Page 1 of 1 , 7 Items in Total
19875 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Diligence; Fitness; Professionalism; Fraud Related to Professional Activity; Misrepresentation; Professional Discipline; Advertising; Disclosure to Clients
Standard(s) Violated: Article 102; 401(a); 402; 201; 606(a); Article 3(a); 606(b); 607; 101(b)
Matter Type(s): Professionalism
Decision Date: 07/22/2010
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when she knowingly offered securities despite inaccurate financial projections set forth in a private placement memorandum.

20420 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Suitability; Churning; Lawsuits Involving Financial Matters; Professional Discipline; Unauthorized Transaction; Diligence; Misrepresentation
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 701; 703; 201
Matter Type(s): Other Professional Discipline; Professionalism; FINRA Arbitration; Civil Court
Decision Date: 03/06/2008
Summary: Whether a candidate for CFP® certification violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he executed numerous trades in the account of a client without her approval.

20942 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Record-Keeping; Client Neglect; Diligence; Customer Complaints
Standard(s) Violated: Article 201; Article 3(a); 701
Matter Type(s): Professionalism; Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 11/06/2008
Summary: Whether a CFP® certificant violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he did not notify a client (“Client”) that he would not be preparing her tax returns, and did not follow up with the Client regarding her tax returns.

21865 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Professionalism; Settlement; Advertising
Standard(s) Violated: Article 602; Article 3(a); 606(b); 607
Matter Type(s): Professionalism
Decision Date: 07/11/2008
Summary: Whether a CFP® certificant violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he sent misleading correspondence to the clients of a competing firm in an attempt to solicit them.

22855 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Employer Policy Violation; Supervision; Diligence
Standard(s) Violated: Article 201; 406; 606(b); 606(a); 6.5; 705
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction; Professionalism
Decision Date: 11/28/2011
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional ("Respondent") violated CFP Board's Standards of Professional Conduct when she 1) failed to adequately supervise Subordinate's professional services; 2) made a guest appearance on a television show and authored a newsletter column ("Media Appearances") without prior approval by her Firm: 3) violated National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD", now know as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or "FINRA") Conduct Rule 2210(b)(1) because she failed to obtain prior approval from her registered principal before making Media Appearances; and 4) defaulted on her credit card payment obligations.

24019 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Fitness; Professional Discipline; Employer Policy Violation; Professionalism
Standard(s) Violated: Article 406; 606(a); 607; 606(b); 6.5; 201; Article 3(a)
Matter Type(s): Professionalism
Decision Date: 07/23/2010
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) failed to file the required documentation regarding brief remarks at a cocktail party (“Presentation”); and 2) failed to disclose to his firm and a state regulator that he conducted the Presentation.

24265 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Client's Best Interest; Negligence; Suitability; Diligence
Standard(s) Violated: Article 704; 201; 606(b); Article 3(a)
Matter Type(s): Professionalism
Decision Date: 11/28/2011
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional ("Respondent") violated CFP Board's Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) recommended that the client ("Client") replace her existing mutual funds with a variable annuity, thereby incurring additional fees and charges; 2) failed to research alternative options that would have been more beneficial to Client; and 3) placed over 75% of Client's investment assets in a long-term variable annuity with limited liquidity.

Page 1 of 1 , 7 Items in Total