Our firm is investigating Aegis Capital Corp. broker and investment adviser representative Matthew Winthrop (CRD# 2445102) of Melville, New York, for potential investment-related misconduct, including a history of customer disputes and a recent termination after allegations of excessive trading in client brokerage accounts.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Matthew Winthrop has worked in the securities industry for more than three decades with multiple national brokerage firms. He is currently registered as a general securities representative and principal with Aegis Capital Corp. (CRD# 15007), based out of its Melville, New York branch office at 1305 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 120, and is also registered through Aegis in several states, including Connecticut, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
Mr. Winthrop’s registration and employment history reported to FINRA includes:
- Aegis Capital Corp. – Melville, NY (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 09/2025–Present)
- Equitable Advisors, LLC – Easton/New York, NY (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 01/2022–09/2025)
- Aegis Capital Corp. – Westport, CT (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 10/2017–02/2022)
- RBC Capital Markets, LLC – Westport, CT (Financial Consultant, 07/2011–10/2017)
- Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. – Stamford, CT (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 08/2007–07/2011)
- H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. – Greenwich, CT (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 11/2002–08/2007)
- UBS PaineWebber Inc. – Greenwich, CT and Weehawken, NJ (Registered Representative & Investment Adviser Representative, 09/1998–12/2002)
- Prudential Securities Incorporated – New York, NY (Registered Representative, 12/1995–09/1998)
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. – Purchase, NY (Registered Representative, 03/1994–12/1995)
Over the course of this career, Mr. Winthrop has taken and passed several securities industry qualification examinations, including the Series 7 (General Securities Representative), Series 24 (General Securities Principal), Series 31, Series 63, and Series 66.
Matthew Winthrop Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck for Matthew Winthrop discloses five customer disputes and one employment separation after allegations. One of the customer disputes resulted in a monetary settlement of $50,000 paid by a prior firm; the remaining disputes were denied or closed with no action. In 2025, Equitable Advisors disclosed that it discharged Mr. Winthrop for alleged excessive trading in client brokerage accounts.
Below is a breakdown of the disclosed matters as reported on BrokerCheck. Investors should understand that many of these items involve contested allegations that may not have been fully adjudicated, and some were denied or closed without payment to the customer.
2015 Oppenheimer IRA Distribution & Unauthorized Trade Lawsuit – $50,000 Settlement
In 2015, a customer filed a federal court complaint against Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. relating to an IRA transaction and alleged unauthorized trading while Mr. Winthrop was associated with the firm.
- Firm: Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.
- Allegations:
- Customer claimed she purchased SFG shares for her IRA “away from Oppenheimer.”
- The funds were withdrawn from her IRA and allegedly coded as a taxable distribution, resulting in IRS penalties.
- The complaint also alleged an unspecified unauthorized trade by Mr. Winthrop.
- Product Type: Listed equity securities (common and preferred stock).
- Alleged Damages: Unspecified; complaint stated damages “in excess of $75,001.”
- Forum: U.S. District Court, Southern District (Docket No. 1:15-CIV-340).
- Outcome: The matter was settled on or about October 2, 2015, for $50,000, with no monetary contribution reported from Mr. Winthrop personally.
In his BrokerCheck “Broker Statement,” Mr. Winthrop states that the complaint related to a premature IRA distribution he maintains was coded correctly by the firm and that he was never named personally as a defendant in the litigation.
2003 UBS PaineWebber Unauthorized Trading, Excessive Trading, and Unsuitable Investment Complaint – Denied
In 2003, a UBS PaineWebber customer alleged that Mr. Winthrop made trades in her account without permission, excessively traded the account, and placed her in unsuitable investments.
- Firm: UBS PaineWebber Inc.
- Allegations: Unauthorized trading; excessive trading (churning) in OTC equities; unsuitable investments.
- Product Type: OTC equities.
- Alleged Damages: Approximately $86,000.
- Outcome: The firm reviewed the complaint and denied the claim, reporting no settlement and no payment to the customer.
Mr. Winthrop’s response denies all allegations, asserting that all transactions were done with prior customer authorization, were consistent with her investment objectives, and that the complaint stemmed from market performance rather than misconduct.
2002 Prudential (PSI) Risk Misrepresentation Complaint – Denied
In 2002, while at Prudential Securities (PSI), a customer alleged that his financial advisor misrepresented investments and their risks over a five-year period.
- Firm: Prudential Securities (PSI)
- Allegations: Misrepresentation of investments and associated risks over approximately five years.
- Product Type: Equities.
- Alleged Damages: Approximately $50,000.
- Outcome: The written complaint was closed with no action / denied, with no settlement or payment to the customer.
Mr. Winthrop’s statement notes that he had not spoken to the customer since 1998 and that the client did not follow him to his new firm, leaving him “at a loss” as to why he was named in the complaint.
1999 Prudential Unauthorized Stock Purchase Complaint – Denied
A 1999 complaint at Prudential Securities alleged that stocks were purchased in a customer’s account without her knowledge, resulting in claimed losses of $21,777.
- Firm: Prudential Securities Incorporated
- Allegations: Unauthorized stock purchases in the customer’s account.
- Product Type: Listed equities.
- Alleged Damages: Approximately $21,777.
- Outcome: The firm reported that the matter was denied, with no settlement and no payment.
1998 Prudential Excessive & Speculative Trading Complaint – Closed With No Action
In 1998, another Prudential customer complaint alleged that Mr. Winthrop engaged in excessive and speculative trading with poor asset allocation, claiming damages greater than $55,834.
- Firm: Prudential Securities
- Allegations: Excessive and speculative trading; poor asset allocation; damages in excess of $55,834.
- Product Type: OTC equities.
- Outcome: The complaint was reported as closed with no action and no compensation to the client.
The broker’s statement adds that the item was more than 24 months old and therefore “no longer reportable” for certain regulatory purposes.
2025 Equitable Advisors Termination After Allegations of Excessive Trading
The most recent disclosure on Mr. Winthrop’s BrokerCheck record involves his September 15, 2025 discharge from Equitable Advisors, LLC. The firm reported that it terminated him for:
- Termination Type: Discharged.
- Allegations: “RR discharged for excessive trading in client brokerage accounts.”
- Products Involved: Equity-OTC and listed equities.
Mr. Winthrop’s own version of the termination disclosure essentially repeats Equitable’s description, indicating that the firm alleged excessive trading in client accounts tied to equity securities.
Summary of Disclosed Events
As of the most recent BrokerCheck report, the disclosed events for Matthew Winthrop include:
- Customer Disputes: 5
- 1 arbitration/civil action settled for $50,000 (firm-paid).
- 4 complaints denied or closed with no action (no reported customer recovery).
- Employment Separation After Allegations:
- 1 termination (Equitable Advisors, LLC – alleged excessive trading in client brokerage accounts).
Investors should note that a settled claim does not necessarily mean an admission of wrongdoing, and denied or closed complaints may reflect contested allegations that could not be substantiated—or that firms resolved without payment for business reasons. However, regulators and arbitrators often consider the pattern of complaints, not just the outcome of any single case, when evaluating potential broker misconduct.
To obtain a copy of Matthew Winthrop’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
Nationwide Representation in FINRA Arbitration
The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., is a nationally recognized investment fraud lawyer firm that represents investors in securities arbitration, litigation, and mediation across the country, including claims involving excessive trading, unauthorized transactions, and unsuitable recommendations.
Attorney Pearce and his team regularly represent investors in FINRA arbitration proceedings, handling claims against many of the largest Wall Street firms. If you believe your broker engaged in misconduct similar to the allegations involving Matthew Winthrop—such as unauthorized trades, excessive turnover in your account, or misleading explanations of risk—you may have a viable claim to recover your losses.
Experience Litigating Churning and Excessive Trading Claims
Allegations of “excessive trading” in client accounts are commonly referred to as churning, a practice where brokers generate unnecessary trades primarily to increase commissions. Our firm has extensive experience pursuing churning and excessive trading cases on behalf of investors whose accounts were over-traded. We regularly analyze turnover rates, cost-to-equity ratios, and patterns of in-and-out trading to show how broker activity violated industry rules and customer best interests.
If your portfolio shows unusually high trading frequency, increasing losses, and mounting commissions, our churning and excessive trading team can help you determine whether your broker’s conduct was improper and whether you can seek compensation.
Florida-Based Securities Fraud Firm Serving Investors Nationwide
From its Florida headquarters, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. routinely represents investors throughout the United States who have suffered from churning, unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, Ponzi schemes, and other forms of securities fraud. Our Florida investment fraud attorneys prosecute cases in FINRA arbitration, as well as state and federal courts, focusing on broker misconduct and supervision failures that cost investors their retirement savings.
The firm’s stockbroker fraud lawyers investigate claims involving excessive trading, misrepresentation, conflicts of interest, and complex product abuses, leveraging decades of experience and a deep understanding of FINRA’s rules and procedures to fight for investors’ rights.
Our investigation into the allegations against Matthew Winthrop is part of this broader mission: holding brokerage firms and financial advisors accountable when their actions fall short of regulatory standards and investor protection rules.
Detailing the applicable FINRA rules helps show how a pattern of unauthorized trading, excessive trading, or unsuitable activity may evolve into viable claims in FINRA arbitration or court. Below are several key FINRA rules frequently implicated in cases like those described in Mr. Winthrop’s disclosure history.
In what follows, we discuss these rules in context—not as findings of liability, but as the legal framework regulators and arbitrators may apply when evaluating similar fact patterns.
FINRA Rule 2111 – Suitability and Quantitative Suitability
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires that a broker or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile (age, financial situation, experience, risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and other factors).
In the context of the disputes involving Mr. Winthrop, a regulator or arbitration panel evaluating allegations of unsuitable investments, misrepresentations of risk, or excessive trading could analyze whether:
- The risk profile, concentration levels, and trading frequency in the customer’s account matched the client’s stated objectives and tolerance for volatility.
- The broker reasonably assessed the customer’s investment profile before recommending higher-risk or actively traded strategies.
- The volume of trading in the account served a legitimate strategy or primarily generated commissions.
Rule 2111 specifically recognizes “quantitative suitability,” which focuses on whether the frequency and cost of trading are suitable for the customer when the broker has actual or de facto control of the account. In a dispute alleging churning or excessive trading—such as the 2003 complaint and the termination disclosure for “excessive trading in client brokerage accounts”—experts may calculate turnover ratios and cost-to-equity figures to show that the trading pattern violated Rule 2111’s quantitative suitability obligation.
In his defense, a broker like Mr. Winthrop might argue that each transaction was individually suitable and authorized, that he did not control the account, and that market conditions—rather than reckless trading—explained the losses. Ultimately, arbitrators weigh both sides’ evidence to determine whether the suitability standard was breached.
FINRA Rule 2010 – Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade
FINRA Rule 2010 is a broad ethics provision requiring that, “in the conduct of its business,” a member “shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”
Rule 2010 often serves as a “catch-all” rule in customer disputes involving:
- Alleged unauthorized trading, where a broker executes trades without prior customer consent or contrary to clear instructions;
- Misrepresentations or omissions concerning the risks, tax consequences, or true nature of an investment;
- Trading patterns that may not neatly fit a single technical rule but still reflect unfair or abusive practices.
In the 2015 IRA litigation and the various complaints alleging unauthorized trades or mis-coded IRA distributions, a tribunal could consider whether any missteps in handling the customer’s account fell so far below industry norms that they violated Rule 2010’s requirement of fair dealing and high ethical standards—even if a more specific rule (such as the suitability rule) were not clearly triggered.
At the same time, where firms and brokers present documentation showing the customer’s written authorization, clear prior disclosures of risk, and reasonable follow-up communications, arbitrators can and do find that no Rule 2010 violation occurred. Each case turns heavily on account records, correspondence, and testimony.
FINRA Rules 2020 and 3260 – Manipulative Devices and Discretionary/Excessive Transactions
FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) prohibits a firm or associated person from effecting any transaction in, or inducing the purchase or sale of, any security “by means of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance.”
While many excessive trading cases are pursued primarily under Rules 2111 and 2010, regulators sometimes consider Rule 2020 when the trading pattern appears designed to enrich the broker at the expense of the client—for example, where turnover is so extreme that it cannot reasonably be justified as a bona fide investment strategy.
FINRA Rule 3260 (Discretionary Accounts) restricts excessive transactions in customer accounts where a broker has discretionary power. It provides, among other things, that no member shall effect transactions that are “excessive in size or frequency in view of the financial resources and character of such account.”
In a termination disclosure like Equitable Advisors’ allegation of “excessive trading in client brokerage accounts,” attorneys and experts often ask questions such as:
- Did the broker exercise de facto control over the account, even if not formally designated as discretionary?
- Were trades concentrated in higher-commission products or short-term round-trip transactions that primarily benefited the broker?
- How do the turnover rate and cost-to-equity ratio compare to recognized thresholds that arbitrators and regulators commonly view as excessive?
If an investor shows that the broker effectively controlled the trading decisions and that the volume and cost of trading were unreasonable given the account’s size and objectives, a panel may find that Rule 3260’s principles—along with Rules 2111, 2010, and potentially 2020—support an award of damages. Conversely, if the records indicate the customer directed trading or approved each transaction after full disclosure, a claim under those rules may be rejected.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused by broker fraud, negligence, and unsuitable recommendations. His firm, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., represents clients nationwide on a no-recovery, no-fee basis. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free case review with an experienced securities attorney.
