Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Brett Arthur Hartvigson was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to cooperate with a regulatory investigation.

Hartvigson refused to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation of allegations...

Read More

According to FINRA, Brett Arthur Hartvigson was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to cooperate with a regulatory investigation.

Hartvigson refused to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation of allegations made in a customer complaint. When registered representatives refuse to cooperate with FINRA investigations, they obstruct the regulator's ability to protect investors and maintain market integrity.

FINRA rules require all associated persons to cooperate fully with investigations and provide requested information and documents. This requirement is fundamental to FINRA's regulatory mission, as the organization relies on information from registered representatives to investigate potential misconduct and determine whether violations occurred. Hartvigson's refusal to cooperate left FINRA unable to complete its investigation into the customer complaint.

The permanent bar prevents Hartvigson from working in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. This case demonstrates FINRA's zero-tolerance approach to non-cooperation with investigations. For investors, the willingness of financial professionals to cooperate with regulatory inquiries is essential to ensuring accountability and protecting customers. When a registered representative refuses to provide information about allegations of misconduct, it raises serious questions about what they may be trying to hide and justifies the most severe sanction available.

Show Less

According to FINRA, David Victor Tall was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation originated from a regulatory tip made to FINRA regarding Tall's activities. Despite FINRA's requests for informat...

Read More

According to FINRA, David Victor Tall was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation originated from a regulatory tip made to FINRA regarding Tall's activities. Despite FINRA's requests for information and documents during the investigation, Tall refused to cooperate. This refusal prevented FINRA from completing its investigation into the allegations raised in the regulatory tip.

FINRA's investigative authority is critical to its mission of protecting investors and ensuring market integrity. All registered representatives are required to cooperate fully with FINRA investigations, including providing requested documents and information. When individuals refuse to cooperate, they undermine FINRA's ability to investigate potential misconduct and take appropriate action to protect investors.

The permanent bar means Tall can no longer work in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. This severe sanction reflects the seriousness with which FINRA treats failures to cooperate with investigations. For investors, regulatory cooperation requirements help ensure that allegations of misconduct can be properly investigated and addressed. When financial professionals refuse to provide information to regulators, it not only obstructs specific investigations but also undermines the entire regulatory framework designed to protect investors.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Darren Michael Kubiak was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for failing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA was investigating the suitability of Kubiak's recommendations that several customers purchase certain limited partnerships. The re...

Read More

According to FINRA, Darren Michael Kubiak was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for failing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA was investigating the suitability of Kubiak's recommendations that several customers purchase certain limited partnerships. The regulator sought Kubiak's explanations about how he considered customers' investment profile information when making recommendations in alternative investments, and whether his recommendations were consistent with those profiles. Without this testimony, FINRA was unable to complete its suitability investigation.

The obligation to appear for on-the-record testimony is a fundamental requirement under FINRA rules. When FINRA investigates potential suitability violations, testimony from the registered representative is often critical to understanding the rationale behind investment recommendations and determining whether those recommendations were appropriate for the customers involved.

Alternative investments like limited partnerships can carry significant risks and liquidity constraints that make them unsuitable for many investors. FINRA's investigation sought to determine whether Kubiak properly evaluated his customers' financial situations and investment objectives before recommending these products. By refusing to appear for testimony, Kubiak prevented FINRA from making this determination and protecting potentially harmed investors.

The permanent bar imposed by an Office of Hearing Officers decision prevents Kubiak from working at any FINRA member firm. For investors, this case reinforces that registered representatives must be accountable for their investment recommendations and cannot avoid scrutiny by simply refusing to cooperate with regulatory investigations.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Lori Fleischhacker Copeland was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information to FINRA.

FINRA was investigating Copeland's outside business activities (OBAs) when she refused to cooperate with requests for doc...

Read More

According to FINRA, Lori Fleischhacker Copeland was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information to FINRA.

FINRA was investigating Copeland's outside business activities (OBAs) when she refused to cooperate with requests for documents and information. Outside business activities by registered representatives require disclosure to and approval from their member firms because such activities can create conflicts of interest or expose customers to undisclosed risks.

FINRA rules strictly regulate OBAs to protect investors from scenarios where registered representatives engage in business activities that could compromise their obligations to customers or their firms. When FINRA investigates potential OBA violations, it relies on cooperation from registered representatives to understand the nature and scope of the outside activities and determine whether proper disclosures and approvals were obtained.

Copeland's refusal to provide information prevented FINRA from completing its investigation into her outside business activities. This non-cooperation raises serious questions about whether she was attempting to conceal improper or undisclosed business activities that could have harmed investors.

The permanent bar means Copeland can no longer work in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. For investors, this case demonstrates the importance of the regulatory framework governing outside business activities. When financial professionals refuse to disclose information about their business activities outside their firm, it suggests potential conflicts of interest or improper conduct that could put customer interests at risk.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Michael Craig Brickman was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation originated from FINRA's review of a request for mediation filed by a customer against Brickman and his membe...

Read More

According to FINRA, Michael Craig Brickman was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation originated from FINRA's review of a request for mediation filed by a customer against Brickman and his member firm. Despite FINRA's requests for information and documents related to the customer dispute, Brickman refused to cooperate.

Customer complaints and mediation requests are important sources of information that help FINRA identify potential misconduct and take action to protect investors. When FINRA reviews customer disputes, it may discover patterns of problematic behavior or regulatory violations that require investigation. Registered representatives are obligated to cooperate with these investigations by providing requested information and documents.

Brickman's refusal to cooperate prevented FINRA from fully investigating the allegations raised in the customer's mediation request. This non-cooperation not only obstructed FINRA's investigation but also prevented a full airing of the facts related to the customer's concerns.

The permanent bar imposed on Brickman means he can no longer work in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. This severe sanction reflects FINRA's position that cooperation with investigations is non-negotiable. For investors, the ability to file complaints and have them investigated is a critical protection. When registered representatives refuse to cooperate with investigations into customer complaints, they undermine this protective mechanism and demonstrate a lack of accountability that warrants removal from the industry.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Damian Mark Baird was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for failing to respond to FINRA requests for information and documents in connection with two separate investigations.

The first investigation focused on whether Baird failed to comply with h...

Read More

According to FINRA, Damian Mark Baird was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for failing to respond to FINRA requests for information and documents in connection with two separate investigations.

The first investigation focused on whether Baird failed to comply with his discovery obligations in a FINRA arbitration where he was named as a respondent. The arbitration panel had already levied a fine against him for failing to comply with a discovery order, and FINRA opened an investigation into this failure.

The second investigation examined allegations in a Form U5 Amendment filed by Baird's former firm, which disclosed a customer complaint. The Form U5 stated that two of Baird's customers wrote a check for $50,000 for deposit into their account, but the bank's fraud department contacted them with concerns that the check presented for payment may have been altered and was made payable to Baird instead. FINRA requested documents including bank and brokerage account statements and information about any alterations Baird may have made to the customers' check. Despite these requests, Baird refused to respond and also failed to appear for testimony.

The allegations involving the altered check raise serious concerns about potential financial misconduct and misappropriation of customer funds. Baird's refusal to cooperate prevented FINRA from investigating these serious allegations and determining what happened to the customers' money.

The permanent bar prevents Baird from working at any FINRA member firm. For investors, this case illustrates the importance of FINRA's investigative process in uncovering potential fraud and protecting customers. When registered representatives refuse to provide information about allegations involving customer funds, it suggests an attempt to conceal misconduct and justifies the most severe regulatory sanction.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Matthew Alexander Sinclair was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation stemmed from allegations in a Form U5 filed by Sinclair's member firm reporting that he had been dischar...

Read More

According to FINRA, Matthew Alexander Sinclair was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents to FINRA.

The investigation stemmed from allegations in a Form U5 filed by Sinclair's member firm reporting that he had been discharged for intentionally altering and submitting documentation required to obtain hardship withdrawals from his retirement account. Despite FINRA's requests for information and documents related to these allegations, Sinclair refused to cooperate.

Hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts are subject to specific regulatory requirements and documentation standards to prevent abuse. The allegation that Sinclair intentionally altered documentation to obtain hardship withdrawals suggests potential fraud and misrepresentation to obtain funds to which he may not have been entitled.

Sinclair's refusal to cooperate with FINRA's investigation into these serious allegations prevented the regulator from determining the full scope of the misconduct and whether it extended to customer-related activities. When a registered representative is willing to falsify documents related to their own retirement account, it raises concerns about their trustworthiness in handling customer matters.

The permanent bar means Sinclair can no longer work in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. For investors, this case demonstrates that integrity and honesty are fundamental requirements for anyone working in the securities industry. The willingness to falsify documents, combined with refusal to cooperate with investigators, reflects a character unsuited for a position of trust in managing other people's money.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Megurditch Mike Patatian was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered to pay disgorgement of $458,418.07 plus interest for making unsuitable investment recommendations.

Patatian recommended unsuitable purchases of non-traded real estate inves...

Read More

According to FINRA, Megurditch Mike Patatian was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered to pay disgorgement of $458,418.07 plus interest for making unsuitable investment recommendations.

Patatian recommended unsuitable purchases of non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) to customers without meeting his reasonable-basis suitability obligations. He also violated customer-specific suitability obligations by recommending these highly illiquid and risky investments to customers who required liquidity and desired less risky investments. Customers testified that Patatian promised they would get their money back in one to five years, despite prospectuses warning that the REITs were highly risky and could remain illiquid for seven years or more. Customers signed risk disclosures as blank forms at Patatian's direction, simply signing where he indicated without reading the documents because they trusted him.

Patatian also recommended unsuitable variable annuity surrenders to customers. When recommending surrenders, he did not consider or withhold applicable taxes, and customers incurred substantial tax bills and underpayment penalties. Patatian incorrectly believed that surrendering a variable annuity to purchase a REIT qualified as a tax-free 1035 exchange and told customers this provision applied. One surrender also resulted in a substantial penalty that Patatian failed to consider.

Additionally, Patatian made unsuitable recommendations that customers exchange variable annuities for new variable annuities based on faulty cost comparisons. He also impersonated a customer in a telephone call with an insurance company, providing the customer's date of birth and social security number. Finally, Patatian falsified firm records by inflating customers' investment experience and net worth to make REIT investments appear suitable.

This case demonstrates the severe consequences of putting commission interests ahead of customer welfare. Investors should be wary of financial professionals who downplay risks, make promises inconsistent with offering documents, or pressure clients to sign forms without reading them.

Show Less

According to FINRA, William David Williford was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA was investigating the circumstances surrounding a Form U5 filed by Williford's member firm stating that he was permitted to res...

Read More

According to FINRA, William David Williford was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony.

FINRA was investigating the circumstances surrounding a Form U5 filed by Williford's member firm stating that he was permitted to resign following concerns about his judgment relating to a 2020 Small Business Administration Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan application. Despite FINRA's request for testimony, Williford refused to appear.

The COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to small businesses during the pandemic. Concerns about judgment relating to such an application could involve questions about the accuracy of information provided, eligibility requirements, or the appropriateness of seeking such assistance. The firm's decision to accept Williford's resignation suggests the concerns were serious enough to warrant separation.

FINRA's investigation sought to understand the nature of these judgment concerns and determine whether they reflected on Williford's fitness to serve as a registered representative. His refusal to appear for testimony prevented FINRA from making this determination and assessing whether his conduct posed risks to investors.

The permanent bar means Williford can no longer work in any capacity at any FINRA member firm. For investors, this case illustrates that FINRA looks beyond just customer-facing conduct to evaluate the overall trustworthiness and judgment of registered representatives. Questions about judgment in matters such as loan applications can reflect on an individual's character and suitability to handle customer assets and provide financial advice.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Linda Chan was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month.

Chan certified to the State of New York that she had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew her state insurance license when, in f...

Read More

According to FINRA, Linda Chan was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month.

Chan certified to the State of New York that she had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew her state insurance license when, in fact, another person had completed that continuing education on her behalf. This false certification allowed her to maintain her insurance license without actually fulfilling the educational requirements.

Continuing education requirements serve an important purpose in ensuring that financial professionals maintain current knowledge of industry regulations, products, and best practices. These requirements are designed to protect consumers by ensuring that licensed professionals possess the knowledge necessary to properly advise clients. When individuals circumvent these requirements by having someone else complete the education on their behalf, they undermine the entire purpose of continuing education and may lack critical knowledge needed to serve clients appropriately.

Chan's false certification also raises broader concerns about integrity and truthfulness. Financial professionals are in positions of trust, managing client assets and providing advice on important financial decisions. The willingness to falsely certify completion of required education suggests a concerning lack of integrity that could extend to other areas of professional conduct.

For investors, this case serves as a reminder to verify that their financial advisors maintain required licenses and credentials in good standing. It also highlights the importance of choosing advisors who demonstrate integrity in all aspects of their professional conduct, including compliance with licensing requirements.

Show Less