Our firm is investigating LPL Financial broker and investment adviser David Jon Nastri (CRD# 5178144) of Cheshire, Connecticut for potential investment-related misconduct involving allegedly unsuitable recommendations in real estate securities and structured products.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck records, David Jon Nastri has been registered in the securities industry since 2006.
- Current firm:
- LPL Financial LLC (CRD# 6413)
- Registered as a General Securities Representative since October 11, 2011
- Registered as an Investment Adviser Representative with LPL since July 2, 2012
- Works out of branch offices at 145 Highland Ave and 1151 S Main St, Cheshire, CT 06410
- LPL Financial LLC (CRD# 6413)
- Prior broker-dealer affiliations:
- UVEST Financial Services Group, Inc. (CRD# 13787), Cheshire, CT – registered February 2007 – October 2011
- Webster Investment Services, Inc. (CRD# 46588), Wilton, CT – registered January 2007 – February 2007
- MML Investors Services, Inc. (CRD# 10409), Farmington, CT – registered November 2006 – January 2007
Nastri is currently licensed in numerous U.S. states and territories through LPL, including Connecticut, Florida, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others, giving him a multi-state customer base.
David J. Nastri Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck discloses two customer dispute events in Nastri’s record, both involving allegations that complex investments were unsuitable and that significant risks were not properly disclosed.
While these disputes involve serious allegations, investors should understand that some matters are contested and that settlements do not necessarily constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the broker or the firm.
2023–2025 FINRA Arbitration Over Real Estate Security Investment (Settled)
- Type of disclosure: Customer Dispute – Arbitration, settled
- Reporting source: Broker (LPL Financial LLC as employing firm)
- Underlying investment: Real estate security
- Time period of investment: Recommendation and purchase allegedly made in 2014
- Customer allegations:
- The customers alleged that a real estate investment recommended in 2014 was inappropriate for their investment objectives and risk tolerance.
- Forum: FINRA arbitration, Case No. 24-00006
- Filing date of arbitration: December 29, 2023
- Date complaint received by the firm: January 2, 2024
- Alleged damages:
- Exact amount could not be determined, but was believed to be over $5,000.
- Outcome:
- Status: Settled (not pending)
- Status date: May 6, 2025
- Settlement amount: $28,500 paid to the customers
- Individual contribution by Nastri: $0
Broker’s position: In a statement on BrokerCheck, Nastri denies any wrongdoing, asserts that the real estate investment’s features, benefits, liquidity restrictions, and risk of loss were explained and documented, and states that he believes LPL chose to settle the matter for a “nominal” amount well below the anticipated cost of a full arbitration hearing.
2020 Customer Complaint About Structured Product (Denied)
- Type of disclosure: Customer Dispute – Closed / Denied
- Reporting source: Broker (LPL Financial LLC as employing firm)
- Underlying investment: Structured product (“Other: Structured Products”)
- Customer allegations:
- The customer alleged that Nastri recommended an unsuitable investment and that the product’s principal risk was not disclosed.
- Date complaint received: September 21, 2020
- Alleged damages:
- Amount unspecified but reasonably believed to exceed $5,000
- Form of complaint: Written complaint (not an arbitration or civil litigation)
- Outcome:
- Status: Denied
- Status date: November 11, 2020
- No settlement or payment to the customer reported
Summary of Customer Disclosures
- Real estate security arbitration (Case No. 24-00006) – Settled (2025)
- Alleged unsuitable recommendation and mismatched risk tolerance related to a 2014 real estate investment
- $28,500 settlement paid by LPL Financial; Nastri reported no personal contribution
- Structured product complaint – Denied (2020)
- Alleged unsuitable structured product and failure to disclose principal at-risk features
- Complaint was denied with no reported compensation to the client
These disputes highlight the types of complex, illiquid, or riskier products—such as real estate securities and structured products—that often give rise to FINRA arbitration claims when customers later experience unexpected losses or discover risks they believe were never properly explained.
Conclusion
The complaints involving David Jon Nastri focus on suitability and risk-disclosure issues in complex products. One customer arbitration involving a real estate security has already resulted in a $28,500 settlement, and a prior complaint regarding a structured product alleged that principal risk was not adequately disclosed.
If you or a loved one invested in real estate securities, structured products, or other complex investments through David J. Nastri or another LPL Financial advisor and suffered losses, you may have potential claims that can be pursued through FINRA arbitration.
To obtain a copy of David J. Nastri’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 – Suitability
In disputes like those involving Mr. Nastri, FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) plays a central role. FINRA Rule 2111 requires a broker-dealer or associated person to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile—factors such as age, financial situation, investment experience, risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and overall objectives.
In the 2014 real estate security and the structured product complaint, investors alleged that the recommendations were inconsistent with their stated objectives and risk tolerance and that key risks, including the possibility of loss of principal and lack of liquidity, were not adequately disclosed. If a FINRA arbitration panel concludes that an advisor failed to understand a client’s profile or recommended complex products that exceeded the client’s risk tolerance, the panel may find a violation of Rule 2111 and award damages to the customer.
FINRA Rule 2090 – Know Your Customer
FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) requires firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence at account opening and on an ongoing basis to know and retain the essential facts concerning every customer. Those essential facts include information necessary to effectively service the account, follow special handling instructions, understand who is authorized to act on the account, and comply with all applicable laws and rules.
Where a customer alleges that the broker recommended a complex real estate security or structured product that did not match the client’s risk tolerance or financial situation, arbitrators often look to whether the firm and advisor complied with Rule 2090. If the broker failed to obtain or update critical information—such as the client’s need for capital preservation or inability to tolerate illiquidity—then both the firm and advisor may be exposed to liability for recommending investments that the customer was never an appropriate candidate to own.
FINRA Rule 2010 – Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade
Even when misconduct is not neatly captured by a specific rule, FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) provides a broad ethical standard. Rule 2010 requires that “a member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”
In the context of the allegations against David J. Nastri, a FINRA panel could view failure to fairly present the risks of complex, illiquid real estate and structured products, or a pattern of recommendations that appear to prioritize product sales over client interests, as conduct inconsistent with the high standards required by Rule 2010—even if the broker insists that documents were signed and some risks were mentioned. Rule 2010 often functions as a “catch-all” ethics rule, allowing arbitrators and regulators to sanction behavior that undermines investor trust or reflects poor professional judgment, even when no more specific rule is directly at issue.
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.
Rate this Post
Loading...