Nov 21, 2025

Morgan Stanley Broker James Claude Britt Under Investigation For Unsuitable Options Trading Strategy FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Morgan Stanley broker and financial advisor James Claude Britt (CRD# 4523267) of Vero Beach, Florida for potential investment-related misconduct. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, James Claude Britt has been in the securities industry since 2002. He is currently registered as a General Securities Representative and investment adviser representative with Morgan Stanley (CRD# 149777), working out of the firm’s Vero Beach, Florida branch at 3525 Ocean Drive. He has been registered with Morgan Stanley as a broker since September 8, 2010, and as an investment adviser since September 17, 2010. Britt’s registration and employment history include: He is presently licensed in more than 20 U.S. states and territories, including Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and others, and is approved with multiple self-regulatory organizations, including FINRA, NYSE, NYSE American, and Nasdaq. James C. Britt Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck for James C. Britt discloses two customer disputes, one pending and one settled FINRA arbitration, involving allegations of unsuitable and misrepresented investment strategies in structured products and options. 2011–2013 UBS Structured Notes Unsuitability Arbitration (Settled) One disclosure involves a customer dispute reported by UBS Financial Services Inc. relating to Britt’s prior employment at UBS. The customer alleged that Britt recommended investments in unsuitable and risky structured notes, categorized as structured products, during 2008. Key details from the disclosure include: This settled case fits the broader pattern of claims often associated with unsuitable investments, where complex structured products may expose investors to higher risk or volatility than is appropriate for their stated objectives and risk tolerance. 2018–2025 Morgan Stanley Options Strategy Allegations (Pending) The second, more recent disclosure is a pending customer dispute reported by Britt and associated with his current employment at Morgan Stanley. According to the disclosure, claimants allege that an options trading strategy used in their accounts over a multi-year period was unsuitable and misrepresented. Key facts as reported: As with all FINRA disclosures, these allegations are unproven at this stage; the pending matter may ultimately be resolved in favor of Britt, through dismissal, settlement, or an award following FINRA arbitration. Summary of Customer Disclosures Based on the current BrokerCheck report, Britt’s disclosure record consists of: Investors who believe they were harmed by allegedly unsuitable options strategies, over-concentration, or misrepresented unsuitable investments may have potential claims to recover losses through FINRA arbitration and related proceedings. If you invested with James Claude Britt and believe you suffered losses in options, structured products, or other allegedly unsuitable strategies, you may have a claim for recovery through a FINRA arbitration claim against the brokerage firm that supervised these accounts. To obtain a copy of James Claude Britt’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 – Suitability FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires a broker or associated person to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy—including options strategies and structured products—is suitable for the customer, based on the customer’s investment profile (age, financial situation, objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, etc.) In the context of the Britt complaints, the pending FINRA arbitration alleges that an options trading strategy in trust accounts from January 2018 through May 2025 was unsuitable and misrepresented. If a panel ultimately finds the strategy involved excessive risk, volatility, leverage, or complexity relative to the customers’ profiles, it could conclude that the broker and firm violated FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) by: FINRA has repeatedly emphasized that suitability obligations are central to investor protection, particularly when firms recommend complex structured notes and options-based strategies to retail investors. FINRA Rule 2210 – Communications With the Public FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) establishes standards for how firms and registered representatives communicate with customers through correspondence, retail communications, and institutional communications. Among other things, Rule 2210 prohibits exaggerated, unwarranted, or misleading statements and requires balanced presentations of risks and benefits. In the Britt disclosures, claimants allege that the options trading strategy implemented in their trust accounts was “misrepresented”. If marketing materials, presentations, or oral explanations about the strategy downplayed material risks—such as potential for substantial losses, margin calls, or volatility—or overstated income potential or downside protection, that conduct may implicate FINRA Rule 2210. Examples of potential Rule 2210 issues in this context could include: When misrepresentations or omissions in public or customer communications coincide with unsuitable recommendations, customers may assert causes of action under both the suitability rule and FINRA’s communications standards. FINRA Rule 2010 – Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) requires member firms and associated persons to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their business. This broad “catch-all” provision is frequently cited alongside more specific rules, such as suitability and supervision, when brokers engage in unethical or unfair practices. Rule 2010 gives FINRA and arbitration panels flexibility to sanction conduct that may not fit neatly within a single technical rule but nonetheless falls short of the ethical standards expected of brokerage firms and financial advisors. 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.

Continue Reading

Nov 21, 2025

Cetera Investment Services and Cetera Investment Advisers Financial Advisor Gihan Fernando Under Investigation For Non-Traded REIT Misrepresentation and Unsuitable Investment Recommendations FINRA Complaint

Gihan Anil Fernando (CRD# 4469669) is a financial advisor and stockbroker currently registered with Cetera Investment Advisers LLC and Cetera Investment Services LLC in Houston, Texas, and our firm is investigating customer complaints and regulatory findings involving his recommendations of non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Fernando has been in the securities industry since 2002. During his career, Fernando has passed several industry qualification exams, including the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) exam, as well as the Series 63 and 65 state law exams. Gihan Anil Fernando Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck discloses one regulatory event and seventy-two (72) customer disputes involving Fernando, all reported as customer-initiated, investment-related matters that have been resolved with no pending or on-appeal cases. These disclosures center on allegations that Fernando recommended non-traded REITs and other real-estate related securities that were misrepresented, unsuitable, or not fully explained, resulting in illiquidity and significant investment losses for customers. Texas State Securities Board Reprimand Over Non-Traded REIT Recommendations A key disclosure involves a final regulatory action by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB). On July 2, 2024, Texas issued an order of reprimand (Docket/Case No. REG-24-CAF-05) against Fernando. According to the BrokerCheck report, for the sole purpose of resolving the investigation, Fernando consented to the entry of the order. The TSSB found that he: At the time of the activity that led to the regulatory action, Fernando was associated with Cetera Investment Services LLC and Cetera Investment Advisers LLC. The order is final and resulted in a letter of reprimand, and the report indicates that it is not classified as a final order based on fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct under state or federal law. Pattern of Non-Traded REIT and Real Estate Security Complaints BrokerCheck lists 72 customer disputes, all categorized as customer complaints or arbitrations that resulted in settlements. Many of these complaints: In multiple broker-submitted statements, Fernando asserts that all of these complaints relate to BOKF-approved non-traded REIT investments sold between 2015–2018 and that BOK Financial selected and approved the products, provided the offering documentation, and later repurchased the investments from customers after liquidity problems emerged, with no individual contribution by him to the settlements. Examples of Settled REIT and BDC Customer Complaints Below are illustrative examples of the customer disputes reported on Fernando’s BrokerCheck: 1. 2015–2017 Non-Traded REIT Arbitration (Settled) 2. 2015 Real Estate Security Complaint (Settled) 3. 2016 Real Estate Security Complaint (Settled) 4. 2017 Real Estate Security Complaint (Settled) 5. 2016 Business Development Company (BDC) Complaint (Settled) These examples illustrate the recurring themes in Fernando’s customer disputes: non-traded REITs and related real estate or BDC products, allegations of misrepresentation and unsuitability, and significant claimed losses tied to illiquidity or underperformance. Summary of Disclosures As of the most recent BrokerCheck report, the following disclosure events have been reported for Gihan Anil Fernando: Investors should remember that, as FINRA stresses, customer complaints and regulatory allegations may be contested and are not, by themselves, conclusive findings of liability. Many settlements are reached for business reasons and may not involve admissions of wrongdoing. Fernando’s regulatory history and the volume of non-traded REIT and alternative-investment complaints raise serious questions about whether his recommendations complied with core industry standards, and whether investors may still be able to recover non-traded REIT losses and other alternative-investment losses through FINRA arbitration or other avenues. To obtain a copy of Gihan Anil Fernando’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 – Suitability FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires that a broker or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for a customer, based on information obtained through reasonable diligence regarding the customer’s investment profile—including age, financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs. In the complaints involving Fernando, customers allege that non-traded REITs and real estate-related securities were unsuitable because: If Fernando recommended large allocations to non-traded REITs to investors whose profiles required liquidity (for income or retirement needs) or conservative risk, those recommendations may have violated Rule 2111 by failing both the “reasonable-basis suitability” (understanding the product itself) and “customer-specific suitability” (matching the product to the particular investor) components. The Texas State Securities Board’s finding that Fernando recommended REITs “without fully understanding the product” further underscores the reasonable-basis suitability concern: a broker cannot satisfy Rule 2111 if he or she does not adequately understand how a product works, its fees, its liquidity constraints, and the circumstances under which distributions may be reduced or suspended. FINRA Rule 2210 – Communications with the Public FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) requires that all broker communications, including oral presentations and written sales materials, be fair and balanced and not omit material facts or qualifications that would cause a communication to be misleading. The customer complaints reported against Fernando repeatedly allege misrepresentation of “certain features of the product” in connection with non-traded REIT and real estate security sales, including disputes where alleged damages ranged from $50,000 to as much as $500,000 on individual accounts. In the context of non-traded REITs and BDCs, communications that may run afoul of Rule 2210 include: If investors were told that these non-traded REITs would reliably meet their income needs, were easily redeemable, or were low-risk compared to equities, such communications may have violated Rule 2210’s requirement for balanced and non-misleading presentations. FINRA Rule 2010 – Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade FINRA Rule 2010 requires that FINRA members and their associated persons “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in the conduct of their business. While Rule 2010 is often cited as a “catch-all” provision, it frequently appears in cases involving unethical sales practices, unsuitable recommendations, or patterns of customer harm, even when more specific rules (like 2111 and 2210) are also implicated. The Texas State Securities...

Continue Reading

Nov 21, 2025

Equitable Advisors Broker Bryan Lubitz Under Investigation For Unsuitable Investment Recommendations and Churning FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Equitable Advisors broker Bryan Preston Lubitz (CRD# 4381244) of Melville, New York for potential investment-related misconduct involving alleged unsuitable trading, churning, unauthorized transactions, and other sales-practice violations in customer accounts. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Bryan Preston Lubitz has worked in the securities industry since 2001. He first registered with Trident Partners Ltd. (CRD# 41258) in Woodbury, New York from July 2001 to June 2012, then moved to Newbridge Securities Corporation (CRD# 104065) in Syosset, New York from July 2012 to September 2015, and later joined Aegis Capital Corp. (CRD# 15007) in Melville, New York from August 2015 through December 2022. He has been registered as a broker with Equitable Advisors, LLC (CRD# 6627), working out of the firm’s Melville, New York branch office at 395 North Service Road, Suite 206, since December 20, 2022. Mr. Lubitz is registered as a General Securities Representative with FINRA and is licensed in more than 20 U.S. states and territories. His exam history includes the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, and the Series 63 Uniform Securities Agent State Law Examination. He has also disclosed a non-investment-related outside business, Bryan Lubitz Inc., in Mastic, New York, which he reports as a tax-planning entity. Bryan Preston Lubitz Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck reports seven customer dispute events involving Bryan Preston Lubitz, including one pending FINRA arbitration and six disputes that have been settled, denied, withdrawn, or otherwise resolved. As FINRA itself cautions, many of these matters involve unproven allegations that may ultimately be resolved in the broker’s favor, dismissed, or settled without any admission of wrongdoing. Pending 2025 FINRA Arbitration Over 2021 Equity Transactions The most recent disclosure is a pending FINRA arbitration filed in October 2025 and reported by both Aegis Capital Corp. and Equitable Advisors. The firm disclosure states that the activity occurred in 2021 while Mr. Lubitz was associated with Aegis Capital Corp. and involved listed equity products. The customers allege “suitability concerns of equity sales” and estimate damages between $100,000 and $500,000. The case is pending before FINRA Dispute Resolution Services in Charlotte, North Carolina under Docket No. 25-02124, and no settlement or award has been reported to date. Settled Customer Disputes Involving Aegis Capital Corp., Newbridge, and Trident Partners BrokerCheck also discloses multiple settled customer disputes arising from Mr. Lubitz’s prior associations with Aegis Capital Corp., Newbridge Securities Corporation, and Trident Partners Ltd.: Complaints Denied, Withdrawn, or Resolved With No Payment to the Customer Three additional customer disputes against Mr. Lubitz are reported as having been denied, withdrawn, or concluded via an award in favor of the respondents without a settlement payment to the customer: These disclosures outline a pattern of allegations involving suitability, excessive trading (churning), margin use, failures to follow risk-management instructions such as stop-loss orders, and claims of unauthorized trading, some of which resulted in settlements and some of which were denied or resolved in the broker’s favor. Allegations remain unproven in pending and denied matters, and even in settled cases, firms and brokers often resolve disputes as business decisions without admitting liability. To better understand whether you may have similar claims involving unsuitable investment recommendations, excessive trading (churning), or unauthorized trading, it is critical to have an experienced securities attorney review your account statements and trading history. To obtain a copy of Bryan Preston Lubitz’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 — Suitability FINRA’s Rule 2111, commonly known as the Suitability Rule, requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy involving securities is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile, including age, investment experience, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, time horizon, risk tolerance, and other relevant factors. In the disputes summarized above, customers repeatedly allege unsuitable recommendations—including corporate debt, OTC and listed equities, and margin-based strategies—over multi-year time periods. If a broker recommends concentrated positions, high-risk strategies, or frequent trading that does not match the client’s risk tolerance or objectives, and those recommendations cannot be justified under the client’s documented profile, FINRA Rule 2111 may be implicated. Whether Mr. Lubitz ultimately violated Rule 2111 would depend on findings in the underlying FINRA proceedings and a close review of each client’s account documentation and trading records. FINRA Rule 2020 — Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices FINRA Rule 2020 prohibits any broker from effecting a securities transaction, or inducing the purchase or sale of any security, “by means of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance.” Allegations of churning, misrepresentation, and omission of material facts—such as those raised in certain customer disputes against Mr. Lubitz—can raise concerns under Rule 2020 when a broker is accused of trading primarily to generate commissions, exaggerating potential returns, or downplaying risks. If a FINRA arbitration panel were to find that trading in a customer’s account was excessive relative to the customer’s objectives, or that risks and costs were not fairly disclosed, the conduct could potentially be viewed as manipulative or deceptive within the meaning of Rule 2020. At this stage, the pending and many of the past allegations remain either unresolved, contested, or denied by Mr. Lubitz, and no regulatory body has publicly reported a Rule 2020 violation in his case. Discretionary Accounts and Unauthorized Trading FINRA’s Rule 3260 governs Discretionary Accounts, including excessive transactions in accounts where a broker has discretion, the requirements for written customer authorization, and the firm’s obligation to approve and review discretionary activity. Under Rule 3260, a broker generally may not exercise discretionary power in a customer’s account—such as deciding when and what to buy or sell—without prior written authorization from the client and proper acceptance and supervision by the firm. The rule also prohibits transactions in discretionary accounts that are excessive in size or frequency in light of the customer’s financial situation and investment profile. Allegations of unauthorized trading, churning,...

Continue Reading

Nov 21, 2025

Ausdal Financial Partners Broker Wilfredo Miranda Under Investigation For GWG L Bond and Real Estate Investment Disputes FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc. broker and investment adviser representative Wilfredo Raul Miranda (CRD# 3273284) of Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois for potential investment-related misconduct involving GWG L bonds and other illiquid real estate–related securities. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Wilfredo Raul Miranda has worked in the securities industry since 2000. He is currently registered as a General Securities Representative and investment adviser representative with Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc. (CRD# 7995), based out of a branch office in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and has been associated with the firm since July 2012. Miranda is licensed in more than two dozen U.S. states and territories, including Illinois, Florida, Texas, California, and others, and has passed the Series 6, Series 7, SIE, Series 63, and Series 66 examinations. His prior registrations include: In addition, Miranda has reported other business activities, including property management in Florida and Illinois, outside insurance sales, service as an elder/trustee at a Miami church, and acting as a notary, all of which may overlap with his investment-related work. Wilfredo Raul Miranda Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck shows one settled customer dispute and three pending FINRA arbitrations involving GWG L bonds and related real estate securities, as well as an older criminal disclosure. All of the customer disputes listed below arise from Miranda’s time at Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc. GWG L Bond Customer Dispute – Settled GWG L Bond and Real Estate Security Disputes – Pending These pending arbitrations involve serious allegations that Miranda recommended complex, illiquid GWG L bonds to investors, allegedly failing to perform adequate due diligence, improperly concentrating customer portfolios, and not tailoring recommendations to the investors’ risk tolerances and financial situations. GWG Holdings, the issuer of GWG L bonds, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2022 after raising roughly $2 billion from investors; the firm has missed substantial principal and interest payments, leaving many bondholders facing steep losses and uncertain recoveries. To obtain a copy of Wilfredo Raul Miranda’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) in Context FINRA Rule 2111 requires brokers and firms to have a reasonable basis to believe that every recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for the customer in light of that customer’s overall investment profile—including age, financial situation and needs, investment experience, risk tolerance, investment objectives, time horizon, liquidity needs, and tax status. The GWG L bond disputes involving Miranda allege that he recommended illiquid, high-risk bonds and real estate-related securities to customers who may have had more conservative objectives, sometimes using proceeds from earlier GWG L bond investments to purchase additional bonds. When a broker repeatedly recommends speculative or concentrated positions in complex products without a solid foundation that those investments fit the customer’s profile, arbitrators can find that the broker and firm violated Rule 2111’s reasonable-basis and customer-specific suitability obligations. In these cases, investors often claim that the broker failed to conduct adequate product due diligence, ignored red flags about the issuer’s financial condition, and did not fully explain the risks, all of which can be central to a suitability analysis under Rule 2111. FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) in Context FINRA Rule 2090, known as the “Know Your Customer” rule, obligates firms to use reasonable diligence at account opening and throughout the relationship to know and retain the essential facts concerning every customer and the authority of anyone acting on the customer’s behalf. Essential facts include those required to effectively service the account, follow special handling instructions, understand who may act on the account, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. The pending complaints against Miranda include allegations of negligence, gross negligence, and violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with GWG L bonds and related real estate securities. When brokers recommend risky, complex, or long-term illiquid products without first gathering and updating accurate information about a customer’s income, net worth, investment experience, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance—and without adjusting recommendations as a customer’s circumstances change—arbitrators may conclude that the firm and its representatives failed to satisfy their Rule 2090 obligations. In the GWG L bond context, a failure to identify that investors needed income, capital preservation, or liquidity would be inconsistent with the high-risk, long-term nature of those bonds and could support a claim that the “Know Your Customer” rule was not followed. FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) in Context FINRA Rule 3110 requires every member firm to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and FINRA rules. This includes periodic review of customer accounts, supervision of associated persons’ recommendations, and prompt follow-up on red flags such as patterns of unsuitable trades, over-concentration in high-risk products, or repeat complaints about a particular investment strategy. Several of the complaints reported on Miranda’s BrokerCheck record specifically allege failure to supervise, alongside suitability, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In GWG L bond and real estate security cases, arbitrators often examine whether the firm had adequate policies and procedures for vetting complex products, monitoring concentrated positions, and reviewing alternative investment sales to older or conservative investors. If Ausdal Financial Partners failed to monitor repeated sales of GWG L bonds by Miranda, did not enforce reasonable limits on customer exposure to illiquid securities, or ignored warning signs raised by early GWG L bond payment disruptions and the issuer’s bankruptcy, those supervisory lapses could constitute violations of Rule 3110 and, indirectly, FINRA Rule 2010’s requirement to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is a nationally recognized securities law firm representing investors in FINRA arbitration and securities fraud cases on a contingency fee basis. Robert Wayne Pearce, the founding attorney, has more than 45 years of experience recovering millions for victims of broker misconduct and investment fraud. He previously defended major brokerage firms and now uses that insight...

Continue Reading

Nov 21, 2025

Joseph Stone Capital Broker Damian Maggio Under Investigation For Alleged Failure to Supervise FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Joseph Stone Capital broker and CEO Damian Maggio (CRD# 2864247) of Garden City, New York for potential investment-related misconduct, including alleged failure to supervise customer accounts. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Damian Maggio has been registered in the securities industry since 1997 and is currently associated with Joseph Stone Capital L.L.C. (CRD# 159744) in Garden City, New York, where he serves as CEO and a registered representative. Over the course of his career, Maggio has been registered with the following broker-dealers: Maggio has passed the General Securities Representative (Series 7), General Securities Principal (Series 24), Investment Banking Representative (Series 79), and Uniform Securities Agent State Law (Series 63) examinations, among others, and is currently licensed in multiple U.S. states and territories. Damian Maggio Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck currently reports two customer disputes involving Damian Maggio: one pending customer arbitration and one settled customer dispute. Pending FINRA Arbitration – Failure to Supervise According to the BrokerCheck description, Maggio was named in a multi-claimant group arbitration involving Joseph Stone Capital customer accounts that traded in OTC equity securities. The pending statement of claim alleges that the firm, and by extension its supervisory personnel, failed to properly supervise the representatives and accounts at issue. Maggio’s BrokerCheck statement contends that he did not have supervisory responsibility over the registered representatives or the customers’ accounts and that he was named primarily because his name appears on the firm’s Form BD Schedule A as an executive. These allegations remain unproven and are still being contested in the FINRA arbitration process. No final award or settlement is reported as of the most recent BrokerCheck update. Settled Customer Dispute – Reg D Private Offering In his BrokerCheck statement, Maggio reports that he was named in the litigation for referring a client to another registered representative who then allegedly solicited the Reg D offering. He states that his name was later removed from the case and that his contribution to the settlement was a business decision to avoid substantial defense costs, asserting that the case was resolved without a finding that he violated securities laws. Investors should be aware, however, that any settlement of a customer dispute is a reportable disclosure event and may indicate litigation or arbitration risk related to the broker’s activities, referrals, or supervision. Summary of Reported Customer Disputes Investors considering claims related to stockbroker fraud, failure to supervise, private placements, or speculative OTC equity strategies should understand that these disclosures suggest significant supervision and suitability questions surrounding the accounts and products at issue, even though each matter turns on its own facts and outcomes. To obtain a copy of Damian Maggio’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link: visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) requires each member firm to “establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules.” In the pending arbitration naming Damian Maggio, claimants allege that Joseph Stone Capital and its principals failed to supervise OTC equity trading in a group of customer accounts. As CEO and a principal of the firm, Maggio is alleged to have had supervisory responsibility for the activities of the registered representatives and accounts at issue, even though he denies that he directly oversaw those brokers or customers. In a typical failure to supervise case under Rule 3110, arbitrators may examine whether: If arbitrators find that the firm’s supervisory system was not reasonably designed or properly enforced, they may conclude that the firm — and in some instances its principals — violated FINRA Rule 3110, which can support liability for customer losses in a FINRA arbitration. Section 6. Ruling Part 2 – FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) provides that a member firm, “in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Rule 2010 is often pled alongside more specific rules such as Rule 3110. In cases like the pending Maggio arbitration, a failure to maintain and enforce an adequate supervisory system may be alleged to violate not only Rule 3110, but also the broad ethical standards of Rule 2010. For example: Thus, even where a firm argues that it technically complied with written procedures, arbitrators may still find a violation of Rule 2010 if the overall course of conduct is deemed unfair or abusive toward customers. FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires that a broker or firm have “a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer” based on the customer’s investment profile, including risk tolerance, financial situation, investment objectives, and other factors. Although the pending Maggio arbitration is described primarily as a failure to supervise case, many multi-claimant actions involving OTC equities also assert that the underlying recommendations or trading strategies were unsuitable for the customers involved. In that context, Rule 2111 may come into play in the following ways: When arbitrators find that recommended strategies in OTC equities were unsuitable under FINRA Rule 2111, they may also conclude that the firm’s supervisory system violated Rule 3110 and that the overall conduct ran afoul of Rule 2010’s requirement to observe high standards of commercial honor. The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is a nationally recognized securities law firm representing investors in FINRA arbitration and securities fraud cases on a contingency fee basis. Robert Wayne Pearce, the founding attorney, has more than 45 years of experience recovering millions for victims of broker misconduct and investment fraud. He previously defended major brokerage firms and now uses that insight to protect investors nationwide. To discuss your case directly with Mr. Pearce, call (800) 732-2889 or...

Continue Reading

Nov 20, 2025

Raymond James Financial Services Broker Todd Roggen Under Investigation For Alleged Unsuitable Private Placement Investments FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating former Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. broker and financial advisor H. Todd Roggen (CRD# 721463) of Houston, Texas, for potential investment-related misconduct involving allegedly unsuitable private placement investments and other sales practice violations. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, H. Todd Roggen entered the securities industry in 1980 and has spent more than four decades working at a series of national and regional firms. Over the course of his brokerage career, Mr. Roggen was previously registered with the following broker-dealers: His employment history also reflects that he has worked as a financial advisor with Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. in Houston, and more recently as a financial advisor with MGO OneSeven DBA HTR Wealth Management, while also engaging in several insurance-related and other business activities. Although he is currently no longer registered as a broker with FINRA, he continues to work in the investment advisory space through an affiliated registered investment adviser. H. Todd Roggen Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck discloses that H. Todd Roggen has eight customer dispute disclosures, including one pending complaint, multiple settled cases, and an older arbitration award in favor of a customer. These matters involve allegations of misrepresentation, unsuitable investments, auction rate securities, government debt securities, and large purchases of preferred stock. Pending 2025 Raymond James Private Placement Complaint This pending matter focuses on allegedly unsuitable private placement investments—an area where investors face heightened risks of illiquidity and loss, and where firms and brokers must adhere to strict suitability and disclosure standards. Investors with similar private placement losses may also have claims related to private placement fraud. 1990 Arbitration Award Related to Misrepresentation and Unsuitability This award reflects a finding in favor of the customer on claims that included misrepresentation, unsuitability, and lack of adequate disclosure. Lehman Brothers Preferred Stock Complaints and Settlements (2008–2010) Several customer disputes involve concentrated purchases of Lehman Brothers preferred stock shortly before Lehman’s collapse: Auction Rate Securities Liquidity Complaint Government Debt Unsuitability Complaint (2005) Additional Denied Lehman-Related Complaint Summary of Disclosures In total, Mr. Roggen’s BrokerCheck report shows: Investors should understand that some matters were settled without admissions of liability and that the pending complaint contains unproven allegations. However, the pattern and number of disputes—spanning unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentation, and liquidity-risk issues—may be significant when evaluating potential claims. To obtain a copy of H. Todd Roggen’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 – Suitability in the Context of Roggen’s Alleged Misconduct FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires a broker or associated person to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer, based on the customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and time horizon. In the disputes involving Mr. Roggen, customers repeatedly alleged that he recommended unsuitable investments—particularly large positions in Lehman Brothers preferred stock and later private placement real estate securities—without adequately accounting for their risk, liquidity constraints, or fit with the customers’ stated goals. If a FINRA arbitration panel finds that: then those recommendations may be deemed unsuitable under Rule 2111, supporting an award of damages for the resulting losses. FINRA Rule 2090 – Know Your Customer FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) requires member firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence, at account opening and on an ongoing basis, to know the essential facts concerning every customer and the authority of each person acting on the customer’s behalf. In cases like those reported for Mr. Roggen, allegations that investments were unsuitable, overly risky, or misaligned with stated objectives often raise serious questions about whether the broker and firm: If a broker fails to obtain and maintain accurate customer information, or ignores what is known about an investor’s financial situation when recommending speculative or illiquid products, arbitrators may find a violation of Rule 2090 alongside a Rule 2111 suitability breach. FINRA Rule 2010 – Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) 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 serves as a broad “catch-all” ethics provision. Even when more specific rules—such as Rules 2111 and 2090—are not clearly established, a pattern of: can be viewed as inconsistent with the high standards of commercial honor required by Rule 2010. In Mr. Roggen’s case, the combination of an historical arbitration award, multiple settled disputes, and a new pending complaint alleging improper inducement into private placements may be cited by claimants as evidence that his conduct fell short of these ethical standards, even where the broker denies liability or where the firm paid settlements without admissions. 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.

Continue Reading

Nov 20, 2025

KKR Capital Markets LLC Broker Matthew Koelliker Under Investigation For Alleged Failure To Honor Limited Partnership Withdrawal Requests FINRA Complaint

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: 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 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....

Continue Reading

Nov 20, 2025

Equitable Advisors LLC Financial Advisor Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia Under Investigation For Alleged Misleading Investment Recommendations in FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Equitable Advisors, LLC financial advisor and stockbroker Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia (CRD# 5658696) of Tampa, Florida for potential investment-related misconduct arising from customer complaints alleging misleading investment information and losses in municipal bond funds and a managed money account. Financial Advisor’s Career History Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia is currently registered with FINRA as both a general securities representative and an investment adviser representative with Equitable Advisors, LLC (CRD# 6627). He has been associated with Equitable Advisors since April 2022 and works out of a branch office in Tampa, Florida, while holding registrations in numerous U.S. states and territories. Mr. Lacedonia has spent his entire career in the securities industry. Before joining Equitable Advisors, he was dually registered with TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC and Advice and Planning Services (CRD# 20472) in Tampa, Florida from approximately February 2015 through April 2022, where he served as a wealth management advisor and registered representative. His earlier experience includes working with ETRADE Securities LLC and ETRADE Capital Management, LLC (Tampa, Florida and Arlington, Virginia), as well as prior registrations with GAMCO Asset Management Inc., Gabelli & Company, Inc., Cohen & Steers Securities, LLC in New York, and an early stint with AXA Advisors, LLC in Miami, Florida dating back to 2009. In addition to his brokerage and advisory roles, Lacedonia has reported an outside business activity under the trade name PCG/Private Client Group, R.B Lace LLC in Tampa, where he is listed as owner. Ryan B. Lacedonia Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia has two customer dispute disclosures on his record. The disputes center on allegations that he provided misleading information to customers about the purchase of municipal bond funds and about the type of account and products for which a client qualified, resulting in claimed losses of tens of thousands of dollars. While one matter was settled by his former firm, another was closed with no action, and there has been no formal finding by FINRA that Lacedonia violated any rule in connection with these allegations. 2022 Municipal Bond Fund Misrepresentation Complaint – Settled In July 2022, a customer lodged a written complaint against Lacedonia’s former firm, TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC. The client alleged that he was provided misleading information in 2021 concerning the purchase of two municipal bond funds and requested a refund of his losses, claiming damages of approximately $30,000. The firm reported that the complaint was resolved on August 3, 2022, through a monetary settlement of $22,637.47 paid to the customer. BrokerCheck indicates that Lacedonia did not personally contribute to the settlement. The product type in the disclosure is listed as “No Product,” but the narrative makes clear the dispute involved municipal bond funds and alleged misstatements or omissions about those investments. 2022 Managed Money Account Complaint – Closed With No Action In October 2022, another written complaint was filed with TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC involving a former client who claimed he was misled by Lacedonia into believing that he qualified for the same employer-sponsored plan products his wife held. According to the disclosure, the customer alleged that instead of enrolling him in similar plan products, the representative invested his assets in a non-qualified managed money account. The client asserted that the managed money account had declined by approximately $35,000 and requested that all losses from inception be reimbursed and all fees refunded. The firm categorized the product type as “Other: Managed Money.” On November 9, 2022, the firm closed the complaint with “No Action,” indicating that no settlement or payment was made and no finding of wrongdoing was entered against Lacedonia in connection with this matter. Summary of Customer Dispute Disclosures As with all customer disputes reported in BrokerCheck, these disclosures reflect allegations only. An investor complaint, settlement, or closed-no-action entry does not by itself prove that the broker engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or any violation of FINRA rules. In conclusion, the allegations involving Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia underscore the types of issues that can arise when investors claim they were misled about the risks, features, or suitability of municipal bond funds or managed accounts, or about the nature of the retirement-plan products they were qualified to purchase. To obtain a copy of Ryan Bartholomew Lacedonia’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires brokers and their firms 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, including age, financial situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs. In the complaints involving Lacedonia, customers alleged that they received misleading information about municipal bond funds and were placed into a non-qualified managed money account instead of employer-sponsored plan products, which raises suitability questions about whether the investments and account structure were appropriate for their needs and expectations under Rule 2111. FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) requires that broker-dealer communications be fair and balanced and prohibits false, exaggerated, unwarranted, or misleading statements. If a customer was led to believe that certain municipal bond funds or employer-sponsored plan products carried particular features, guarantees, or eligibility criteria that did not actually apply, regulators and arbitrators may view such statements as potentially misleading under Rule 2210, especially where account selection and product choice were driven by those communications. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) is a broad “catch-all” provision that requires members, in the conduct of their business, to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Even where a firm or advisor has not been formally charged, customer complaints alleging misrepresentation of investment products, mishandling of account types, or failure to correct misunderstandings can be evaluated under Rule 2010 to determine whether the conduct fell below the ethical and professional standards expected of FINRA-regulated professionals. For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused...

Continue Reading

Nov 20, 2025

LPL Financial Advisor David Nastri Under Investigation For Unsuitable Real Estate and Structured Product Investments FINRA Complaint

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. 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) 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) Summary of Customer Disclosures 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.

Continue Reading

Nov 20, 2025

LPL Financial Broker Shaun Floresca Under Investigation For Unsuitable Real Estate Investment Recommendations FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating LPL Financial broker and investment adviser Shaun B. Floresca (CRD# 4758697) of Chicago, Illinois for potential investment-related misconduct. Financial Advisor’s Career History Shaun B. Floresca has been registered in the securities industry since 2004. He is currently a General Securities Representative and investment adviser representative with LPL Financial LLC (CRD# 6413), working from a branch office at 11545 W. Touhy Ave., Chicago, Illinois, while the firm’s main office is in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Over the course of his career, Floresca has been registered with the following broker-dealers and investment advisory firms: In addition to his brokerage and advisory work, Floresca has reported other business activities, including working with a credit union investment program, insurance-related business through independent marketing organizations, and a small real-estate rental activity in Chicago. Shaun B. Floresca Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck report, Shaun B. Floresca has been the subject of multiple customer disputes and a civil judgment/lien. The customer disputes center on recommendations of real estate securities made around 2014 that customers later alleged were inappropriate for their investment objectives and risk tolerance—classic allegations of unsuitable investments in alternative or illiquid products. Customer Dispute – FINRA Arbitration Case No. 23-00267 Floresca denies any wrongdoing and states that he provided “excellent, tailored service,” asserting that LPL elected to settle for business reasons and that he contributed no personal funds toward the settlement. Customer Dispute – FINRA Arbitration Case No. 24-00006 In his statement, Floresca again denies wrongdoing, asserts that risks, features, and liquidity restrictions of the recommended investments were fully discussed and documented through disclosure forms, and notes that he is not personally named in the arbitration but intends to assist LPL in defending the matter. Civil Judgment / Lien Disclosure While the judgment/lien disclosure is not directly related to investment recommendations, it may raise questions about financial responsibility and overall risk management practices. Summary of FINRA Disclosures for Shaun B. Floresca Investors who believe they lost money because of alternative or real estate securities recommended by Floresca—or any broker—should understand that real estate programs, non-traded REITs, and other complex products often involve higher fees, limited liquidity, and greater risk than traditional stocks and bonds. When such products are recommended to conservative or income-oriented investors without adequate risk disclosure, the recommendations may violate industry suitability and “know your customer” standards and expose the firm to liability in FINRA arbitration. To obtain a copy of Shaun B. Floresca’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended security or strategy is suitable for a customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including risk tolerance, time horizon, financial situation, and liquidity needs. In the Floresca disputes, customers alleged that a 2014 real estate investment did not fit their objectives or risk tolerance; arbitrators in such cases typically examine whether the broker performed adequate due diligence on the real estate product, explained its risks and illiquidity, and ensured the recommendation was not too risky or concentrated for the client’s profile. FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) requires firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence to know the essential facts about every customer at account opening and on an ongoing basis, including financial status, investment experience, and objectives. When a customer later claims that an illiquid real estate security was inappropriate, arbitrators often ask whether the broker obtained and updated accurate information about the client’s income, net worth, risk tolerance, and need for liquidity and whether that information was considered before recommending the 2014 real estate investment at issue in the Floresca arbitrations. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) is a broad ethics rule requiring firms and brokers to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their business. Even when specific suitability or “know your customer” violations are contested, regulators and arbitrators may look to Rule 2010 when brokers fail to treat customers fairly—for example, by recommending complex, high-commission real estate products to conservative investors without fully explaining the risks and liquidity constraints, or by failing to respond appropriately when clients raise concerns about performance or risk. 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.

Continue Reading