best interest.
Hancock entered the securities industry in 1976. Hancock has been registered as a Broker with Moloney Securities Co., Inc. since 2010.
Investors who have suffered losses are encouraged to contact us at (800) 810-4262 for consultation. At Gana Weinstein LLP, our attorneys are experienced representing investors who have suffered securities losses due to the mishandling of their accounts. Claims may be brought in securities arbitration before FINRA. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.
