Our firm is investigating Osaic Institutions, Inc. financial advisor and registered representative Roderick Rodriguez (CRD# 2680445) of Bronx, New York for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Based on his reported registration and employment history, Rodriguez has been registered with multiple broker-dealers, including Gruntal & Co. Incorporated / Gruntal & Co., L.L.C. (1996–1998), Invest Financial Corporation (1998–2003), IFMG Securities, Inc. (2003–2008), LPL Financial (2008–2010), Essex National Securities, LLC (2010–2016), Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (2016), and later associated with Osaic Institutions, Inc. (registered since July 1, 2016, with an investment adviser representative registration starting September 29, 2020).
Roderick Rodriguez Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck reflects six customer dispute disclosures involving allegations largely tied to real estate securities / alternative investments (including illiquid or non-traded REIT-style products), with one pending and five final matters.
Disclosure recap (for context):
- FINRA Arb. No. 25-01454 — Pending (served 07/17/2025): alleged solicitation into “high risk alternative investments” represented as safe/low risk; alleged damages $160,000.
- FINRA Arb. No. 23-00750 — Settled (06/15/2023): alleged overconcentration into a single illiquid real estate security; alleged damages $50,000; settlement $14,999.
- FINRA Arb. No. 20-03409 — Settled (12/07/2021): alleged unsuitable recommendation (real estate security); alleged damages $150,000; settlement $55,000.
- Customer complaint (written) — Denied (10/12/2020): alleged inadequate disclosure of liquidity procedure and denial of an “emergency refund”; alleged damages $71,233.71.
- Customer complaint (written) — Denied (10/12/2020): alleged misstatements about refund policies for two REIT investments; alleged damages $157,760.89.
- Customer complaint (written) — Denied (05/28/2020): alleged a promised/represented intended liquidity date that the issuer did not support; alleged damages $35,000.
FINRA Arbitration No. 25-01454 (Pending) — Alleged Misrepresentation of Risk / Illiquidity
BrokerCheck reflects a pending FINRA arbitration in which the claimant alleges the respondent, through its broker, solicited investments in high-risk alternative investments that were allegedly represented as safe, low-risk retirement-income products, when the claimant contends they were illiquid, speculative, and unsuitable. The notice/process date is listed as July 17, 2025, with alleged damages of $160,000 and additional requested relief (including fees/costs and punitive damages “according to proof”).
FINRA Arbitration No. 23-00750 (Settled) — Alleged Overconcentration into a Single Illiquid Real Estate Security
One matter reported as settled alleges overconcentration of client assets into a single illiquid investment classified as a real estate security, with alleged damages of $50,000. The complaint was received March 11, 2023, the arbitration was filed March 30, 2023, and the matter reflects a settlement of $14,999 (with $0 listed as the individual’s contribution amount).
FINRA Arbitration No. 20-03409 (Settled) — Alleged Unsuitable Recommendation of a Real Estate Security
A second settled matter alleges an unsuitable recommendation involving a real estate security, with alleged damages of $150,000. The complaint was received November 10, 2020, the arbitration was filed September 30, 2020, and the dispute shows a settlement of $55,000 (with $0 listed as the individual’s contribution amount).
2020 Customer Complaints (Denied) — Liquidity and Refund-Policy Disputes Involving Illiquid Real Estate Securities
BrokerCheck also lists multiple denied customer complaints from 2020, generally alleging issues tied to liquidity limitations and what customers claim they were told about liquidity/refund provisions:
- A complaint received 09/16/2020 alleges the investor would not have invested had they known the “full liquidity procedure,” and that an “emergency refund” was denied; alleged damages $71,233.71; denied with $0 settlement listed (10/12/2020).
- Another complaint received 09/16/2020 alleges the client was upset funds were “locked up,” and claims the representative did not tell the truth about refund policies for two REIT companies; alleged damages $157,760.89; denied with $0 settlement listed (10/12/2020).
- A complaint received 05/04/2020 alleges the client was given an “intended liquidity” date that the issuer could change and had not advised the broker to represent as a potential liquidity date; alleged damages $35,000; denied with $0 settlement listed (05/28/2020).
To obtain a copy of Roderick Rodriguez’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) is central to allegations like “unsuitable recommendation” and “overconcentration” because it requires that recommendations be suitable in light of the customer’s investment profile (including objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and ability to bear loss). In disputes alleging sales of illiquid alternative investments represented as safe or income-producing, suitability analysis commonly turns on whether the advisor reasonably evaluated the customer’s need for liquidity and risk capacity before recommending speculative, hard-to-exit products.
FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) matters in cases involving alternative investments and concentration claims because it requires reasonable diligence to understand essential facts about the customer and the authority of each person acting on behalf of the account. Where complaints allege the investor did not understand liquidity restrictions or that the product did not match retirement-income objectives, the adequacy of the advisor’s customer-profile gathering and documentation is often a key issue.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) is a broad ethical rule frequently applied alongside suitability and disclosure theories. Allegations that a product’s risks (such as illiquidity, issuer discretion over redemption programs, or concentration risk) were not fairly presented—or were allegedly presented as “safe/low risk”—are often evaluated under Rule 2010 because it requires just and equitable principles of trade in communications and conduct with customers.
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.
Rate this Post
Loading...