Page 1 of 1 , 5 Items in Total
28882 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Diligence; Employer Policy Violation; Misrepresentation
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 6.5; 5.1; 4.4
Matter Type(s): Customer Complaint; Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 06/01/2014
Summary:

Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he 1) executed a trade for a client at a later time and date than the client original requested; 2) misstated to the client his firm’s policy on management fees charged on cash balances; 3) directed his assistant to falsely state on a membership renewal application that he had no customer complaints within the last five years when he did; and 4) accepting a trade for a client via email.


24933 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Disclosure to Clients; Fitness; Customer Complaints; Unauthorized Transaction; Professionalism; Diligence
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(a); 4.4; 6.5; 2.2(b)
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 06/21/2011
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) made unauthorized trades by liquidating a deceased client’s trust account causing the trust to incur commissions; 2) was unaware that the bank trustee could have contacted the broker-dealer directly to avoid transaction costs; and 3) agreed to accept $200,000 as a beneficiary of the client’s trust account, while maintaining his role advisor to the trust.

25775 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Customer Complaints; Misrepresentation; Employer Policy Violation; Securities Laws Violation
Standard(s) Violated: Article 406; 5.1; 6.5; Article 3(a); 704; 102; 201; 607; 4.4; 606(b); 606(a)
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction; Other Professional Discipline
Decision Date: 07/10/2013
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he: 1) stated an annual income figure for a client on that client’s account application which he knew to be inaccurate, causing his firm’s books and records to be inaccurate and in violation of NASD Rules 3110 and 2110; 2) recommended to a client that she purchase a variable universal life insurance policy with an annual premium of $10,000 when Respondent knew that the client was unemployed; and 3) was placed on heightened supervision by his firm for violation of the firm’s lending policy and for failure to comply with firm policies and procedures relating to following pre-approval restrictions by accepting a trade on a client’s account from an unauthorized third party; and 4) was terminated by his firm for violating firm policy regarding use of discretion and accepting a trade from an unauthorized party.

28392 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Customer Complaints; Settlement; Forgery; Misappropriation; Unauthorized Transaction
Standard(s) Violated: Article 4.4; 3.5; 4.1; 1.4; 3.4; 6.5; 3.8
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 11/08/2013
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he forged his clients’ signatures in letters to a bank in order to misappropriated his clients’ assets for his own personal use by transferring the clients’ assets to his personal account.

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 , 5 Items in Total