Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, StockKings Capital LLC and Gregory Antonius Lewis were sanctioned on March 11, 2022, for creating and transmitting investment materials containing false and misleading claims about a platform they were developing.

The firm and Lewis were found to have falsely claimed they had ...

Read More

According to FINRA, StockKings Capital LLC and Gregory Antonius Lewis were sanctioned on March 11, 2022, for creating and transmitting investment materials containing false and misleading claims about a platform they were developing.

The firm and Lewis were found to have falsely claimed they had received a patent, overstated development progress, falsely blamed FINRA for delays, and made baseless valuation claims and revenue projections. These types of exaggerated promotional materials are particularly harmful to retail investors who may lack the expertise to verify such claims independently.

Additionally, Lewis used over $42,000 of the firm's funds for personal expenses and directed the firm's Financial and Operations Principal to misclassify these expenses as business costs. This conduct resulted in inaccurate books and records and false FOCUS reports that understated Lewis's compensation and overstated firm expenses.

The firm also failed to provide proper written disclosures in private placement offerings and failed to timely file offering documents with FINRA for two separate member private offerings.

For this misconduct, StockKings Capital LLC was censured and fined $100,000, with $85,000 payable jointly and severally with Lewis. Lewis was also suspended from association with any FINRA member for seven months.

Investors should be extremely cautious about investment opportunities that make bold claims about patents, valuations, or projected revenues without independent verification. The misuse of firm funds by a principal is a serious red flag that suggests weak internal controls and potential broader compliance issues. When evaluating private placements, investors should always request complete disclosure documents and verify that offerings have been properly filed with regulators.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Vorpahl Wing Securities Inc. and Tim James Vorpahl were sanctioned on March 11, 2022, for failing to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems to prevent unsuitable and excessive trading in customer accounts.

The firm and Vorpahl failed to establish written superviso...

Read More

According to FINRA, Vorpahl Wing Securities Inc. and Tim James Vorpahl were sanctioned on March 11, 2022, for failing to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems to prevent unsuitable and excessive trading in customer accounts.

The firm and Vorpahl failed to establish written supervisory procedures that specified how to review transactions for potentially unsuitable and excessive trading. When a registered representative engaged in quantitatively unsuitable trading in two retired customers' accounts, Vorpahl identified red flags but failed to take meaningful action.

While Vorpahl sent form letters to the customers, these letters failed to alert them that their accounts were being excessively traded or quantify the number of trades and costs incurred. As a result of the excessive trading, the two retired customers collectively paid $35,223.82 in commissions and other costs.

The firm was censured, fined $25,000, and ordered to pay $35,223.82 plus interest in restitution to customers. Vorpahl was fined $7,500, suspended for three months in any principal capacity, and required to complete 20 hours of continuing education on supervisory responsibilities.

This case illustrates the critical importance of robust supervisory systems, particularly for vulnerable investors like retirees. Supervisory principals have a responsibility not just to identify red flags, but to take prompt and effective action to stop harmful trading patterns. Generic form letters are insufficient when specific customer harm is occurring.

Investors, especially retirees with limited resources, should monitor their account statements carefully for excessive trading activity. Warning signs include frequent buying and selling of the same securities, unusually high commission charges relative to account value, and account values that decline even in rising markets due to transaction costs.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Aegis Investments, Inc. was censured and fined $7,500 on March 11, 2022, for failing to conduct proper independent testing of its anti-money laundering compliance program.

Although the firm conducted quarterly testing of its AML program, the testing was performed by a register...

Read More

According to FINRA, Aegis Investments, Inc. was censured and fined $7,500 on March 11, 2022, for failing to conduct proper independent testing of its anti-money laundering compliance program.

Although the firm conducted quarterly testing of its AML program, the testing was performed by a registered representative who was supervised by and reported to the firm's AML Compliance Officer. This arrangement violated the independence requirement for AML testing. Additionally, the firm's testing focused narrowly on reviewing transactions for unusual activity but failed to evaluate the firm's written AML procedures or overall compliance program on a risk-based approach.

Anti-money laundering compliance is a critical component of the financial services industry's efforts to combat financial crimes, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities. The requirement for independent testing exists precisely to ensure that AML programs receive objective evaluation free from conflicts of interest or internal pressures.

The firm consented to the sanctions without admitting or denying the findings.

This case highlights that mere compliance with the letter of requirements is insufficient - firms must ensure their AML testing is genuinely independent and comprehensive. Having testing conducted by someone who reports to the AML Compliance Officer creates an obvious conflict that undermines the entire purpose of independent review.

For investors, while AML violations may seem like technical compliance issues, they can indicate broader weaknesses in a firm's compliance culture and internal controls. Firms that cut corners on regulatory requirements may also have deficiencies in other critical areas like customer protection and proper handling of funds.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Crown Capital Securities, L.P. was censured and fined $75,000 on March 11, 2022, for paying approximately $19.3 million in transaction-based compensation to unregistered entities.

The firm paid commissions earned by its registered representatives to corporations and limited li...

Read More

According to FINRA, Crown Capital Securities, L.P. was censured and fined $75,000 on March 11, 2022, for paying approximately $19.3 million in transaction-based compensation to unregistered entities.

The firm paid commissions earned by its registered representatives to corporations and limited liability companies that the representatives had created as doing business as names for their securities businesses. While these entities were disclosed and approved as outside business activities, paying transaction-based compensation to unregistered entities violates FINRA rules designed to ensure that only properly registered and supervised individuals receive securities compensation.

FINRA Rule 2040 exists to maintain the integrity of the registration and supervision system. When commissions are paid to unregistered entities rather than directly to registered individuals, it creates opportunities for evasion of regulatory oversight, makes it more difficult to track conflicts of interest, and can obscure the true recipients of securities compensation.

The firm was also required to certify that all of its commission and payment arrangements, including those paid in connection with networking agreements, comply with FINRA Rule 2040.

This case demonstrates that even when outside business activities are properly disclosed and approved, firms cannot use those entities as conduits for securities compensation that should be paid to registered individuals. The structure and flow of compensation in the securities industry is regulated for important investor protection reasons.

Investors should understand that their financial professionals must be properly registered, and the compensation arrangements should be transparent. Complex payment structures involving multiple entities can sometimes be red flags for regulatory avoidance or attempts to obscure conflicts of interest.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Performance Trust Capital Partners, LLC was censured and fined $115,000 on March 16, 2022, for repeatedly failing to report TRACE-eligible security transactions within the required 15-minute timeframe.

The firm's violations were compounded by supervisory failures. While the fi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Performance Trust Capital Partners, LLC was censured and fined $115,000 on March 16, 2022, for repeatedly failing to report TRACE-eligible security transactions within the required 15-minute timeframe.

The firm's violations were compounded by supervisory failures. While the firm tracked its late reporting and imposed small fines on staff involved, these measures proved ineffective at addressing the ongoing problem. The firm failed to adequately train supervisors on their oversight responsibilities and staff on timely TRACE reporting obligations. The system of internal fines was inconsistently applied and did not deter continued non-compliance. Additionally, the firm failed to allocate sufficient compliance and administrative staff resources to monitor and follow up on late reporting given the firm's trading volume.

TRACE (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine) is FINRA's system for reporting transactions in eligible fixed income securities. Timely and accurate trade reporting is essential for market transparency, enabling investors and regulators to see current market prices and trading activity. Late reporting undermines market transparency and can disadvantage investors who lack access to current pricing information.

The firm's approach of imposing internal penalties while failing to address root causes demonstrates a compliance program focused on assigning blame rather than preventing violations. Effective compliance requires adequate training, resources, and systemic solutions - not just after-the-fact punishment.

For investors in fixed income securities, this case underscores the importance of market transparency. When firms fail to report trades promptly, it becomes harder for investors to determine fair market prices, potentially leading to worse execution quality and higher transaction costs.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. was censured and fined $150,000 on March 18, 2022, for failing to reasonably supervise registered representatives' recommendations of alternative mutual funds and for negligently omitting material information about limited partnership offerings.

...

Read More

According to FINRA, Geneos Wealth Management, Inc. was censured and fined $150,000 on March 18, 2022, for failing to reasonably supervise registered representatives' recommendations of alternative mutual funds and for negligently omitting material information about limited partnership offerings.

The firm lacked a supervisory system to identify whether new mutual funds were complex products or alternative funds requiring heightened due diligence. Instead, the firm applied the same review standards to alternative mutual funds as traditional mutual funds, failing to evaluate the unique risks and rewards. The firm had no written procedures advising principals how to supervise alternative mutual fund recommendations, and its electronic trade review system was not configured to flag risk factors associated with these products that would warrant additional suitability review. As a result, some alternative mutual fund transactions may not have been identified for additional review, even for customers with low risk tolerances.

Additionally, the firm sold at least three limited partnership interests totaling $165,000 without informing customers that the issuer had failed to timely file required SEC filings, including audited financial statements. This was material information that should have been disclosed.

The firm was ordered to pay $250,710.41 plus interest in restitution to customers who purchased the alternative mutual fund and was required to establish policies and procedures to address alternative mutual fund supervision.

Alternative mutual funds employ complex strategies that can be inappropriate for conservative investors. This case demonstrates why enhanced supervision and due diligence are essential for complex products. Investors should carefully review whether alternative investments align with their risk tolerance and understand that missing financial statements from an issuer is a serious red flag indicating potential financial distress or accounting problems.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC was censured and fined $70,000 on March 21, 2022, for selling limited partnership interests without disclosing material information and for making unsuitable recommendations.

The firm sold limited partnership interests totaling $323,000 without informin...

Read More

According to FINRA, Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC was censured and fined $70,000 on March 21, 2022, for selling limited partnership interests without disclosing material information and for making unsuitable recommendations.

The firm sold limited partnership interests totaling $323,000 without informing customers that the issuer had not timely filed audited financial statements with the SEC or explaining the reasons for the delay. This was material information that should have been disclosed to investors. The firm received $25,840 in commissions from these sales.

Additionally, firm registered representatives recommended and sold securities for an issuer that were unsuitable given the customers' investment profiles. All sales were reviewed and approved by firm principals, and the firm received $24,000 in commissions from these unsuitable sales.

The firm was ordered to pay $29,840 plus interest in partial restitution to customers, representing the commissions paid on their investments. Three customers who had previously settled claims with the firm did not receive restitution.

Missing or delayed financial statements are serious red flags that can indicate financial distress, accounting irregularities, or other significant problems at a company. When an issuer cannot or will not file audited financial statements on time, investors are operating without critical information needed to assess the investment's value and risks.

This case illustrates that suitability obligations apply even to securities that are reviewed and approved by supervisory principals. Firms cannot approve unsuitable recommendations simply because products are on an approved list.

Investors should always ask about the availability of current audited financial statements before investing in private securities. The absence of timely financial reporting should be treated as a major warning sign, and any firm that fails to disclose such information is failing its basic obligations to customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, BD4RIA, Inc. was censured and fined $45,000 on March 22, 2022, for negligently omitting material information when selling limited partnership interests.

The firm sold seven limited partnership interests totaling $500,000 to investors without disclosing that the issuer had fail...

Read More

According to FINRA, BD4RIA, Inc. was censured and fined $45,000 on March 22, 2022, for negligently omitting material information when selling limited partnership interests.

The firm sold seven limited partnership interests totaling $500,000 to investors without disclosing that the issuer had failed to timely file required SEC filings, including audited financial statements, and without explaining the reasons for the delays. While the firm learned that the issuer intended to complete a forensic audit, it proceeded with sales while telling only one of seven customers about the delayed filings and failing to tell any customers the reasons for the delay.

The firm received $40,000 in commissions from these sales and was ordered to pay partial restitution of $40,000 plus interest, representing the commissions customers paid.

A forensic audit is typically conducted when there are concerns about fraud, embezzlement, or significant financial irregularities - making this information particularly material to investment decisions. The fact that an issuer requires a forensic audit and has delayed SEC filings raises serious questions about the integrity of the company's financial reporting and operations.

This case demonstrates that firms have an obligation to share material information with all affected customers, not just selected ones. The delay in filing audited financial statements combined with the need for a forensic audit represented significant red flags about the investment's risk profile.

Investors should understand that timely and accurate financial reporting is fundamental to making informed investment decisions. When a company cannot produce reliable financial statements and requires forensic investigation, these are clear warning signs of serious underlying problems. Any firm that withholds such information from investors is violating basic disclosure obligations and putting investors at risk.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Natixis Securities Americas LLC was censured and fined $400,000 on March 22, 2022, for failing to report short interest positions for over six years and for inadequate supervisory systems.

The firm set up trading accounts for its parent company, but its legacy systems were not...

Read More

According to FINRA, Natixis Securities Americas LLC was censured and fined $400,000 on March 22, 2022, for failing to report short interest positions for over six years and for inadequate supervisory systems.

The firm set up trading accounts for its parent company, but its legacy systems were not updated to capture these accounts in short interest reports. As a result, the firm failed to report any short interest positions in these accounts for more than six years. The firm only discovered the problem during a compliance review by an outside consultant.

The violations were compounded by supervisory failures. The firm's supervisory system and written procedures were purely operational, listing steps to transmit reports but requiring no supervisory review to verify accuracy. This meant no one was checking whether the reports were complete and correct.

Short interest reporting provides critical market transparency, allowing investors and regulators to see the level of short selling activity in securities. This information helps investors assess market sentiment, potential volatility, and trading dynamics. When firms fail to report short positions, it distorts the public's understanding of market conditions.

Following discovery of the issue, the firm implemented a technology solution to include all relevant accounts and established supervisory reviews with written procedures for verifying report accuracy.

This case illustrates a common compliance failure: procedures that focus only on operational steps without any verification or supervisory review. Effective compliance requires not just doing tasks, but confirming they are done correctly.

For investors, accurate short interest data is an important tool for understanding market dynamics and potential price movements. When firms fail to report accurately, it undermines market transparency and can lead to misinformed investment decisions based on incomplete data.

Show Less

According to FINRA, WR Securities, LLC dba Wolfe Research Securities was censured and fined $100,000 on March 23, 2022, for significantly overstating its advertised daily trading volume on a private market data provider.

The overstatements resulted from a flaw in the firm's third-party order mana...

Read More

According to FINRA, WR Securities, LLC dba Wolfe Research Securities was censured and fined $100,000 on March 23, 2022, for significantly overstating its advertised daily trading volume on a private market data provider.

The overstatements resulted from a flaw in the firm's third-party order management system (OMS). When calculating trading volume for advertising purposes, the OMS incorrectly summed multiple fills for the same order in certain circumstances. This flaw persisted for more than three years, resulting in the firm overstating its advertised trading volume by 90,446,177 shares.

The firm's supervisory system and written procedures were not reasonably designed to ensure compliance with FINRA Rule 5210, which governs the accuracy of advertised trading volume. The firm had no procedures for collecting and submitting trading volume to market data providers or for monitoring advertised volumes to ensure accuracy. While the OMS generated daily reports showing securities traded, total shares traded, and shares advertised, the firm never reviewed these reports to identify over-advertisement.

Accurate trading volume data is important for market transparency and can influence how market participants perceive a firm's market presence and capabilities. Inflated volume figures can create a misleading impression of a firm's trading activity and market position.

This case demonstrates the risks of over-reliance on automated systems without adequate supervisory oversight. The firm trusted its OMS to accurately report data without implementing any verification procedures. When implementing third-party systems, firms must validate that the systems function correctly and establish supervisory reviews to catch errors.

Investors and market participants rely on accurate trading data to make informed decisions. Firms must ensure their technology systems produce reliable data and establish appropriate oversight to detect and correct errors promptly.

Show Less