Our firm is investigating Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. financial advisor and broker Mark Raymond Reynolds (CRD# 1639111) of Chicago, Illinois for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Based on his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Mark R. Reynolds has worked in the securities industry with the following firms:
- Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Financial Consultant) — 08/2005 to Present (Chicago, IL; also reported branch location in Barrington, IL).
- Morgan Stanley / Morgan Stanley DW Inc. — 08/2003 to 09/2005.
- Banc One Securities Corporation — 04/1999 to 05/2004 (registrations reported in Chicago, IL and Evanston, IL).
Mark Raymond Reynolds Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck reflects two customer dispute disclosures for Mark R. Reynolds.
Disclosure snapshot (for context):
- Auction Rate Securities (ARS) — Customer alleged misrepresentations regarding the sale of ARS; alleged damages: $1,300,000; FINRA arbitration (Illinois) Case No. 11-04689; settled 09/27/2012 for $1,300,000; individual contribution: $0.
- Municipal debt — Allegations include violations of federal/state securities laws, negligence and suitability, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, and violations of FINRA rules, relating to conduct alleged from 2007 to 2022; alleged damages: $865,072; matter evolved into FINRA arbitration Case No. 25-00850 and is listed as arbitration pending as of 04/29/2025.
Auction Rate Securities (ARS) misrepresentation claim (settled for $1.3 million)
A customer alleged “misrepresentations” concerning the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) while Reynolds’ employing firm was Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. The dispute was brought in FINRA arbitration in Illinois (Case 11-04689), with an arbitration filing date shown as 12/15/2011 and a complaint received date of 12/28/2011. The report reflects a settlement of $1,300,000 with a status date of 09/27/2012, and that Reynolds’ individual contribution amount was $0. The disclosure also includes a broker statement indicating he was not named and denied the allegations, and it describes the settlement as including an agreement by the firm to buy back ARS over time.
Municipal debt dispute alleging suitability and related claims (FINRA arbitration pending)
A separate customer dispute describes allegations including negligence and suitability and violations of FINRA rules, among other claims, tied to municipal debt and alleged conduct “from 2007 to 2022.” The report lists alleged damages of $865,072 and shows the complaint received date as 03/11/2025. It further indicates the matter evolved into FINRA arbitration (Case 25-00850) with arbitration pending as of 04/29/2025.
To obtain a copy of Mark Raymond Reynolds’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2010 (commercial honor) in plain terms
FINRA Rule 2010 requires brokers and associated persons to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. In the context of allegations like misrepresentations in product sales and suitability-related claims, Rule 2010 is often implicated because a broker’s overall conduct—what was said, what was omitted, and how recommendations were presented—can be evaluated against those baseline ethical standards.
FINRA Rule 2111 (suitability) and municipal debt allegations
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) generally requires that recommendations be suitable for the customer based on factors like investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, time horizon, and overall portfolio composition. Where a dispute alleges “negligence and suitability” involving municipal debt over a multi-year period, the core question is often whether the recommended strategy matched the investor’s profile and whether the risks (including credit, duration/interest-rate, and concentration risk) were consistent with what the investor could reasonably bear.
FINRA Rule 3110 (supervision) and “failure to supervise” claims
FINRA Rule 3110 requires member firms to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and FINRA rules. When a customer dispute includes allegations of “failure to supervise,” that language commonly points to potential firm-level exposure—whether the brokerage firm had adequate policies, escalation procedures, and oversight to detect and address problematic sales practices (including red flags tied to product risk, disclosures, or pattern issues across accounts).
Losing your savings to a dishonest broker or advisor can be devastating, but you do not have to face it alone. Robert Wayne Pearce and his team have spent over four decades helping investors who were misled or defrauded by Wall Street firms. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. takes cases nationwide on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we recover your losses. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com today for a free and confidential consultation.
