Our firm is investigating Landolt Securities broker and investment adviser Jason Edward Seurer (CRD# 2541616) of Maple Plain, Minnesota for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Jason Edward Seurer has worked in the securities industry since the mid-1990s. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, he is currently registered as a broker with Landolt Securities, Inc. (CRD# 28352) and as an investment adviser representative with the same firm, operating out of a branch office in Maple Plain, Minnesota.
Seurer has been registered with Landolt Securities as a broker since November 2018 and as an investment adviser representative since February 2021. Before joining Landolt, he was associated with:
- The Wealth Protection Group, LLC (investment adviser) in Maple Plain, Minnesota (2016–2021)
- Feltl & Company (broker-dealer) in Wayzata, Minnesota (briefly in 2011)
- Edward Jones (broker and investment adviser) in Milbank, South Dakota (1994–2011)
His BrokerCheck record also lists a number of investment-related outside business activities, including insurance sales and ownership interests in various limited liability companies involved in private business and real estate investments.
Jason Edward Seurer Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
Seurer’s regulatory and customer dispute history centers on selling away through private placements and promissory notes while at Edward Jones, as well as more recent allegations of unsuitable recommendations of GWG L bonds to customers of Landolt Securities. Collectively, investors have alleged more than $2.3 million in damages, and multiple claims have resulted in large monetary settlements.
Regulatory actions by FINRA and state securities regulators have focused on his participation in private securities transactions away from his firm, and his handling of state audit and examination obligations. Customer disputes have involved promissory notes tied to an outside venture (Gibraltar Partners) and other “risk-free” or guaranteed-interest investments, along with high-yield corporate debt products such as GWG L bonds.
To understand these issues, investors should know that selling away occurs when a broker recommends or sells investments outside the supervision and approval of their brokerage firm—often involving promissory notes, private placements, or other high-risk instruments.
Recent GWG L Bond Allegations at Landolt Securities
Two recent FINRA arbitration claims involve investors who purchased GWG L bonds while Seurer was registered with Landolt Securities:
- 2022 GWG L bond arbitration (FINRA Case No. 22-01077) – A Landolt customer alleged that Seurer’s recommendations to purchase GWG L bonds in February 2019 were unsuitable. The customer claimed $200,000 in damages. The dispute was settled in November 2022 for $100,000, with Seurer reportedly contributing the full settlement amount.
- 2024 GWG L bond arbitration (FINRA Case No. 24-00001) – Another Landolt client alleged that L bond purchases from November 2019 became unsuitable after GWG Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The statement of claim sought between $84,000 and $150,000 in damages. In January 2025, the case was settled for $40,000, again reportedly paid entirely by Seurer.
These cases illustrate how complex, high-yield debt products like GWG L bonds can lead to substantial investor losses when used inappropriately or without full disclosure of their risks and illiquidity.
FINRA and State Regulatory Actions for Selling Away and Private Placements
Seurer’s BrokerCheck report lists multiple regulatory actions tied to private securities transactions and selling away:
- FINRA AWC (2012) – FINRA found that Seurer violated FINRA Rule 2010 and NASD Rule 3040 by participating in private securities transactions involving promissory notes and private placements without his firm’s knowledge or approval. He allegedly referred customers to an outside investment company, recommended promissory notes, and received at least $25,000 in commissions. FINRA imposed an 18-month suspension, a $10,000 fine, and ordered $25,000 in restitution.
- Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce (2011) – The state alleged that Seurer engaged in selling away activities involving promissory notes, resulting in a two-year suspension of his securities and insurance licenses (April 2011–April 2013) and a $5,000 civil penalty.
- South Dakota Division of Securities (2017) – South Dakota regulators alleged selling away in connection with private placements while he was associated with Edward Jones, imposing a two-year suspension and a $7,500 monetary penalty.
- South Dakota Division of Insurance and Securities (2022) – In a later action against Seurer and his advisory firm, regulators alleged that he failed to abide by a prior consent order and restricted registration agreement and did not provide requested audit and examination materials. He consented to a $5,000 civil penalty.
These regulatory findings highlight the risks investors face when brokers recommend investments outside their firm’s standard product lineup or circumvent supervisory review.
Promissory Note and “Risk-Free” Investment Claims Involving Gibraltar Partners
A significant cluster of customer complaints from 2011 involves promissory notes issued by an outside entity known as Gibraltar Partners, Inc. While Seurer was at Edward Jones, multiple clients alleged that he recommended Gibraltar investments as high-yield or “risk-free” opportunities that later failed to pay as promised.
Key Gibraltar-related disputes include:
- June 2011 – Promissory notes totaling $900,000 – Clients claimed that Seurer repeatedly recommended Gibraltar promissory notes, reassured them about the issuer’s financial stability, and encouraged them to invest additional funds. Edward Jones settled the matter for $775,000 without any contribution disclosed from Seurer.
- April 2011 – Three “risk-free, guaranteed interest” investments totaling $415,000 – Clients alleged that between April 2010 and January 2011, Seurer told them “nothing was happening” with their existing investments and urged them into a guaranteed-interest Gibraltar note program. The firm settled for the full $415,000 alleged.
- April 2011 – Promissory note dispute alleging $475,000 – A separate pair of clients entered a Gibraltar promissory note based on Seurer’s recommendation. The complaint, alleging damages of approximately $475,000, was settled for $475,000, with Seurer reportedly contributing the full amount personally.
- May 2011 – $50,000 Gibraltar note – A client alleged that Seurer promoted a short-term Gibraltar note that would repay principal plus stock in another company; the complaint settled for $25,000.
These Gibraltar Partners disputes show a pattern of customers being steered into high-risk promissory notes outside Edward Jones’ approved platform, often under assurances of safety and guaranteed returns.
Other Customer Complaints: Bank Stock and Market-Loss Claims
In addition to Gibraltar and GWG disputes, Seurer’s record includes other customer complaints related to traditional securities:
- May 2011 – Bank stock (CBONQ) – A client alleged that Seurer repeatedly recommended a bank stock, purchasing 8,000 shares over two trades in 2008. After the bank later collapsed into bankruptcy, the client reported a loss of $94,221.96 and claimed that Seurer had minimized concerns about bad loans. Edward Jones ultimately settled for $10,000.
- November 2002 – Conseco stock – A client complained that after buying shares of Conseco in 1999 and watching the price decline, Seurer reassured him as long as dividends were being paid. The client claimed $75,000 in losses and inadequate communication. Edward Jones reviewed the matter and denied the claim, attributing losses to market fluctuation rather than misconduct; no settlement was paid.
Employment Termination After Gibraltar Partners Venture
Seurer was discharged from Edward Jones in March 2011. The firm’s termination filing states that the internal investigation began after a client attempted to cash a check from Gibraltar Partners that did not clear. The firm later determined that Seurer had:
- Solicited at least three clients to invest in Gibraltar; and
- Borrowed funds from a purported Gibraltar representative without the firm’s knowledge or approval.
The termination disclosure lists promissory notes as the product type involved and characterizes the activity as an unapproved outside business arrangement connected to the customer investments.
Summary of Disclosures Involving Jason Edward Seurer
Based on the current BrokerCheck report, Seurer’s record includes four regulatory events, eight customer disputes, and one employment separation after allegations. For context, these disclosures can be summarized as follows:
- Regulatory events (4)
- 2012 FINRA AWC – Private securities transactions (promissory notes and private placements) away from Edward Jones; 18-month suspension, $10,000 fine, $25,000 restitution.
- 2011 Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce – Selling away involving promissory notes; 2-year suspension of securities and insurance licenses; $5,000 civil penalty.
- 2017 South Dakota Division of Securities – Selling away allegations; 2-year suspension of securities agent registration; $7,500 penalty.
- 2022 South Dakota Division of Insurance and Securities – Failure to comply with a prior consent order and to provide exam materials; $5,000 penalty under a consent agreement.
- Customer disputes (8)
- 2024 – GWG L bond arbitration (Landolt): alleged damages $84,000–$150,000, settled $40,000 (individual contribution).
- 2022 – GWG L bond arbitration (Landolt): alleged damages $200,000, settled $100,000 (individual contribution).
- 2011 – Gibraltar notes (Edward Jones): alleged $900,000, settled $775,000.
- 2011 – Gibraltar note (Edward Jones): alleged $50,000, settled $25,000.
- 2011 – “Risk-free, guaranteed interest” Gibraltar investments (Edward Jones): alleged $415,000, settled $415,000.
- 2011 – Gibraltar note (Edward Jones): alleged $475,000, settled $475,000, with individual contribution reported.
- 2011 – CBONQ bank stock (Edward Jones): alleged $94,221, settled $10,000.
- 2002 – Conseco stock (Edward Jones): alleged $75,000, complaint denied with no payment.
- Employment separation (1)
- 2011 – Discharged from Edward Jones for soliciting customer investments in Gibraltar Partners and borrowing from a Gibraltar representative without firm approval.
These disclosures do not, by themselves, prove liability in every instance, and Seurer has denied allegations in several of the disputes. However, from an investor’s perspective, this record reflects repeated issues involving high-risk, illiquid products, private securities transactions, and alleged unsuitable investments across multiple firms and regulatory jurisdictions. For investors who suffered losses after similar recommendations, this history may be relevant to potential recovery claims.
To obtain a copy of Jason Edward Seurer’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) governs whether a broker’s recommendations align with a customer’s financial profile. FINRA Rule 2010 requires that brokers “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” FINRA’s private securities transaction rule (formerly NASD Rule 3040 and now FINRA Rule 3280) limits brokers’ ability to participate in outside deals unless they first notify and obtain approval from their firm.
Taken together, these rules are designed to protect investors from being steered into risky, illiquid, or off-book investments without proper disclosure and oversight.
Seurer’s regulatory actions and customer disputes suggest repeated concerns in these areas: the suitability of high-risk investments such as GWG L bonds for retail clients; the use of promissory notes and private placements outside his firm’s supervision; and the overall fairness and transparency of his dealings with customers.
When customers allege that they were told a note was “risk-free” or that an issuer posed little or no credit risk, and the investment later defaults or becomes illiquid, arbitrators and regulators often examine whether the broker had a reasonable basis to recommend the product at all, and whether the broker’s explanations met the high standards imposed by FINRA’s conduct rules.
In the GWG L bond cases and the Gibraltar promissory note disputes, investors claim that they were not adequately warned about the potential for issuer default, illiquidity, or the risk of losing all or most of their principal. Those fact patterns are precisely the types of situations where FINRA’s suitability, conduct, and private-securities-transaction rules may support investor recovery claims against both the individual broker and the supervising firm.
For investors evaluating their own accounts, these rules provide a framework for asking the right questions: Was the investment really appropriate for my objectives and risk tolerance? Did my broker fully disclose the risks and conflicts of interest? Did the firm properly supervise my broker’s outside activities and the products he sold me?
If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” you may have grounds to pursue a claim for your losses.
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.
