Our firm is investigating TPEG Securities broker Sandeep Shrivastava (CRD# 5003823) of Southlake, Texas for potential investment-related misconduct.
Stockbroker’s Career History
According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck report, Sandeep Shrivastava is currently registered as a General Securities Representative with FINRA through TPEG Securities, LLC (CRD# 146726), headquartered at 2102 E State Hwy 114, Suite 300, Southlake, Texas. He has been registered with TPEG Securities since January 7, 2015, and holds licenses in at least 25 U.S. states and territories, including California, Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey, and others.
Shrivastava’s Form U4 also reflects parallel investment-related business experience. Since January 2011, he has reported working as a consultant with Trinity Private Equity Group in Southlake, Texas. In addition, he discloses several other investment-related outside business activities where he provides due diligence or oversees family investments, including Magic USA in Santa Clara, California; Wealth Mind Investments LLC in Fremont, California; and Shrivastava Family Holdings LLC in Miami Beach, Florida.
Sandeep Shrivastava Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA’s BrokerCheck report shows two pending customer disputes involving private placement investments (categorized as “Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests”) sold through TPEG Securities, LLC. Both matters are reported as written customer complaints, not arbitrations or civil lawsuits, and both remain pending as of late October 2025.
In the first pending dispute, a customer alleges that between May 2019 and August 2019, Shrivastava misled and misinformed him about investments offered by TPEG Securities, LLC and failed to adequately disclose the risks involved in the private placement offerings. The complaint identifies an investment amount of approximately $200,000 and characterizes the product as a direct participation program (DPP) and limited partnership interest. The customer contends that he was never fully apprised of the risks associated with these illiquid, higher-risk investments. The complaint was received on September 6, 2025, and remains pending as of a status date of October 27, 2025.
In the second pending dispute, another client similarly alleges that investments recommended by Shrivastava in direct investment/DPP and LP interests were not “balanced and secure,” leading to both realized and unrealized losses. In that case, the customer lists alleged damages of approximately $620,699, tied to the cost basis of the investments at issue. The firm received this complaint on February 13, 2025, and it remains pending as of a status date of October 30, 2025.
Taken together, these two pending customer disputes claim total alleged damages in excess of $820,000 and focus on whether Shrivastava’s recommendations in private placements were properly explained, suitable for the clients’ risk tolerance, and structured in a way that adequately balanced risk and return. At this stage, however, the matters are only allegations. No arbitration panel, court, or regulator has made a finding of liability against Shrivastava or TPEG Securities in connection with these complaints, and the broker denies any wrongdoing.
Summary of FINRA-Reported Customer Disputes
Based on the current BrokerCheck report, Shrivastava’s disclosure history can be summarized as follows:
- Customer Dispute – Pending (Complaint received 02/13/2025)
- Firm: TPEG Securities, LLC
- Product Type: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests
- Allegations: Investments were not balanced and secure, resulting in realized and unrealized losses.
- Alleged Damages: $620,699 (described as the cost basis of the investments).
- Status: Written complaint; pending as of October 30, 2025; no reported settlement or adjudication.
- Customer Dispute – Pending (Complaint received 09/06/2025)
- Firm: TPEG Securities, LLC
- Product Type: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests
- Allegations: Customer claims he was misled and misinformed about private placement investments and was not made aware of the risks associated with those offerings during the period May 2019 to August 2019.
- Alleged Damages: $200,000 (identified as the amount of the investment).
- Status: Written complaint; pending as of October 27, 2025; no reported settlement or adjudication.
Investors should understand that pending complaints can take months or years to resolve. In many cases, these disputes are ultimately settled, dismissed, or resolved in favor of the advisor. Still, multiple complaints concentrated in a narrow product type—here, private placements and other DPP/LP interests—can raise legitimate questions about the suitability of the recommendations and the quality of the risk disclosures provided to customers.
To obtain a copy of Sandeep Shrivastava’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) is central to disputes like those described in the pending customer complaints against Shrivastava. The rule requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended investment or strategy is suitable for the customer based on the client’s profile, including income, net worth, risk tolerance, investment objectives, time horizon, and experience. When a customer alleges that he was misled or not made aware of the risks of private placements, or that his account was not “balanced and secure,” arbitrators examine whether the broker had a reasonable basis to recommend illiquid, higher-risk DPP and LP interests in the first place, and whether those investments fit that particular client’s needs.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade) is a broad ethical rule that applies to virtually all aspects of a broker’s conduct. Even when a particular transaction does not neatly fall into a technical suitability violation, allegations that a broker misinformed a client, oversold the safety of a private placement, or downplayed the risks can give rise to claims under Rule 2010. In cases like the pending complaints involving Shrivastava, arbitrators may consider whether the way the private placements were described—especially if they were portrayed as balanced or secure despite substantial risk of loss—was inconsistent with the high standards of commercial honor and fair dealing that FINRA demands.
FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) focuses on the brokerage firm’s responsibility to supervise its registered representatives, including their recommendations of private placements, DPPs, and LP interests. When multiple customers complain about similar issues—such as inadequate risk disclosure, concentration in illiquid alternatives, or mischaracterization of the investments’ safety—arbitrators often look at whether the firm had reasonable supervisory systems in place. In the context of the allegations against TPEG Securities and Shrivastava, questions may arise about the firm’s due diligence on the private placements, its review of offering materials and sales practices, and whether it monitored brokers’ recommendations to ensure they complied with suitability and disclosure standards.
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 email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free consultation.
