Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, five individuals were barred from association with any FINRA member pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(h) for failing to provide information or keep information current:

Anthony Richard Bottini III of New York, New York was barred effective May 5, 2025.

Daylon Figueroa of Nashvill...

Read More

According to FINRA, five individuals were barred from association with any FINRA member pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(h) for failing to provide information or keep information current:

Anthony Richard Bottini III of New York, New York was barred effective May 5, 2025.

Daylon Figueroa of Nashville, Tennessee was barred effective May 12, 2025.

Amanda E. Kriss of Princeton, Texas was barred effective May 5, 2025.

Michael Oakley Thomas of Lakeland, Florida was barred effective May 5, 2025.

Jedidiah Ropheka Yohannes of Dallas, Texas was barred effective May 12, 2025.

A bar under Rule 9552(h) occurs when an individual fails to respond to FINRA information requests and a suspension under Rule 9552(d) has converted to a permanent bar. This typically happens when an individual is suspended for non-response and then fails to respond for an extended period.

These bars are sanctions for failing to cooperate with FINRA's regulatory authority. However, when individuals refuse to provide information requested in investigations, it often suggests concerns about what that information might reveal.

The underlying investigations that prompted these information requests are not described in the public notice. Investors who worked with any of these individuals may want to review their accounts carefully.

Barred individuals cannot work in any capacity with a FINRA member firm. This sanction is permanent unless FINRA later grants relief.

Investors can verify any individual's current registration status and view regulatory history through FINRA BrokerCheck.

Show Less

According to FINRA, seven individuals were suspended from association with any FINRA member pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(d) for failing to provide information or keep information current:

Shannon Bass of Brooklyn, New York was suspended effective May 19, 2025.

Kathy Jean Koester of Plattsburgh,...

Read More

According to FINRA, seven individuals were suspended from association with any FINRA member pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(d) for failing to provide information or keep information current:

Shannon Bass of Brooklyn, New York was suspended effective May 19, 2025.

Kathy Jean Koester of Plattsburgh, New York was suspended effective May 19, 2025.

James Parascandola of Franklin Lake, New Jersey was suspended effective May 12, 2025.

Noah Dewayne Shaw of Jacksonville, Florida was suspended effective May 30, 2025.

David Ryan Vega III of Glendale, Arizona was suspended effective May 12, 2025.

Andrew S. Walters of Lexington, Kentucky was suspended effective May 22, 2025.

Zachary A. Warnelis of Columbus, Ohio was suspended effective May 9, 2025.

These suspensions remain in effect until the individuals provide the requested information. If they continue to fail to respond, these suspensions may convert to permanent bars.

FINRA Rule 9552(d) suspensions occur when registered persons fail to respond to information requests or fail to keep registration information current. The suspension prevents them from working in the securities industry until they come into compliance.

Investors who worked with any of these individuals should be aware they are currently suspended from the securities industry. If you have concerns about accounts or transactions involving these individuals, consider consulting with a securities attorney.

Information about any registered person's current status, employment history, and regulatory events is available through FINRA BrokerCheck at brokercheck.finra.org.

Show Less

According to FINRA, several individuals were suspended pursuant to FINRA Rule Series 9554 for failing to comply with arbitration awards, settlements, or orders of restitution:

Kevin Michael Arvoy of Fairfield, Connecticut was suspended from February 8, 2024, through May 12, 2025. His suspension h...

Read More

According to FINRA, several individuals were suspended pursuant to FINRA Rule Series 9554 for failing to comply with arbitration awards, settlements, or orders of restitution:

Kevin Michael Arvoy of Fairfield, Connecticut was suspended from February 8, 2024, through May 12, 2025. His suspension has been lifted.

Michael Barrows of Ladera Ranch, California was suspended effective May 7, 2025.

Kirk James Crossen of Zionsville, Indiana was suspended effective May 1, 2025.

Heather Harris of Parker, Colorado was suspended effective May 15, 2025.

Brooks Burgess Johnson of Isle of Palms, South Carolina was suspended effective May 2, 2025.

Eric John Ludovico of Irvine, California was suspended effective May 7, 2025.

Michael Lawrence Stenson of Carrollton, Texas was suspended effective May 5, 2025.

When customers win arbitration awards or reach settlements with brokers and those brokers fail to pay, FINRA can suspend the broker's registration until the obligation is satisfied. This mechanism helps ensure customers can collect what they are owed.

The lifting of Arvoy's suspension suggests the underlying award or settlement may have been satisfied or otherwise resolved.

For investors with unpaid arbitration awards against any of these individuals, the FINRA Rule 9554 process provides enforcement leverage. The threat of permanent bar from the securities industry often motivates payment.

If you have a judgment against a suspended individual, consult with an attorney about collection options. FINRA suspension is one enforcement mechanism, but there may be others available depending on your circumstances.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Ariel A. Rivero of Miami, Florida had his registration revoked effective May 2, 2025, pursuant to FINRA Rule 8320 for failure to pay fines and/or costs.

Two other individuals had their revocations rescinded during this period after coming into compliance: Stephanie Amundsen Mu...

Read More

According to FINRA, Ariel A. Rivero of Miami, Florida had his registration revoked effective May 2, 2025, pursuant to FINRA Rule 8320 for failure to pay fines and/or costs.

Two other individuals had their revocations rescinded during this period after coming into compliance: Stephanie Amundsen Murray of Allentown, Pennsylvania (revocation rescinded May 30, 2025, after being in effect since January 29, 2025) and Shane Edward Perry of Pismo Beach, California (revocation rescinded May 22, 2025, after being in effect since May 23, 2023).

A revocation under Rule 8320 occurs when a registered person fails to pay fines or costs imposed in a FINRA disciplinary proceeding. Unlike a suspension, which may be lifted once requirements are met, a revocation is a more serious sanction that bars the individual from association with any FINRA member.

For Rivero, this revocation means he cannot work in any capacity with a FINRA member firm. The original violations that resulted in fines are disclosed in FINRA BrokerCheck.

The rescission of revocations for Murray and Perry indicates they paid their outstanding fines and costs, allowing them to potentially return to the securities industry.

Revocations for failure to pay fines can indicate financial difficulties that may be relevant to any outstanding claims investors might have. If an individual cannot pay regulatory fines, they may have difficulty paying customer claims as well.

Investors with potential claims against Rivero should consult with a securities attorney about options. Claims may still be pursued through FINRA arbitration, and there may be other responsible parties.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Alpine Securities Corporation has been expelled from FINRA membership and ordered to pay $802,678.77 in restitution to customers following a National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) decision that found the firm engaged in serious misconduct affecting customer accounts.

The Salt Lak...

Read More

According to FINRA, Alpine Securities Corporation has been expelled from FINRA membership and ordered to pay $802,678.77 in restitution to customers following a National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) decision that found the firm engaged in serious misconduct affecting customer accounts.

The Salt Lake City-based firm was found in violation of multiple FINRA rules related to customer protection. The NAC determined that Alpine implemented an unreasonable and unfairly discriminatory $5,000 monthly account fee that was not related to any service provided to customers. Instead, the fee was intentionally designed to compel account closures or extract revenue from remaining customers.

The violations extended beyond excessive fees. Alpine was found to have made unauthorized transfers of securities and misused customer assets. The firm took funds and securities from customer accounts without authorization to pay for the unreasonable monthly fees. In a particularly concerning action, over a three-day period, the firm unilaterally removed securities positions worth $1,500 or less from all customer accounts by deeming them "worthless." This affected 2,235 securities positions valued at $349,340 across more than 1,400 accounts.

The firm also treated certain accounts as "abandoned" and transferred securities without customer consent. Additionally, FINRA found that Alpine paid unfair prices in principal transactions where it imposed a market-making fee, and made an unauthorized withdrawal of firm capital totaling $610,372.98.

For investors, this case highlights the importance of monitoring account statements for unexpected fees and unauthorized transactions. If you notice charges you didn't authorize or securities disappearing from your account, contact your broker-dealer immediately and consider filing a complaint with FINRA. Firms have a fiduciary duty to act in customers' best interests, and charging arbitrary fees or removing securities without consent violates fundamental investor protections.

The sanctions are currently not in effect pending SEC review, as the firm has appealed the decision.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Percival Financial Partners, Ltd. and its CEO Kenneth Percival Taylor Sr. were censured and fined for conducting a securities business while failing to maintain required minimum net capital and for related violations.

The Columbia, Maryland firm was fined $150,000 jointly and ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Percival Financial Partners, Ltd. and its CEO Kenneth Percival Taylor Sr. were censured and fined for conducting a securities business while failing to maintain required minimum net capital and for related violations.

The Columbia, Maryland firm was fined $150,000 jointly and severally with Taylor, who also received an additional $15,000 fine and a two-year suspension from acting in any principal capacity with any FINRA member. Taylor must requalify by examination before returning to a principal role.

The findings revealed that the firm operated while net capital deficient due to misclassification of non-allowable assets and Taylor's equity withdrawals. As the firm's Financial and Operations Principal (FINOP), Taylor bore responsibility for the firm's financial compliance. The violations included failing to timely file required notices of net capital deficiencies with FINRA and the SEC.

The firm also filed inaccurate FOCUS reports and annual audit reports. Taylor inaccurately recorded his capital withdrawals as loans on the firm's general ledger, misrecorded a $100,000 transfer as additional paid-in capital, and failed to properly record a $450,000 advanced deposit as a firm liability. These errors led to inaccurate net capital calculations.

Perhaps most concerning, the firm has been suspended from FINRA membership since April 2023 for failing to file an accurate 2022 annual audit report. Despite being notified of this suspension on at least six occasions, Taylor permitted the firm to continue conducting securities business during the suspension period.

This case demonstrates the critical importance of accurate financial reporting in the securities industry. Net capital requirements exist to protect customers by ensuring firms have sufficient liquid assets. Investors should verify that their broker-dealer maintains current registration status through FINRA BrokerCheck before conducting business.

Taylor's suspension runs from May 19, 2025, through May 18, 2027.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Revere Securities LLC was censured and fined $125,000 for systematically mismarking order tickets in syndicate offerings as unsolicited when nearly all transactions were actually solicited by registered representatives.

The New York-based firm had a practice of marking order t...

Read More

According to FINRA, Revere Securities LLC was censured and fined $125,000 for systematically mismarking order tickets in syndicate offerings as unsolicited when nearly all transactions were actually solicited by registered representatives.

The New York-based firm had a practice of marking order tickets in syndicate offerings as unsolicited based solely on the fact that SEC-registered offerings are sold only by prospectus, regardless of whether representatives actually recommended the transactions to customers. This resulted in thousands of trade tickets being mismarked for Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), bonds, and REITs.

The distinction between solicited and unsolicited trades is significant in securities regulation. When a broker recommends a security to a customer (solicited), the broker has additional obligations to ensure the recommendation is suitable for that customer's investment profile and objectives. By marking solicited trades as unsolicited, the firm's records obscured the nature of these customer relationships.

Accurate trade documentation serves multiple important functions in investor protection. It helps regulators identify potential sales practice violations, assists in determining broker liability when disputes arise, and ensures proper supervisory review of recommendations. When firms systematically mischaracterize trades, it undermines these protective mechanisms.

For investors who participated in IPOs, bond offerings, or REIT investments through Revere Securities during the relevant period, this finding is worth noting. If you believe you received an unsuitable recommendation that was mischaracterized as your own idea, you may have grounds for further inquiry or complaint.

This case serves as a reminder that investors should carefully review trade confirmations and account statements. If you remember your broker recommending a particular investment but your records show it as "unsolicited," this discrepancy could be significant in any future dispute about the appropriateness of that investment for your situation.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Financial Northeastern Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $60,000 for failing to timely report transactions in TRACE-eligible corporate debt securities.

The Fairfield, New Jersey firm's reporting failures stemmed from manual entry errors and delays. Notably, this was not ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Financial Northeastern Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $60,000 for failing to timely report transactions in TRACE-eligible corporate debt securities.

The Fairfield, New Jersey firm's reporting failures stemmed from manual entry errors and delays. Notably, this was not the firm's first instance of such violations—FINRA had previously issued written warnings to the firm for untimely reporting of TRACE-eligible securities.

TRACE, the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine, is a FINRA-developed system that brings transparency to the fixed income market. When broker-dealers trade corporate bonds and other debt securities, they must report those transactions to TRACE within specified timeframes. This information is then made publicly available, allowing investors to see actual transaction prices.

Timely TRACE reporting matters because it enables investors to make informed decisions based on current market prices. When reporting is delayed, the market operates with incomplete information, potentially disadvantaging investors who might pay more (or receive less) than they should based on actual recent transactions.

The repeat nature of this violation, following previous warnings, likely contributed to the fine amount. FINRA expects firms to implement effective compliance systems and correct deficiencies when identified. Continued failures after receiving warnings demonstrates inadequate attention to compliance obligations.

For bond investors, this case underscores the importance of price transparency in the debt markets. Before the implementation of TRACE, bond pricing was much less transparent, making it difficult for individual investors to know if they were receiving fair prices. While violations like these can temporarily undermine that transparency, FINRA's enforcement helps maintain the integrity of the reporting system that investors rely upon.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Liberty Partners Financial Services, LLC was censured and fined $55,000 for violations related to Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), net capital requirements, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering compliance.

The Raleigh, North Carolina firm was found in violation of Reg BI...

Read More

According to FINRA, Liberty Partners Financial Services, LLC was censured and fined $55,000 for violations related to Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), net capital requirements, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering compliance.

The Raleigh, North Carolina firm was found in violation of Reg BI by failing to establish adequate policies and procedures for recommendations of non-traditional exchange traded products (ETPs). These complex products, which include leveraged and inverse ETFs, carry significant risks and are generally designed for short-term trading rather than long-term investment.

The firm maintained no restrictions, approval processes, alerts, exception reports, or other supervisory tools for these products. This meant representatives could recommend these potentially risky investments without meaningful oversight to ensure the recommendations were in customers' best interests.

Additionally, the firm misclassified certain fees it was scheduled to receive from mutual fund issuers but were actually owed to firm representatives as allowable assets. This resulted in overstated net capital on the firm's books and FOCUS reports. The error caused the firm to be net capital deficient from July 31 through August 7, 2023, during which time it continued conducting securities business on five days.

The firm also failed to conduct independent testing of its anti-money laundering program and had no written AML policies regarding testing requirements. Independent AML testing is a critical safeguard that helps identify weaknesses in a firm's ability to detect suspicious activity.

Following these findings, the firm added procedures concerning non-traditional ETPs to its written policies, conducted independent AML testing, and updated its AML program.

This case illustrates how multiple compliance failures can compound. Investors should understand that complex products like leveraged ETFs require special attention and that firms have heightened obligations when recommending them.

Show Less

According to FINRA, TP ICAP Global Markets Americas LLC was censured and fined $80,000 (with $40,000 payable to FINRA) for failing to maintain adequate supervisory systems to detect potentially manipulative trading.

The New York-based firm's deficiencies centered on inadequate surveillance for th...

Read More

According to FINRA, TP ICAP Global Markets Americas LLC was censured and fined $80,000 (with $40,000 payable to FINRA) for failing to maintain adequate supervisory systems to detect potentially manipulative trading.

The New York-based firm's deficiencies centered on inadequate surveillance for three types of market manipulation: spoofing and layering, marking the close, and wash trading. Each of these manipulative practices can harm other market participants and undermine market integrity.

For spoofing and layering detection, while the firm had implemented a surveillance report, it failed to establish written supervisory procedures explaining how the report should be reviewed. Without clear procedures, even good surveillance tools may be ineffectively used.

The firm's parameters for detecting "marking the close"—a manipulation where traders execute transactions near market close to artificially affect closing prices—were unreasonably narrow. They only flagged transactions in the last five minutes of trading that comprised more than 25 percent of that day's volume. These limitations caused the firm to miss red flags in 45 transactions.

Similarly, the firm's wash trade surveillance was limited to trades occurring within the same millisecond. By using such a narrow timeframe, the firm failed to identify red flags of wash trading in eight transactions. Wash trades, where the same beneficial owner is on both sides of a trade, create a false appearance of market activity.

The firm has since revised its procedures, implementing expanded parameters and automated exception-based surveillance reports.

For investors, this case demonstrates the ongoing challenges firms face in detecting sophisticated trading manipulation. Effective surveillance is essential to fair markets, and regulators continue to hold firms accountable for maintaining robust systems.

Show Less