Page 1 of 1 , 8 Items in Total
29758 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Suspension
Keyword(s): Suitability; Professionalism; Professional Discipline; Client's Best Interest
Standard(s) Violated: Article 1.4; 4.4; Article 3(d); 4.3
Matter Type(s): FINRA Discipline; Client Dissatisfaction; FINRA Arbitration
Decision Date: 02/01/2019
Summary:

Whether a CFP® professional violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he recommended an investment strategy to an elderly client that was unsuitable because it unduly concentrated her portfolio in risky, leveraged precious metal products.


16836 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Diligence; Record-Keeping; Client Neglect; Suitability; Arbitration
Standard(s) Violated: Article 701; 201; Article 3(a)
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 04/07/2008
Summary: Whether a CFP® certificant violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) implemented an aggressive investment strategy for an elderly client (“Client”); 2) did not inform the Client that she had unrealistic investment expectations; 3) did not review the Client’s accounts after implementing the investment; and 4) did not respond to the Client’s calls.

17262 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Diligence; Professionalism; Disclosure to CFP Board; Employer Policy Violation; Professional Discipline; Supervision; Arbitration; Customer Complaints
Standard(s) Violated: Article 406; 606(a); 606(b); Article 3(a); Article 3(d); 607; Article 3(e); 201
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction; FINRA Discipline; FINRA Arbitration
Decision Date: 07/23/2010
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) allowed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) member firm (“Firm”), of which he was the Chief Compliance Officer, to participate in securities offerings during its suspension without satisfying the requirements of the suspension; 2) allowed a representative of the Firm (“Representative”) to act as a principal when the Representative had been suspended by the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD,” now known as FINRA) from acting in any principal capacity; 3) processed commissions from securities offerings through a non-member company; and 4) was subject to three FINRA arbitrations and one state securities division investigation.

19075 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Fiduciary Duty; Professionalism; Commission/Compensation; Disclosure to Clients; Commingling; Suitability; Diligence; Client's Best Interest; Fitness
Standard(s) Violated: Article 402; 610; 607; 703; 103(e); 702(a); Article 3(a); 201; 405; 701; 103(d); 202
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction; Professionalism; Civil Court
Decision Date: 08/13/2009
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct (“Standards”) when he performed financial planning services for a client’s (“Client”) father (“Client’s Father”) without providing to the Client’s Father a written financial planning agreement and written disclosures and when he received the Client’s Father’s funds through a bank account controlled by Respondent.

21787 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Fraud Related to Professional Activity; Diligence; Disclosure to Clients; Securities Laws Violation; Misrepresentation; Unauthorized Use of the Marks; Professional Discipline; Breach of Contract; Suitability; Commingling; Lawsuits Involving Financial Matters; C
Standard(s) Violated: Article 607; 102; 704; Article 3(a); 201; Article 3(g); 103(d); 606(b); 606(a); 601; 701
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 02/27/2009
Summary: Whether a CFP® certificant violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) did not fully inform his client (“Client”) as to the nature of an investment he made for her and did not provide risk disclosure documents to her; 2) did not inform the Client about a civil suit he initiated against the company that offered the product; 3) did not research the company that offered the product before the Client invested in it; 4) commingled his investment funds with the Client’s; 5) used the CFP® marks while not certified; and 6) violated federal and state securities regulations.

22451 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Competency; Employer Policy Violation; Professional Discipline; Commission/Compensation; Suitability; Failure to Respond to CFP Board; Failure to Notify CFP Board; Disclosure to CFP Board; Conflict of Interest; Disclosure to Clients
Standard(s) Violated: Article 302; 401(a); 606(a); 408; 406; Article 3(d); 201; Article 3(e); Article 3(f)
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction; FINRA Arbitration
Decision Date: 08/10/2009
Summary: Whether a CFP® certificant violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) sold promissory notes to individuals who were not customers of his broker-dealer (“Broker-Dealer”) without notice to the Broker-Dealer; and 2) received compensation for the sale of the promissory notes without permission from the Broker-Dealer.

23335 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Unauthorized Transaction; Disclosure to Clients; Professionalism; Diligence; Breach of Contract; Arbitration
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 606(b); 201; 701; 607
Matter Type(s): FINRA Arbitration; Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 07/23/2010
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he repeatedly purchased securities in a non-discretionary account without authorization from the client (“Client”).

27406 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Suspension
Keyword(s): Suitability; Misrepresentation; Client's Best Interest; Fiduciary Duty
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 1.4; 2.1; Article 3(b); 6.5
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 09/10/2013
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) relied on a non-guaranteed 12% gross rate of return in a Variable Universal Life (“VUL”) Insurance policy illustration to determine how long the product would remain in force; 2) recommended that his client purchase a VUL with a limited no lapse period when the client’s goal was life insurance paid up for life; and 3) told a client that a VUL would almost triple her money.

Page 1 of 1 , 8 Items in Total