FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS WHO CAN HANDLE YOUR SECURITIES, COMMODITIES AND INVESTMENT PROBLEMS

The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. understands what is at stake in securities, commodities and investment law matters and constantly strives to secure the most favorable possible result. Mr. Pearce provides a complete review of your case and fully explains your legal options. The firm works to ensure that you have all of the information necessary to make a sound decision before any action is taken in your case.

For dedicated representation by a law firm with substantial experience in all kinds of securities, commodities and investment disputes, contact the firm by phone at 833-300-6983, toll free at 800-732-2889 or via e-mail. We may also be able to arrange a meeting with you at offices located in Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida and elsewhere.

Nov 25, 2025

Janssen Partners Broker Peter Janssen Under Investigation For Alleged Unsuitable Private Placements and Misrepresentation FINRA Complaint

Peter Kyle Janssen (CRD# 5691028). Our firm is investigating Janssen Partners, Inc. broker and financial advisor Peter Kyle Janssen (CRD# 5691028) of Fairfield, Iowa for potential investment-related misconduct involving private placements and other alternative investments. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Peter Kyle Janssen has been registered in the securities industry since 2011. He is currently registered as a General Securities Representative with Janssen Partners, Inc. (CRD# 43940) in Fairfield, Iowa, where he has been associated since December 21, 2022. Janssen has been registered with the following broker-dealers over the course of his career: He is currently licensed in multiple states, including California, Florida, Nevada, New York, and Texas. Other Business Activities and Crypto Fund In addition to his brokerage work, FINRA records show that Janssen is the manager of FirstBlock Capital Fund I, LP, an investment fund focused on crypto assets, located in Delray Beach, Florida. He reports that he manages the fund and operations using a buy-and-hold strategy and spends several hours per week on this activity during trading hours. Peter Kyle Janssen Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck for Peter Kyle Janssen discloses four customer disputes, including one arbitration award to a customer and three settled customer complaints. All of the matters are investment-related and involve allegations of misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unsuitable private placement investments—particularly in high-risk offerings such as Mega Blockchain and NewEdge Signal Solution Inc. FINRA Arbitration Award – Mega Blockchain Private Placement (Case No. 23-00044) In a FINRA arbitration case filed in January 2023 (FINRA Case No. 23-00044), a customer alleged that while associated with Katalyst Securities LLC, Peter Kyle Janssen engaged in: The allegations arose from a December 2017 investment in a Mega Blockchain offering, which the firm and Janssen described as a private placement involving exposure to the cryptocurrency market. The customer alleged that Janssen misrepresented the terms of the offering and recommended an investment that was unsuitable for her risk profile. The customer invested approximately $94,930.40 in the Mega Blockchain private placement. Key details include: This award suggests the arbitrators determined there were significant issues with how the Mega Blockchain private placement was recommended and sold to the customer. Settled Customer Complaint – NewEdge Signal Solution Inc Private Placement (Alleged Damages $200,000) Another customer dispute reported on Janssen’s BrokerCheck involves a private placement investment in NewEdge Signal Solution Inc while he was a registered representative of Katalyst Securities LLC. The firm disclosure states that: The broker’s version of the disclosure characterizes the customer as a sophisticated investor who had purchased multiple private placements totaling approximately $1.5 million, but who later alleged that one $200,000 private placement was unsuitable. Settled Customer Complaint – Mega Blockchain Private Placement (Alleged Damages $50,000) A separate customer complaint relates to another Mega Blockchain private placement sold through Katalyst Securities LLC. FINRA records reflect that: The firm statement emphasizes that the settlement was reached to avoid the cost of protracted litigation and that Katalyst denied any wrongdoing. Settled Customer Complaint – Mega Blockchain Private Placement (Alleged Damages $30,000) A third settled matter also involves an investment in the Mega Blockchain private placement while Janssen was associated with Katalyst Securities LLC. The disclosure indicates that: Taken together, these disclosures show a pattern of customer disputes stemming from concentrated activity in speculative private placements, including Mega Blockchain and NewEdge Signal Solution Inc, along with allegations of misrepresentation and unsuitability. Summary of Disclosed Customer Disputes To obtain a copy of Peter Kyle Janssen’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) FINRA Rule 2111, the Suitability Rule, requires that a broker or firm 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, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs. In the disputes involving Mega Blockchain and NewEdge Signal Solution Inc, customers alleged that Janssen recommended speculative private placements that were unsuitable for their circumstances and risk tolerance. When a broker recommends highly illiquid, high-risk private placements—especially in sectors like cryptocurrency—Rule 2111 requires: If Janssen recommended Mega Blockchain or NewEdge private placements without fully considering whether the customers could withstand the potential total loss of principal, illiquidity, or volatility associated with such offerings, or if he relied too heavily on bare accredited-investor representations without deeper inquiry into goals and risk tolerance, that conduct may be inconsistent with FINRA Rule 2111. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade) FINRA Rule 2010 requires brokers to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in all of their business dealings. The rule is intentionally broad and is often cited in cases involving misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other unethical conduct. You can learn more about this rule and how it is applied to broker misconduct on the firm’s FINRA Rule 2010 resource page. In the FINRA arbitration award and the settled claims against Janssen, customers alleged negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and misleading statements in connection with private placement offerings. Even where a customer qualifies as an “accredited investor,” a broker cannot: When an arbitrator awards damages to a customer—particularly in a case involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation—it often reflects a conclusion that the broker’s conduct fell below the “high standards of commercial honor” required by Rule 2010, even if the broker denies intentional wrongdoing. A pattern of similar complaints involving the same product (such as multiple Mega Blockchain disputes) can be especially problematic under this rule. FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) FINRA Rule 2210 governs broker communications with the public, including written presentations, offering materials, pitch decks, and marketing emails used to sell private placements and other investments. The rule requires that all such communications be fair and balanced, not misleading, and that they provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts...

Continue Reading

Nov 25, 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

Our firm is investigating Cetera Investment Services broker and Cetera Investment Advisers investment advisor representative Gihan Anil Fernando (CRD# 4469669) of Houston, Texas for potential investment-related misconduct involving non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other real estate securities. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Gihan Anil Fernando has worked in the securities industry since 2002 and is currently dually registered as both a broker and investment adviser representative in Texas. Fernando is presently associated with: His prior registration and employment history includes: Over more than two decades, Fernando’s practice has focused on retail investors, many of whom were introduced to complex and illiquid real estate securities, including non-traded REITs. Gihan Anil Fernando Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck currently reports one final regulatory event and seventy-two customer disputes involving Gihan Anil Fernando. All of the customer disputes are described as “Customer Dispute – Settled,” with no pending or on-appeal matters. The disclosures overwhelmingly involve real estate securities and non-traded REIT products sold while Fernando was at BOK Financial Securities, Inc. Texas Regulatory Reprimand Over Non-Traded REIT Recommendations In a July 2, 2024 order, the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) issued a reprimand against Fernando in connection with his recommendations of non-traded REITs. According to the regulatory disclosure: This regulatory action underscores the heightened concerns state regulators have with non-traded REITs, particularly when brokers do not fully understand critical features such as liquidity constraints, valuation practices, risk factors, or distribution sustainability before recommending them to retail customers. Wave of Real Estate Security and Non-Traded REIT Customer Complaints BrokerCheck shows seventy-two settled customer disputes, almost all involving “Real Estate Security” products—an umbrella category that frequently includes non-traded REITs and similar real estate-linked investments. Common themes across the complaints include allegations that: In many cases, the alleged compensatory damages equal the customer’s original principal invested in the product, with individual alleged damage amounts ranging from approximately $50,000 to $500,000 per complaint. Examples of Settled REIT and Real Estate Security Complaints The BrokerCheck report provides detailed examples of settled disputes, including the following: These are only a few of the seventy-two customer disputes on the report. In the aggregate, settlements in the disclosed cases reflect well over a million dollars in payments by Fernando’s former firm to investors in connection with real estate security and non-traded REIT investments. Fernando’s Response to the Complaints In multiple BrokerCheck “Broker Statement” entries, Fernando attributes the disputes to BOK Financial’s selection and approval of non-traded REIT investments, stating in substance that: Regardless of Fernando’s explanations, the sheer volume of complaints involving real estate securities and non-traded REIT-style products is a red flag for any investor considering similar real estate investment trust (REIT) investments, particularly when those products are illiquid and complex. Bullet-Point Summary of Key Disclosures Investors should understand that these disclosures are based on allegations that may be contested, and settlements are often reached without any admission of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the pattern is consistent with the types of investment fraud and sales-practice violations that frequently lead to investor losses in non-traded REIT and alternative investment cases. 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 requires that a broker or advisor have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile, including factors such as age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, time horizon, and risk tolerance. The rule is generally understood to impose three main obligations: reasonable-basis suitability (understanding the product), customer-specific suitability (matching the product to the client), and quantitative suitability (ensuring the overall pattern of transactions is suitable). In the context of Fernando’s non-traded REIT and real estate security recommendations, potential Rule 2111 concerns include: If a broker recommends illiquid, complex REITs to investors who need income or liquidity and does so without a firm understanding of the product’s risks, regulators and arbitrators may find a violation of Rule 2111’s reasonable-basis and customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA Rule 2010 requires firms and associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in the conduct of their business.(FINRA) Unlike product-specific rules, Rule 2010 is a broad ethical standard that can be applied to a wide range of misconduct, including negligence, misrepresentation, or failure to handle customer complaints fairly. In cases like those involving Fernando, arbitrators may look beyond the technical suitability analysis to ask whether: Even if each individual transaction might be defended as technically “suitable” based on limited account information, a pattern of misleading sales pitches, incomplete disclosures, or failure to correct earlier misstatements can still trigger liability under Rule 2010 for unfair or unethical business practices. FINRA Rule 2210 governs “Communications with the Public” and sets principles-based content standards for written and electronic communications, including advertisements, sales literature, and correspondence with retail investors. Among other things, the rule requires that communications be fair and balanced, provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts about products and services, and not omit material information or include misleading statements. In a case dominated by allegations that certain features of the products were misrepresented, Rule 2210 can be implicated in several ways: When many investors complain that they did not understand they were buying illiquid, principal-at-risk products, regulators and arbitrators often scrutinize whether the firm’s and broker’s communications complied with Rule 2210’s requirements for fair, balanced, and non-misleading disclosure. 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 25, 2025

Insigneo Securities Broker Patricia Holder Under Investigation For Unsuitable Securities-Backed Line of Credit Strategy and Reg BI Violations FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Insigneo Advisory Services, LLC investment adviser representative and Insigneo Securities, LLC broker Patricia P. Holder (CRD# 2894768) of Miami, Florida for potential investment-related misconduct, including unsuitable securities-backed line of credit recommendations and alleged violations of Reg BI stemming from her prior employment at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Financial Advisor’s Career History According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck report, Patricia P. Holder has worked in the securities industry since 1997. Her career includes long tenures at several major Wall Street firms before joining Insigneo in 2024. In addition to her brokerage and advisory roles, Holder has disclosed an ownership interest and management role in Phoenix Private Wealth Management LLC, a financial services brokerage and advisory business in Florida. Patricia P. Holder Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck currently reports two customer disputes involving Patricia P. Holder: one pending FINRA arbitration and one prior complaint that was withdrawn without action. Pending 2025 FINRA Arbitration Over Securities-Backed Line of Credit Strategy In June 2025, a customer initiated a FINRA arbitration against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, naming Holder in connection with an alleged long-running strategy involving a securities-backed line of credit: In substance, the claimant alleges that the securities-backed credit line strategy—tied to corporate debt positions—was unsuitable for the customer’s profile and did not satisfy the heightened “best interest” obligations that apply to broker-dealers and their associated persons under Reg BI after June 30, 2020. If a securities-backed line of credit is recommended without fully disclosing the risk of market declines, collateral calls, forced liquidation, and potential tax consequences, investors can suffer substantial losses when the value of pledged securities drops or when borrowing is layered on top of concentrated positions. These are core issues we regularly see in unsuitable investment recommendations and Reg BI cases on behalf of investors. 2008 Complaint Alleging Unauthorized Foreign Bond Purchase BrokerCheck also discloses an older complaint involving an allegedly unauthorized foreign bond purchase while Holder was employed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc.: According to the broker’s statement on BrokerCheck, the client ultimately withdrew the complaint, and the matter closed with “no action.” While withdrawn complaints do not establish liability, they still provide useful context about prior disputes involving unauthorized trading allegations. Summary of Current and Historical Disclosures Based on the current BrokerCheck report, Holder’s disclosure history includes: All of these matters are reported by FINRA as customer disputes, and the pending arbitration involves allegations only at this stage. No final ruling or award has yet been issued in the 2025 matter. In cases involving complex borrowing arrangements like securities-backed lines of credit, we frequently see conflicts between a firm’s push for fee or interest income and the investor’s need for a diversified, risk-appropriate portfolio. To obtain a copy of Patricia P. Holder’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link:visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) is central to the pending allegations involving Patricia P. Holder. The rule requires that a broker or advisor have a reasonable basis to believe any recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs. In a case involving a multi-year securities-backed line of credit strategy, a broker must reasonably understand not only the underlying corporate debt securities but also how the credit facility magnifies risk through leverage and collateral requirements. If a customer’s profile reflected conservative objectives or a need for capital preservation and liquidity, yet the broker recommended aggressive borrowing against a concentrated debt portfolio, arbitrators may find that the broker failed to satisfy both reasonable-basis and customer-specific suitability under Rule 2111. FINRA Rule 2010 requires brokers to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” This broad conduct rule often appears alongside more specific allegations such as unsuitability, negligence, or breach of fiduciary duty. In the context of the pending FINRA arbitration against Holder, Rule 2010 may be implicated if the panel concludes that she continued to promote or maintain a risky securities-backed credit line strategy over a decade-long period without adequately reassessing its appropriateness as the customer’s circumstances or market conditions changed. Recommending that a client maintain a leveraged strategy after warning signs appear—such as mounting unrealized losses, margin or collateral calls, or increased volatility—can be viewed as falling short of the “high standards of commercial honor” required by Rule 2010, particularly where it appears that the firm or advisor placed their own compensation ahead of the client’s interests. FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications with the public and requires that all broker-dealer communications be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts regarding any security or strategy, while prohibiting exaggerated or misleading statements or the omission of material risks. In cases involving securities-backed lines of credit and complex borrowing strategies, arbitrators may analyze whether marketing materials, presentations, or oral sales pitches fairly described the risks of pledging securities as collateral, including the possibility of forced liquidation, loss of tax advantages, or cascading losses during market downturns. If a customer was encouraged to view the strategy as a low-risk way to “unlock liquidity” from an existing portfolio without fully understanding how quickly losses can compound in a downturn, that disconnect between the true risk profile and the sales presentation may support claims that Rule 2210 was violated in addition to any suitability or best-interest violations. 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 25, 2025

Landolt Securities Broker Jason Seurer Under Investigation For Selling Away and GWG L Bond Losses FINRA Complaint

Our firm is investigating Landolt Securities broker and investment adviser Jason Edward Seurer (CRD# 2541616) of Maple Plain, Minnesota for potential investment-related misconduct. Financial Advisor’s Career History Jason Edward Seurer has worked in the securities industry since the mid-1990s. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, he is currently registered as a broker with Landolt Securities, Inc. (CRD# 28352) and as an investment adviser representative with the same firm, operating out of a branch office in Maple Plain, Minnesota. Seurer has been registered with Landolt Securities as a broker since November 2018 and as an investment adviser representative since February 2021. Before joining Landolt, he was associated with: His BrokerCheck record also lists a number of investment-related outside business activities, including insurance sales and ownership interests in various limited liability companies involved in private business and real estate investments. Jason Edward Seurer Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained Seurer’s regulatory and customer dispute history centers on selling away through private placements and promissory notes while at Edward Jones, as well as more recent allegations of unsuitable recommendations of GWG L bonds to customers of Landolt Securities. Collectively, investors have alleged more than $2.3 million in damages, and multiple claims have resulted in large monetary settlements. Regulatory actions by FINRA and state securities regulators have focused on his participation in private securities transactions away from his firm, and his handling of state audit and examination obligations. Customer disputes have involved promissory notes tied to an outside venture (Gibraltar Partners) and other “risk-free” or guaranteed-interest investments, along with high-yield corporate debt products such as GWG L bonds. To understand these issues, investors should know that selling away occurs when a broker recommends or sells investments outside the supervision and approval of their brokerage firm—often involving promissory notes, private placements, or other high-risk instruments. Recent GWG L Bond Allegations at Landolt Securities Two recent FINRA arbitration claims involve investors who purchased GWG L bonds while Seurer was registered with Landolt Securities: These cases illustrate how complex, high-yield debt products like GWG L bonds can lead to substantial investor losses when used inappropriately or without full disclosure of their risks and illiquidity. FINRA and State Regulatory Actions for Selling Away and Private Placements Seurer’s BrokerCheck report lists multiple regulatory actions tied to private securities transactions and selling away: These regulatory findings highlight the risks investors face when brokers recommend investments outside their firm’s standard product lineup or circumvent supervisory review. Promissory Note and “Risk-Free” Investment Claims Involving Gibraltar Partners A significant cluster of customer complaints from 2011 involves promissory notes issued by an outside entity known as Gibraltar Partners, Inc. While Seurer was at Edward Jones, multiple clients alleged that he recommended Gibraltar investments as high-yield or “risk-free” opportunities that later failed to pay as promised. Key Gibraltar-related disputes include: These Gibraltar Partners disputes show a pattern of customers being steered into high-risk promissory notes outside Edward Jones’ approved platform, often under assurances of safety and guaranteed returns. Other Customer Complaints: Bank Stock and Market-Loss Claims In addition to Gibraltar and GWG disputes, Seurer’s record includes other customer complaints related to traditional securities: Employment Termination After Gibraltar Partners Venture Seurer was discharged from Edward Jones in March 2011. The firm’s termination filing states that the internal investigation began after a client attempted to cash a check from Gibraltar Partners that did not clear. The firm later determined that Seurer had: The termination disclosure lists promissory notes as the product type involved and characterizes the activity as an unapproved outside business arrangement connected to the customer investments. Summary of Disclosures Involving Jason Edward Seurer Based on the current BrokerCheck report, Seurer’s record includes four regulatory events, eight customer disputes, and one employment separation after allegations. For context, these disclosures can be summarized as follows: These disclosures do not, by themselves, prove liability in every instance, and Seurer has denied allegations in several of the disputes. However, from an investor’s perspective, this record reflects repeated issues involving high-risk, illiquid products, private securities transactions, and alleged unsuitable investments across multiple firms and regulatory jurisdictions. For investors who suffered losses after similar recommendations, this history may be relevant to potential recovery claims. To obtain a copy of Jason Edward Seurer’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) governs whether a broker’s recommendations align with a customer’s financial profile. FINRA Rule 2010 requires that brokers “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” FINRA’s private securities transaction rule (formerly NASD Rule 3040 and now FINRA Rule 3280) limits brokers’ ability to participate in outside deals unless they first notify and obtain approval from their firm. Taken together, these rules are designed to protect investors from being steered into risky, illiquid, or off-book investments without proper disclosure and oversight. Seurer’s regulatory actions and customer disputes suggest repeated concerns in these areas: the suitability of high-risk investments such as GWG L bonds for retail clients; the use of promissory notes and private placements outside his firm’s supervision; and the overall fairness and transparency of his dealings with customers. When customers allege that they were told a note was “risk-free” or that an issuer posed little or no credit risk, and the investment later defaults or becomes illiquid, arbitrators and regulators often examine whether the broker had a reasonable basis to recommend the product at all, and whether the broker’s explanations met the high standards imposed by FINRA’s conduct rules. In the GWG L bond cases and the Gibraltar promissory note disputes, investors claim that they were not adequately warned about the potential for issuer default, illiquidity, or the risk of losing all or most of their principal. Those fact patterns are precisely the types of situations where FINRA’s suitability, conduct, and private-securities-transaction rules may support investor recovery claims against both the individual broker and the supervising firm. For investors evaluating their own accounts, these rules provide a framework for asking the right questions: Was...

Continue Reading

Nov 24, 2025

LPL Financial Advisor Timothy Connor Under Investigation For Alleged Unsuitable Investment Recommendations in Real Estate and Alternative Investments – FINRA Customer Complaint Allegations

Our firm is investigating LPL Financial LLC broker and financial advisor Timothy Lee Connor (CRD# 2222028) of Redwood City, California for potential investment-related misconduct, including alleged unsuitable recommendations in real estate securities, variable annuities, and other alternative investments made while associated with prior firms. Timothy Lee Connor’s Financial Advisor Career History According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Timothy Lee Connor is currently registered as a General Securities Representative and Investment Adviser Representative with LPL Financial LLC (CRD# 6413) and works out of branch offices in Redwood City, California. Connor has been registered with LPL Financial LLC since June 14, 2021. Before joining LPL, he spent roughly a decade with the First Allied platform, including First Allied Securities, Inc. (CRD# 32444) from October 2011 to June 2021 and First Allied Advisory Services, Inc. (CRD# 137888) from December 2011 to November 2020. Earlier in his career, he was registered with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc., Transamerica Capital, Inc., Wells Fargo Securities Inc., Equico Securities, Inc., and The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, dating back to the early 1990s. His reported employment history lists roles such as Financial Advisor at LPL Financial LLC (San Diego, CA), Investment Advisor Representative and Registered Representative with First Allied entities, and President of Connor Hastings, Inc. in Redwood Shores, California. Timothy Lee Connor Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained FINRA BrokerCheck shows three customer dispute disclosures involving Connor: two settled arbitrations and one arbitration that was closed with no action. All matters stem from customer allegations of unsuitable investment recommendations and related sales-practice violations involving real estate securities, variable annuities, alternative investments, and structured products. Connor has denied all allegations of wrongdoing in his BrokerCheck statements. 2024 FINRA Real Estate Investment Unsuitability Arbitration – $25,000 Settlement One customer initiated a FINRA arbitration alleging that Connor made unsuitable investment recommendations in real estate securities while he was associated with First Allied Securities, Inc. and Cetera Advisors LLC. The matter was filed under FINRA Docket No. 23-03159 and involved alleged real estate investment losses. Key details from this disclosure include: In his BrokerCheck statement, Connor denies all allegations of wrongdoing, asserting that all recommendations and investment strategies were suitable and consistent with the customer’s objectives and risk tolerance and that the customer understood the risks after discussions and reviewing documentation. 2023–2025 FINRA Arbitration Over Variable Annuities and Alternative Investments – $45,000 Settlement A separate customer arbitration alleged that, between January 2018 and June 2021, while Connor was with First Allied Securities, Inc., he made unsuitable investment recommendations involving variable annuities, alternative investments, and structured products. This dispute was brought in FINRA arbitration under Docket No. 23-00387. Key details from this disclosure include: Again, Connor’s BrokerCheck statement denies all allegations and maintains that the strategies and products recommended were suitable given the customer’s profile and that the customer was fully informed of the risks. 2023 Real Estate Suitability Arbitration Closed With No Action BrokerCheck also reflects a customer dispute involving real estate securities at First Allied Securities, Inc., where the claimant generally alleged suitability violations, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract. The dispute was filed as a FINRA arbitration in San Francisco, California (Docket No. 23-03402). Key details from this disclosure include: The “Closed/No Action” status indicates that the arbitration did not result in a payment to the claimant or a finding of wrongdoing against Connor in this matter. Other FINRA Disclosures Aside from the three customer dispute disclosures described above (two settled, one closed with no action), BrokerCheck does not currently list: All of the items above remain part of Connor’s disclosure history and are important for investors evaluating his conduct and the suitability of his investment recommendations. To obtain a copy of Timothy Lee Connor’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link. Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires a broker to have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for a customer, based on information about that customer’s financial profile, objectives, and risk tolerance. In the Connor matters, customers alleged that real estate securities, variable annuities, alternative investments, and structured products were unsuitable for their situations, suggesting potential violations of Rule 2111 if the products were too risky, illiquid, complex, or overly concentrated given the customers’ circumstances. FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) obligates firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence to understand the essential facts about every customer and the authority of each person acting on a customer’s behalf. In the context of the Connor arbitrations, the allegations of unsuitable recommendations imply that the advisor may not have adequately known or considered each customer’s true financial condition, investment goals, and risk capacity before recommending complex or illiquid products. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) is a broad conduct rule that requires brokers to observe “high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Even when there is no separate regulatory action, repeated customer claims of unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and contract violations may raise issues under Rule 2010 if the evidence shows that the broker’s overall pattern of recommendations and dealings with clients fell below industry standards. In cases like those involving Connor, FINRA arbitrators often consider Rule 2010 alongside the more specific suitability and “know your customer” rules when deciding whether a broker and firm should be held liable for investor losses. 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.

Continue Reading

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