Our firm is investigating Concorde Investment Services, LLC financial advisor Ehud N. Gersten (CRD# 7066119) of Ann Arbor, Michigan for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
BrokerCheck reflects that Ehud N. Gersten has been registered with Concorde Investment Services, LLC since August 19, 2025, and has prior registrations with multiple broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Reported securities industry registration history (selected):
- LightPath Capital, Inc. (B) — 03/2019 to 08/2019
- Stax Capital (B) — 08/2019 to 02/2020
- WealthForge Securities, LLC (B) — 02/2020 to 07/2020
- Growth Capital Services, Inc. (B) — 07/2020 to 02/2021
- Emerson Equity LLC (B) — 03/2021 to 07/2023
- Arkadios Capital (B) — 07/2023 to 03/2025
- Realta Equities, Inc. (B) — 03/2025 to 08/2025
- Concorde Investment Services, LLC (B) — 08/2025 to Present
Ehud N. Gersten Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
BrokerCheck reports three customer disputes, all shown as pending.
Pending FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 25-02505) — Alleged Suitability, Misleading Recommendations, Reg BI Violations, and Misrepresentations (Real Estate Security)
A pending customer dispute reported in FINRA arbitration (Docket/Case 25-02505) alleges suitability, misleading recommendations, Reg BI violations, and misrepresentations/omissions involving a real estate security, with a notice/process served date of November 18, 2025.
Although “alleged damages” is shown as $0.00 in the event fields, the narrative states the claimant is seeking approximately $1,083,919.00 in compensatory damages (plus interest, fees/costs, and punitive damages).
Pending FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 25-02436) — Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, and Reg BI Violations (Real Estate Security)
A second pending customer dispute (FINRA Docket/Case 25-02436) alleges breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and Reg BI issues involving a real estate security.
BrokerCheck’s disclosure narrative indicates the claimant seeks $100,000.00 in general and compensatory damages (with certain versions also listing additional categories of requested relief).
Pending FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 25-02351) — Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, and Regulation BI (Real Estate Security)
A third pending customer dispute (FINRA Docket/Case 25-02351) alleges breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and Regulation BI issues involving a real estate security, with a stated filing date of November 4, 2025.
The claimant is reported as seeking $600,000.00 in general and compensatory damages (and certain versions list additional requested relief).
Disclosures (for quick reference)
- Action: Customer Dispute / FINRA Arbitration (Docket 25-02505) — Disposition/Status: Pending — Allegations: Suitability; misleading recommendations; Reg BI; misrepresentation/omissions — Product: Real estate security — Damages sought (approx.): $1,083,919.00 — Date served: 11/18/2025
- Action: Customer Dispute / FINRA Arbitration (Docket 25-02436) — Disposition/Status: Pending — Allegations: Breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; Reg BI — Product: Real estate security — Damages sought: $100,000.00 — Filing date shown: 11/11/2025
- Action: Customer Dispute / FINRA Arbitration (Docket 25-02351) — Disposition/Status: Pending — Allegations: Breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; Regulation BI — Product: Real estate security — Damages sought: $600,000.00 — Filing date shown: 11/04/2025
- To obtain a copy of Ehud N. Gersten’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) generally requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe a recommendation is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile (including objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and other factors). In the pending arbitration alleging “Suitability” issues tied to a real estate security recommendation, the core suitability question is whether the investment matched the claimant’s profile and whether the broker had an adequate basis for the recommendation.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) broadly requires brokers to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Allegations such as misrepresentation and omissions and misleading recommendations—as pleaded in the pending disputes—often implicate Rule 2010 because providing incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to a customer can fall below those standards.
FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) generally prohibits using deceptive or fraudulent devices in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Where a claimant alleges misrepresentations/omissions or otherwise misleading conduct in connection with recommending a product (here, a real estate security), Rule 2020 is commonly analyzed alongside the alleged facts to assess whether the communications or sales practices were deceptive in a way that violated industry rules.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayn 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.
Rate this Post
Loading...