Our firm is investigating Equitable Advisors broker Bryan Preston Lubitz (CRD# 4381244) of Melville, New York for potential investment-related misconduct involving alleged unsuitable trading, churning, unauthorized transactions, and other sales-practice violations in customer accounts.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Bryan Preston Lubitz has worked in the securities industry since 2001. He first registered with Trident Partners Ltd. (CRD# 41258) in Woodbury, New York from July 2001 to June 2012, then moved to Newbridge Securities Corporation (CRD# 104065) in Syosset, New York from July 2012 to September 2015, and later joined Aegis Capital Corp. (CRD# 15007) in Melville, New York from August 2015 through December 2022. He has been registered as a broker with Equitable Advisors, LLC (CRD# 6627), working out of the firm’s Melville, New York branch office at 395 North Service Road, Suite 206, since December 20, 2022.
Mr. Lubitz is registered as a General Securities Representative with FINRA and is licensed in more than 20 U.S. states and territories. His exam history includes the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, and the Series 63 Uniform Securities Agent State Law Examination. He has also disclosed a non-investment-related outside business, Bryan Lubitz Inc., in Mastic, New York, which he reports as a tax-planning entity.
Bryan Preston Lubitz Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck reports seven customer dispute events involving Bryan Preston Lubitz, including one pending FINRA arbitration and six disputes that have been settled, denied, withdrawn, or otherwise resolved. As FINRA itself cautions, many of these matters involve unproven allegations that may ultimately be resolved in the broker’s favor, dismissed, or settled without any admission of wrongdoing.
Pending 2025 FINRA Arbitration Over 2021 Equity Transactions
The most recent disclosure is a pending FINRA arbitration filed in October 2025 and reported by both Aegis Capital Corp. and Equitable Advisors. The firm disclosure states that the activity occurred in 2021 while Mr. Lubitz was associated with Aegis Capital Corp. and involved listed equity products. The customers allege “suitability concerns of equity sales” and estimate damages between $100,000 and $500,000. The case is pending before FINRA Dispute Resolution Services in Charlotte, North Carolina under Docket No. 25-02124, and no settlement or award has been reported to date.
Settled Customer Disputes Involving Aegis Capital Corp., Newbridge, and Trident Partners
BrokerCheck also discloses multiple settled customer disputes arising from Mr. Lubitz’s prior associations with Aegis Capital Corp., Newbridge Securities Corporation, and Trident Partners Ltd.:
- 2021 Aegis Capital Corp. suitability arbitration (FINRA Case 21-01368)
- Time frame of alleged conduct: July 1, 2015 – “present” (as of the filing).
- Allegations: Suitability issues involving corporate debt investments.
- Alleged damages: $22,637.36.
- Disposition: FINRA arbitration settled on September 14, 2021 for $9,999, with a reported individual contribution by Mr. Lubitz of $4,999.50.
- 2014 Newbridge Securities Corporation multi-product arbitration (FINRA Case 14-03636)
- Allegations: Breach of fiduciary duty, negligence (including failure to make suitable investment recommendations), failure to supervise, and breach of contract, involving corporate debt, OTC equity, listed equity, and mutual funds.
- Alleged damages: $97,000.
- Disposition: FINRA arbitration settled on November 30, 2015 for $100,000, with a reported $75,000 individual contribution attributed to Mr. Lubitz.
- 2013 Trident Partners Ltd. stop-loss arbitration (FINRA Case 13-03238)
- Allegations: Failure to use stop-loss orders in OTC and listed equity positions, allegedly causing customer losses of approximately $120,609.24; damages reported as $100,000.
- Disposition: FINRA arbitration settled on October 26, 2014 for $65,000, with no individual contribution reported for Mr. Lubitz. In a BrokerCheck statement, he notes that he was not named as a respondent in the arbitration and did not participate in or contribute to the settlement.
Complaints Denied, Withdrawn, or Resolved With No Payment to the Customer
Three additional customer disputes against Mr. Lubitz are reported as having been denied, withdrawn, or concluded via an award in favor of the respondents without a settlement payment to the customer:
- 2013–2022 Aegis Capital Corp. multi-year arbitration (FINRA Case 22-02854)
- Time frame of alleged conduct: March 2013 – August 2022.
- Allegations: Suitability, churning, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unauthorized trading, negligence, misrepresentation, and omission of material facts.
- Alleged damages: $139,224.
- Disposition: As of May 24, 2024, the matter is reported as an “Arbitration Award/Monetary Judgment (for respondents/defendants),” indicating the panel ruled in favor of the respondents and no settlement was reported. In a BrokerCheck statement, Mr. Lubitz denies the allegations and states he was not involved in any settlement negotiations.
- 2018–2021 Aegis Capital Corp. written complaint (denied)
- Time frame of alleged conduct: August 2018 – April 2021.
- Allegations: Unsuitable recommendations and investments in listed equities.
- Alleged damages: $71,000.
- Disposition: The firm denied the complaint on April 28, 2022 and reported no payment to the customer.
- 2011 Trident Partners Ltd. arbitration (FINRA Case 11-01771)
- Allegations: Churning, unsuitable use of margin, and breach of fiduciary duty in OTC equity trading; alleged damages of $100,000.
- Disposition: The claim was withdrawn in May 2013. Mr. Lubitz reports that FINRA notified him he was dismissed without prejudice from the proceeding and that he made no contribution toward any resolution.
These disclosures outline a pattern of allegations involving suitability, excessive trading (churning), margin use, failures to follow risk-management instructions such as stop-loss orders, and claims of unauthorized trading, some of which resulted in settlements and some of which were denied or resolved in the broker’s favor. Allegations remain unproven in pending and denied matters, and even in settled cases, firms and brokers often resolve disputes as business decisions without admitting liability.
To better understand whether you may have similar claims involving unsuitable investment recommendations, excessive trading (churning), or unauthorized trading, it is critical to have an experienced securities attorney review your account statements and trading history.
To obtain a copy of Bryan Preston Lubitz’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 — Suitability
FINRA’s Rule 2111, commonly known as the Suitability Rule, requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy involving securities is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile, including age, investment experience, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, time horizon, risk tolerance, and other relevant factors.
In the disputes summarized above, customers repeatedly allege unsuitable recommendations—including corporate debt, OTC and listed equities, and margin-based strategies—over multi-year time periods. If a broker recommends concentrated positions, high-risk strategies, or frequent trading that does not match the client’s risk tolerance or objectives, and those recommendations cannot be justified under the client’s documented profile, FINRA Rule 2111 may be implicated. Whether Mr. Lubitz ultimately violated Rule 2111 would depend on findings in the underlying FINRA proceedings and a close review of each client’s account documentation and trading records.
FINRA Rule 2020 — Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices
FINRA Rule 2020 prohibits any broker from effecting a securities transaction, or inducing the purchase or sale of any security, “by means of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance.”
Allegations of churning, misrepresentation, and omission of material facts—such as those raised in certain customer disputes against Mr. Lubitz—can raise concerns under Rule 2020 when a broker is accused of trading primarily to generate commissions, exaggerating potential returns, or downplaying risks. If a FINRA arbitration panel were to find that trading in a customer’s account was excessive relative to the customer’s objectives, or that risks and costs were not fairly disclosed, the conduct could potentially be viewed as manipulative or deceptive within the meaning of Rule 2020. At this stage, the pending and many of the past allegations remain either unresolved, contested, or denied by Mr. Lubitz, and no regulatory body has publicly reported a Rule 2020 violation in his case.
Discretionary Accounts and Unauthorized Trading
FINRA’s Rule 3260 governs Discretionary Accounts, including excessive transactions in accounts where a broker has discretion, the requirements for written customer authorization, and the firm’s obligation to approve and review discretionary activity.
Under Rule 3260, a broker generally may not exercise discretionary power in a customer’s account—such as deciding when and what to buy or sell—without prior written authorization from the client and proper acceptance and supervision by the firm. The rule also prohibits transactions in discretionary accounts that are excessive in size or frequency in light of the customer’s financial situation and investment profile. Allegations of unauthorized trading, churning, and unsuitable use of margin in the customer disputes involving Mr. Lubitz raise issues that are often analyzed under Rule 3260, particularly if trades were placed without explicit client approval or if the overall trading pattern appears inconsistent with the customer’s stated objectives. Whether Rule 3260 was actually violated in any given account is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis by arbitrators or regulators.
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.
