Our firm is investigating KKR Capital Markets LLC broker and investment advisor Matthew Brett Koelliker (CRD# 5660722) of San Francisco, California, for potential investment-related misconduct involving private real estate direct investment limited partnership interests. According to public records from FINRA’s BrokerCheck system, investors have accused Koelliker of failing to honor withdrawal and redemption requests in a private real estate limited partnership, resulting in substantial alleged losses.
Koelliker is currently registered as a General Securities Representative with KKR Capital Markets LLC and holds licenses in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. His BrokerCheck report discloses three customer disputes—one settled and two pending—tied to direct participation programs (DPPs), limited partnership (LP) interests, and real estate securities sold while he was associated with M360 Advisors, LLC.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Matthew Brett Koelliker has spent his securities industry career focused on complex investment products and institutional asset management:
- KKR Capital Markets LLC (CRD# 143571) – San Francisco, California
Koelliker has been registered with KKR Capital Markets LLC as a General Securities Representative since November 12, 2024. His branch office is listed at 555 California Street, 51st Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. In September 2024, he reported employment as a Director at both KKR Capital Markets LLC and affiliated entity Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. in San Francisco, California. - M360 Advisors – Ladera Ranch, California
From February 2020 through September 2024, Koelliker reported serving as Vice President at M360 Advisors, an investment-related position in Ladera Ranch, California. The customer disputes on his BrokerCheck record stem from this time period and relate to private real estate and limited partnership offerings managed through that platform. - Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (PIMCO) – Newport Beach, California
Koelliker’s earlier background includes roles with Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, where he worked as an Account Associate (June 2011–August 2016) and later as a VP, Account Manager (August 2016–February 2020), both in Newport Beach, California. - PIMCO Investments LLC (CRD# 154957) – Newport Beach, California / New York, New York
He was registered with PIMCO Investments LLC from October 2011 until February 2020, during which time he served as a Registered Representative in New York, New York.
In addition to his brokerage registrations, Koelliker has passed the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), multiple Series 7 General Securities Representative examinations, the Series 3 National Commodity Futures Examination, and the Series 63 and Series 66 state securities law exams, reflecting qualifications to sell a wide range of securities and investment products nationwide.
Matthew Brett Koelliker Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA’s BrokerCheck report for Matthew Brett Koelliker discloses three customer disputes tied to private real estate limited partnership interests categorized as Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests and Real Estate Security products. All of the disputes stem from Koelliker’s activities while associated with M360 Advisors, LLC and concentrate on allegations that investors’ limited partnership interests were mismanaged, dropped sharply in value, and were not redeemed or withdrawn as promised under the fund’s governing documents.
The allegations describe a recurring pattern: investors claim that they submitted withdrawal or redemption notices for their limited partnership interests, but the fund allegedly failed to honor those requests in full, even as the value of the investment purportedly declined significantly. These claims raise concerns about liquidity misrepresentations, suitability of illiquid private real estate offerings for the affected investors, and adherence to the limited partnership agreement.
Below is a breakdown of the disclosed customer disputes:
Summary of Customer Disputes
- Customer Dispute – Settled (American Arbitration Association)
- Employing Firm at Issue: M360 Advisors, LLC
- Allegations: An investor alleged that the fund failed to honor in full a 2020 notice to withdraw limited partnership interest in breach of the fund’s limited partnership agreement. The dispute focused on a direct investment limited partnership interest in a real estate security.
- Product Type: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests; Real Estate Security
- Alleged Damages: $2,888,581.83
- Forum: American Arbitration Association (AAA), Docket/Case No. 01-24-0000-6987
- Status / Disposition: Settled on January 2, 2025
- Settlement Amount: $650,000.00 total payment to the investor; Koelliker reported $0 individual contribution.
- Customer Dispute – Pending (Filed September 26, 2025)
- Employing Firm at Issue: M360 Advisors, LLC
- Allegations: The plaintiff alleges multiple claims tied to a sudden decrease in value of a limited partnership interest and the failure to honor in full a 2021 notice to withdraw that interest, allegedly breaching the limited partnership agreement.
- Product Type: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests; Real Estate Security
- Alleged Damages: Amount to be proven at trial (reported as $0.00 at filing)
- Forum: Civil litigation in Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2025-01511712-CU-BT-CJC)
- Status: Litigation pending as of the latest update.
- Customer Dispute – Pending (Filed October 4, 2024)
- Employing Firm at Issue: M360 Advisors, LLC
- Allegations: The plaintiff claims various misconduct related to a sudden decrease in value of a limited partnership interest and the failure to honor in full a redemption request, again involving a direct investment limited partnership and real estate security.
- Product Type: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests; Real Estate Security
- Alleged Damages: $15,032,924.63
- Forum: Civil litigation in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Central Justice Center (Case No. 30-2024-1432220-CU-NP-CJC)
- Status: Litigation pending; no resolution has yet been reported.
As with all BrokerCheck disclosures, these matters consist of allegations that may be contested and have not necessarily been proven. The pending cases could be dismissed, resolved in Koelliker’s favor, or settled without any admission of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the size of the claimed losses—particularly the eight-figure damages request in one pending civil action—and the pattern of disputes centered on the same type of illiquid real estate limited partnership highlight serious concerns for investors who purchased similar products through M360 Advisors or Koelliker.
To obtain a copy of Matthew Brett Koelliker’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
One of the primary rules implicated by allegations of unsuitable or misrepresented private real estate limited partnership interests is FINRA Rule 2111, known as the Suitability rule. Rule 2111 requires a broker to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for at least some investors (reasonable-basis suitability) and suitable for each particular customer in light of that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, risk tolerance, investment objectives, and liquidity needs. When a broker recommends an illiquid DPP or real estate limited partnership to investors who may need access to principal through redemptions or withdrawals, arbitrators will ask whether the broker adequately investigated the product’s risk, understood the liquidity restrictions and redemption provisions, and explained those risks to the client. The allegations against Koelliker—that investors saw a sudden decrease in value of their LP interests and that the fund allegedly failed to honor withdrawal and redemption requests in full—may be argued as violating Rule 2111’s customer-specific suitability obligations if arbitrators conclude the investments were inappropriate for the claimants’ risk tolerance and liquidity requirements.
Another critical standard in these cases is FINRA Rule 2090, the Know Your Customer rule. Rule 2090 obligates member firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence to “know (and retain) the essential facts” concerning every customer, including information needed to service the account properly, follow special handling instructions, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. In disputes involving allegedly illiquid private real estate partnerships, arbitrators will consider whether the broker and firm adequately understood the customer’s income needs, time horizon, risk tolerance, and liquidity preferences before recommending or holding a concentrated position in a limited partnership that restricts withdrawals. If an investor reasonably expected to access funds in 2020 or 2021 based on the limited partnership agreement, but the fund purportedly refused or failed to honor those withdrawal notices, claimants may argue that the broker and firm breached their obligations under Rule 2090 by not fully appreciating and documenting the client’s liquidity needs and by failing to align the investment with those needs.
Finally, many investor claims of this type invoke FINRA Rule 2010, which requires that “a member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Rule 2010 functions as a broad ethical standard that can apply even when no more specific rule fully captures the misconduct. In the context of the allegations against Koelliker, investors may contend that failing to honor limited partnership withdrawal or redemption requests, not timely communicating about a sharp decline in the value of a real estate security, or placing investors into complex private offerings without fair, balanced, and complete disclosure falls below the “high standards of commercial honor” required by Rule 2010. Arbitrators often evaluate whether the advisor and firm acted in good faith, prioritized the customer’s interests, and adhered to the letter and spirit of the limited partnership agreement. If the evidence shows a pattern of disregard for investor instructions and contractual rights, Rule 2010 gives FINRA panels a basis to impose liability and sanctions even beyond technical suitability or KYC violations.
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.
