Iorio Altamirano LLP is investigating claims on behalf of institutional customers of Santander Investment Securities Inc.

Institutional clients of Santander Investment Securities Inc. that have suffered investment losses should contact securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential consultation and review of their legal rights.

Santander Investment Securities Inc. (CRD No. 37216)

Santander Investment Securities Inc. is an SEC-registered broker-dealer and has been a FINRA member since 1994. Santander is an institutional broker-dealer whose activities encompass debt and equity capital markets, equity and fixed income sales, and trading with a specialty in Latin America and Europe. The firm currently employs 165 registered persons in its one branch in New York, New York. SIS is indirectly owned by Banco Santander, S.A., a Spanish company whose multinational subsidiaries and affiliates conduct business as “Grupo Santander.

Santander Investment Securities Inc.is licensed in the following states: Alabama, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Texas.

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2019063972801

FINRA and Santander entered into FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2019063972801 (the “AWC”) on September 7, 2021, after FINRA alleged that between January 2016 and August 2019, all equity and debt research reports published by Santander omitted required disclosures or included inaccurate disclosures. Particularly, Santander published 411 equity research reports with a total of 656 disclosure omissions or inaccuracies in violation of FINRA Rules 2241(c) and 2010. Similarly, between July 16, 2016, and August 2019, Santander published 60 debt research reports with a total of 333 disclosure omissions in violation of FINRA Rules 2242(c) and 2010. Santander’s omissions were the result of the firm’s failure to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the disclosure requirements of FINRA Rules 2241(c) and 2242(c), as well as its failure to enforce its relevant written supervisory procedures. As a result, SIS also violated FINRA Rules 3110(a)-(b) and 2010.

Inaccurate and Incomplete Equity and Debt Research Reports

FINRA Rules 2241(c) and 2242(c) set forth content and disclosure requirements for, respectively, equity and debt research reports published or distributed by member firms.

According to the AWC, all 411 equity research reports Santander published and distributed to the firm’s institutional customers from January 2016 to August 2019 omitted required disclosures or included inaccurate disclosures required by FINRA Rule 2241(c). In total, there were at least 656 disclosure omissions or inaccuracies. Specifically:

• In all 411 equity research reports, Santander provided inaccurate disclosures under FINRA Rule 22421(c)(2)(B), which requires firms to disclose in each equity report the percentage of subject companies within each rating category for which it provided investment banking services within the previous twelve months.
• In at least 97 instances across 77 equity research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or any of its affiliates expected to receive or intended to seek compensation for investment banking services from a subject company in the subsequent three months, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(C)(iii).
• In 71 instances across 61 equity research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or any of its affiliates managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for a subject company in the past twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(C)(i).
• In 37 instances across 33 equity research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or any of its affiliates received compensation for investment banking services from a subject company in the past twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(C)(ii).
• In 34 instances across 33 equity research reports, Santander failed to disclose that a subject company was a Santander client in the twelve-month period preceding the report and the types of services provided by SIS, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(E).
• In six instances across six equity research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or its affiliates had received compensation for products or services other than investment banking services from a subject company in the previous twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(D).

Accordingly, Santander violated FINRA Rules 2241(c)(2) and (4), as well as FINRA Rule 2010, which requires a member firm to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trades in the conduct of its business.

Similarly, according to the AWC, all 60 debt research reports Santander published and distributed to the firm’s institutional customers from July 16, 2016, when FINRA Rule 2242 first came into effect, and August 2019 omitted required disclosures. In total, there were at least 333 disclosure omissions, including:

• In all 60 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose the definition of each Santander rating (i.e., overweight, market weight, underweight), as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(2).
• In all 60 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose the percentage of all subject companies Santander rated with each rating, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(2)(A).
• In all 60 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose the percentage of subject companies with each rating that Santander provided investment banking services to within the previous twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(2)(B).
• In all 60 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose the historical ratings for a subject company for which Santander had assigned a rating for at least one year, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(3).
• In 31 instances across 19 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or its affiliates received compensation for investment banking services from a subject company in the past twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(4)(C)(ii).
• In at least 30 instances across 19 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or its affiliates expected to receive or intended to seek compensation for investment banking services from a subject company in the subsequent three months, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(4)(C)(iii).
• In 24 instances across 14 debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or any of its affiliates managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for a subject company in the past twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(4)(C)(i).
• In seven instances in seven debt research reports, Santander failed to disclose that a subject company was a client of Santander in the twelve-month period preceding the report and the types of services provided by Santander, as required by FINRA Rule 2241(c)(4)(E); and
• In one instance in one debt research report, Santander failed to disclose that Santander or its affiliates had received compensation for products or services other than investment banking services from a subject company in the previous twelve months, as required by FINRA Rule 2242(c)(4)(D).

Accordingly, Santander violated FINRA Rules 2242(c)(2)-(4) and 2010.

Supervision Failures

Additionally, according to the AWC, Santander failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the disclosure requirements of FINRA Rules 2241(c) and 2242(c). For example, the firm had no procedures, testing, or other mechanisms to review and confirm, at the time of publishing or on a periodic basis, that disclosures in its equity and debt research reports were complete and accurate. Consequently, the firm failed to detect for over three-and-a-half years that required disclosures were not appearing in its equity research reports or that newly required disclosures were not added to its debt research reports after FINRA Rule 2242 came into effect in July 2016.

Santander also failed to enforce its written supervisory procedures, which required that all disclosures required by FINRA Rule 2241 and, after it became effective, FINRA Rule 2242 be made in each applicable research report and also specifically required that certain information be submitted to the firm’s research department to ensure compliance with certain of those disclosure requirements. After identifying the issue, Santander reported it pursuant to FINRA Rule 4530. Santander furthermore immediately ceased the production of all debt research and suspended the issuance of equity research until it could remediate these issues in future reports.

As a result, Santander violated FINRA Rules 3110(a)-(b) and 2010.

How to Recover Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

Iorio Altamirano LLP is investigating claims on behalf of institutional customers of Santander Investment Securities Inc., including whether Santander breached fiduciary duties owed to its clients by publishing and distributing inaccurate and incomplete debt and equity research reports.

Institutional clients of Santander Investment Securities Inc. that were misled by Santander’s inaccurate and incomplete debt and equity research reports should contact securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of their legal rights.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities litigation law firm based in New York, NY. We have experience representing institutional investors in pursuing claims to recover financial losses arising out of wrongful conduct by financial advisors and brokerage firms.

Securities litigation attorney August Iorio can be reached at august@ia-law.com. Securities litigation attorney Jorge Altamirano can be reached at jorge@ia-law.com. Alternatively, an attorney may be reached by calling toll-free at (646) 330-4624.

Robinhood agreed to the sanctions to settle broad regulatory allegations that the firm misled customers, approved ineligible traders for risky strategies, and did not supervise technology that failed and locked millions out of trading.

In determining the appropriate sanctions, FINRA stated that it “considered the widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm’s systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so.”

The enforcement action is another hit for Robinhood, which has faced scrutiny, lawsuits, and securities arbitration complaints, after it restricted customers from purchasing “meme stocks,” such as GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), Nokia (NYSE: NOK), Koss Corporation (NYSE: KOSS), and Express, Inc. (NYSE: EXPR), on January 28, 2021.

As the trading restrictions were put into place by Robinhood, retail investors watched helplessly as the value of their positions plummeted with no potential to remediate the positions given the wrongful sale pressure initiated by Robinhood and others.

Many retail investors felt cheated and wronged by the actions of these brokerage firms and are filing lawsuits in the form of securities arbitration complaints to recover losses from Robinhood as a result of its unprecedented decision to place trading restrictions on stocks of publicly traded companies on January 28, 2021, amid a rise in stock prices.

Recently, a 26-year-old truck driver from Connecticut, represented by Iorio Altamirano LLP, filed a securities arbitration claim alleging that Robinhood’s decision to halt the purchase of securities by retail investors caused the share prices of the publicly traded companies to fall, resulting in losses.

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2020066971201

FINRA and Robinhood Financial LLC entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 202006671201 on June 30, 2021, after FINRA alleged widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm’s systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so. Specifically, FINRA alleged:

• Despite Robinhood’s self-described mission to “de-mystify finance for all,” during certain periods since September 2016, the firm has negligently communicated false and misleading information to its customers. The false and misleading information concerned a variety of critical issues, including whether customers could place trades on margin, how much cash was in customers’ accounts, how much buying power or “negative buying power” customers had, the risk of loss customers faced in certain options transactions, and whether customers faced margin calls.
• For instance, one Robinhood customer who had turned margin “off,” tragically took his own life in June 2020. In a note found after his death, he expressed confusion as to how he could have used margin to purchase securities because, he believed, he had not “turned on” margin in his account. As noted in the settlement, Robinhood also displayed to this individual (and certain other customers) inaccurate negative cash balances.
• Additionally, due to Robinhood’s misstatements, thousands of other customers suffered more than $7 million in total losses.
• Since Robinhood began offering options trading to customers in December 2017, the firm has failed to exercise due diligence before approving customers to place options trades. The firm relied on algorithms—known at Robinhood as “option account approval bots”—to approve customers for options trading, with only limited oversight by firm principals. Those bots often approved customers to trade options based on inconsistent or illogical information. As a result, Robinhood approved thousands of customers for options trading who either did not satisfy the firm’s eligibility criteria or whose accounts contained red flags indicating that options trading may not have been appropriate for them.
• From January 2018 to February 2021, Robinhood failed to reasonably supervise the technology that it relied upon to provide core broker-dealer services, such as accepting and executing customer orders.
• Between 2018 and late 2020, Robinhood experienced a series of outages and critical systems failures. The most serious outage occurred on March 2 and 3, 2020, when Robinhood’s website and mobile applications shut down, preventing Robinhood’s customers from accessing their accounts during a time of historic market volatility. Although the firm had a business continuity plan at the time of the March 2-3 outage, it did not apply it because the plan was unreasonably limited to events that impacted the firm’s physical location. Robinhood’s inability to accept or execute customer orders during these outages resulted in individual customers losing tens of thousands of dollars.
• Between January 2018 and December 2020, Robinhood failed to report to FINRA tens of thousands of written customer complaints that it was required to report. Robinhood’s reporting failures included complaints that Robinhood provided customers with false and misleading information and that customers suffered losses as a result of the firm’s outages and systems failures. Robinhood’s reporting failures were primarily the result of a firm-wide policy that exempted certain broad categories of complaints from reporting, even though those categories fell within the scope of FINRA’s reporting requirements.

The settlement also resolved numerous other charges against Robinhood, including the firm’s failure to have a reasonably designed customer identification program and its failure to display complete market data information.

The settlement terms also call for Robinhood to hire a consultant to review the brokerage company’s compliance systems within six months. Robinhood would then have another three months to implement any recommendations made by the consultant.

Iorio Altamirano LLP

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY, representing investors in securities arbitrations against Robinhood.

Iorio Altamirano LLP pursues individual FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses from brokerage firms’ wrongful conduct.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a bilingual law firm, fluent in both English and Spanish.

See also:

Takeaways from Robinhood’s IPO Filing

Investor Alert: Iorio Altamirano LLP Investigates Robinhood for Failing to Exercise Due Diligence Before Approving Options Accounts

26-year-old Truck Driver from Connecticut Files Securities Arbitration Claim Against Robinhood for Placing Trade Restrictions on certain “Meme Stocks”

Retail Investors Fight Back Against Robinhood for Its January 28, 2021, Trading Restrictions on “Meme Stocks,” Such as GameStop, AMC, Koss Corporation, and Express, Inc.

If you have suffered financial losses investing with Marc R. Lippman or Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated, contact securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential consultation.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents investors nationwide that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated.

FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2021071514101

Marc R. Lippman and FINRA entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (“AWC”) on June 17, 2021, after FINRA alleged that Mr. Lippman provided false information to FINRA during on-the-record testimony regarding whether he was aware that his customer was deceased at the time of entering a securities transaction in the customer’s account. Specifically, FINRA alleged:

• On February 25, 2017, Mr. Lippman’s customer died.
• On February 27, 2017, Mr. Lippman was aware that the customer had died and placed a trade in the customer’s account, selling approximately $80,000 in securities.
• Despite knowing that the customer died, Mr. Lippman effectuated this transaction without permission or consent.
• Following the transaction, Lippman distributed the funds to one of the customer’s family members.
• FINRA investigated Mr. Lippman concerning whether he knew a customer was deceased at the time he entered a securities order in the customer’s account.
• Pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, FINRA took his on-the-record testimony under oath.
• During his on-the-record testimony, Mr. Lippman falsely stated that he was unaware of his customer’s death at the time of entering a securities transaction in the customer’s account.

Accordingly, Mr. Lippman violated FINRA Rule 2010 for placing unauthorized trades, and FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 for providing false testimony.

Financial Advisor Marc Romeyn Lipman (CRD No. 1575995)

Marc Lippman had 33 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with seven different firms. In December 2009, Mr. Lippman became affiliated with Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated in Washington, DC. Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated terminated Mr. Lippman’s employment in December 2020. In connection with the termination, the firm alleged that it had learned that statements made by Mr. Lippman regarding the date he became aware of a client’s death were inconsistent with an email he had written prior to making such statements.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Lippman was the subject of a customer dispute in February 2020. The customer alleged that Mr. Lippman breached his fiduciary duty and caused $686,000 in damages related to a mutual fund. The matter was settled by Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated and Mr. Lippman for $326,500. Mr. Lippman personally contributed $75,000.

Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated must properly supervise financial advisors and customer accounts. Brokerage firms must also establish and maintain a reasonably designed system to oversee account activity to ensure compliance with securities laws and industry regulations. When a brokerage firm fails to sufficiently supervise its financial advisors or the investment account activity, it may be liable for investment losses sustained by customers.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

If you have lost money with financial advisor Marc R. Lippman or Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas Incorporated, contact New York securities arbitration attorney August Iorio of Iorio Altamirano LLP. August Iorio can be reached at august@ia-law.com or toll-free at (646) 330-4624 for a free and confidential evaluation of your account.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. Iorio Altamirano LLP pursues FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses arising out of wrongful conduct by stockbrokers and brokerage firms.

Robinhood was joined by other online brokers, including TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab & Co, Inc, Interactive Brokers, LLC, Webull Financial, LLC, E*Trade Securities LLC, who all implemented trading restrictions on targeted securities. These online brokerage firms, including Robinhood, intentionally deprived their customers, without notice, of the ability to use their service in order to slow the growth of the targeted “meme stock” securities.

As the trading restrictions were put into place by the online brokerage firms, including Robinhood, retail investors watched helplessly as the value of their positions plummeted with no potential to remediate the positions given the wrongful sale pressure initiated by Robinhood and others.

Many retail investors felt cheated and wronged by the actions of these brokerage firms, particularly Robinhood, which has held itself out as a brokerage firm for all. Front and center on its website, Robinhood declares that it believes that “the financial system should be built for everyone.” That could not be further from the truth.

Now, many retail investors across the country are fighting back and filing securities arbitration complaints to recover losses from Robinhood as a result of its unprecedented decision to place trading restrictions on stocks of publicly traded companies on January 28, 2021, in the midst of an unprecedented rise in stock prices.

Most recently, a 26-year-old truck driver from Connecticut, represented by Iorio Altamirano LLP, filed a securities arbitration claim alleging that Robinhood’s decision to halt the purchase of securities by retail investors caused the share prices of the publicly traded companies to fall, resulting in losses.

What is Securities Arbitration?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process. When an investor suffers investment losses due to misconduct by a financial advisor or broker-dealer, the investor can file a securities arbitration claim against their financial advisor and/or broker-dealer in an effort to be compensated. Arbitration is the primary forum for resolving disputes between investors and brokerage firms because it is a contractual obligation. The customer and broker-dealer contractually agree to use arbitration to resolve disputes when the customer opens a brokerage account and signs the customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause. To read more about securities arbitration, click here.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

Securities arbitration is a unique and complex practice area. Investors should seek out experienced counsel who understands the FINRA forum and can navigate the arbitration process to effectively advocate on their behalf.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. We pursue individual FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses from brokerage firms’ wrongful conduct.

If you have suffered financial losses, please fill out the following form for a free and confidential consultation. You may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

How is an Arbitration Claim Different Than a Class Action?

A securities arbitration complaint is brought by an individual against a brokerage firm. The person who brings the claim (the Claimant) has complete control over settlement decisions. If the dispute is not settled, an arbitration panel will hear evidence and decide whether the brokerage firm is liable to the Claimant. The arbitration panel will also determine how much, if any, monetary damages are owed to the Claimant.

A class action complaint is a lawsuit filed in court by an individual on behalf of all like suited individuals. Individuals who are not class representatives do not have input on settlement decisions. Class actions can be dismissed for various reasons, and even if there is a recovery someday, class members often only receive pennies on the dollar.

See Also:

Takeaways from Robinhood’s IPO Filing

Investor Alert: Iorio Altamirano LLP Investigates Robinhood for Failing to Exercise Due Diligence Before Approving Options Accounts

Breaking News: Robinhood Ordered to Pay $70 Million, the Largest Financial Penalty Ever Ordered by FINRA

26-year-old Truck Driver from Connecticut Files Securities Arbitration Claim Against Robinhood for Placing Trade Restrictions on certain “Meme Stocks”

On February 12, 2021, in a letter addressed to Senator Elizabeth Warren, Robinhood Financial, LLC confirmed twenty-four (24) pending securities arbitrations.

Robinhood’s letter was written in response to an inquiry sent by Senator Warren on February 2, 2021, as to why Robinhood “abruptly changed the rules” for retail investors by restricting the purchase of certain securities.

On Thursday, January 28, 2021, Robinhood designated specific stocks “position closing only,” meaning that customers could not purchase additional shares in those stocks. The targeted stocks included GameStop (NYSE: GME), AMC (NYSE: AMC), Blackberry (NYSE: BB), and Nokia (NYSE: NOK). In the days that followed, Robinhood continued to impose certain restrictions on these stocks. The restrictions on AMC and GME lasted until February 5, 2021.

According to reports, after Robinhood and other popular online broker-dealers such as Webull Financial LLC implemented the trading restrictions, GameStop dropped 44%, and AMC lost 57%. The trading restrictions appear to have sent the share prices of targeted companies plunging.

What is Securities Arbitration?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process. When an investor suffers investment losses due to misconduct by a financial advisor or broker-dealer, the investor can file a securities arbitration claim against their financial advisor and/or broker-dealer in an effort to be compensated. Arbitration is the primary forum for resolving disputes between investors and brokerage firms because it is a contractual obligation. The customer and broker-dealer contractually agree to use arbitration to resolve disputes when the customer opens a brokerage account and signs the customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause. To read more about securities arbitration, click here.

How to Recover Financial Losses or Obtain a Free Consultation

Securities arbitration is a unique and complex practice area. Investors should seek out experienced counsel who understands the FINRA forum and can navigate the arbitration process to effectively advocate on their behalf.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm based in New York, NY. We pursue individual FINRA arbitration claims nationwide on behalf of investors to recover financial losses from brokerage firms’ wrongful conduct.

If you have suffered financial losses, please fill out the following form for a free and confidential consultation. You may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

Iorio Altamirano LLP is particularly interested in speaking with investors that have:

• purchased and held GME, AMC, NVAX, EXPR, BB, BBBY, KOSS, or NOK before Robinhood and other popular trading platforms restricted transactions on January 28, 2021;
• subsequently sold their positions; and
• suffered losses of $25,000 or more.

How is an Arbitration Claim Different Than a Class Action?

A securities arbitration complaint is brought by an individual against a brokerage firm. The person who brings the claim (the Claimant) has complete control over settlement decisions. If the dispute is not settled, an arbitration panel will hear evidence and decide whether the brokerage firm is liable to the Claimant. The arbitration panel will also determine how much, if any, monetary damages are owed to the Claimant.

A class action complaint is a lawsuit filed in court by an individual on behalf of all like suited individuals. Individuals who are not class representatives do not have input on settlement decisions. Class actions can be dismissed for various reasons, and even if there is a recovery someday, class members often only receive pennies on the dollar.