Earlier this year, in February 2023, Centaurus Financial also agreed to pay a $750,000 civil penalty after the SEC charged the firm in connection with the unsuitable recommendation of variable interest rate structured products to retail customers. The SEC’s order found that Centaurus failed to implement, and its branch manager failed to follow, Centaurus’ customer-specific suitability procedures and that Centaurus violated the broker-dealer books and records provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC’s order found that Centaurus violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 17a-4(e)(5), 17a-4(f)(2), and 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(B)(3) thereunder. The SEC concluded that Centaurus failed reasonably to supervise the firm’s brokers.

Financial institutions like Centaurus Financial, Inc. must properly supervise financial advisors and customer accounts. Brokerage firms must establish and maintain a reasonably designed system to oversee account activity, such as recommendations to purchase alternative investments, such as GWG L Bonds, UITs, and REITS, to ensure compliance with securities laws and industry regulations. When a brokerage firm fails to supervise its financial advisors or the investment account activity sufficiently, it may be liable for investment losses sustained by customers.

Customers of Centaurus Financial or Donnie Ingram are encouraged to contact Iorio Altamirano LLP, a securities arbitration law firm that represents investors, for a free and confidential consultation and to review their legal rights.

Iorio Altamirano LLP has also been investigating Centaurus Financial, Inc. for its sales practices related to GWG L Bonds. For the latest on the law firm’s investigation, please visit the following blog posts:

What L Bondholders Need to Know About GWG Holdings, Inc.’s Chapter 11 Plan

Broker-Dealers Sold GWG L Bonds Using Aggressive and Misleading Marketing

FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2018057298701

According to the complaint filed by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement, between September 2016 and September 2018, Donnie Ingram, a registered representative with Centaurus Financial and an investment advisor through his own SEC-registered investment advisory firm, Ingram Advisory Services, LLC (Ingram Advisory), made unsuitable recommendations to 81 customer accounts. Ingram’s recommendations caused his customers to incur unnecessary expenses of more than $300,000, providing no additional benefits to them while directly benefiting Centaurus and himself.

Ingram regularly recommended that his customers purchase “standard version” Unit Investment Trusts (UITs) instead of equivalent, lower-cost “fee-based” UITs. As a result, his customers incurred initial and deferred sales charges. These charges would have been waived if Ingram had recommended the fee-based UITs.

Other than causing the customer to incur the full transactional sales charges by purchasing the standard version UIT, there was no difference between the standard version UIT that Ingram recommended and purchased for his customers and the fee-based UIT.

According to the complaint, Ingram understood at the time he made these recommendations that he could have recommended and purchased the lower-cost fee-based UIT for his customers’ brokerage accounts. However, he recommended the higher-cost standard version UIT because it allowed him to receive as compensation a percentage of the transactional sales charge that the customer paid to the UIT sponsor, which the sponsor then paid to Centaurus as a dealer concession.

Additionally, Ingram recommended that his customers purchase Bluerock Residential Growth REIT Inc. (BRG) and MacKenzie Realty Capital, Inc. (MAC) through Centaurus instead of through Ingram Advisory, causing his customers to pay selling commissions that could have been avoided. Other than the selling commission that Ingram and Centaurus received, the underlying securities had the same features and benefits.

Ingram’s conduct violated the reasonable-basis suitability obligation in FINRA Rule 2111(a) and FINRA Rule 2010. Furthermore, Centaurus Financial failed to reasonably supervise Ingram’s recommendations of UITs, BRG, and MAC, violating FINRA Rules 3110(a), 3110(b), and 2010.

Centaurus Financial Inc.’s Supervisory System and Its Shortcomings

Centaurus Financial employed a multi-level supervisory system, which included assigned branch managers, trading principals, and Regional Compliance Supervisors (RCSs). The first level of supervision and oversight belonged to the branch manager, who was responsible for reviewing and processing orders and ensuring the suitability of recommended transactions.

During the relevant period between September 2016 and September 2018, the branch manager for Centaurus’ branch in Winter Park, Florida, was Ingram’s direct supervisor. In that capacity, the Centaurus branch manager was responsible for supervising Ingram and reviewing the suitability of his recommended transactions, including UITs, BRG, and MAC. However, the Centaurus branch manager failed to conduct a suitability review of Ingram’s investment recommendations, as he did not understand that it was his responsibility to do so. Furthermore, the Centaurus branch manager was allegedly aware of Ingram’s practice of recommending more expensive standard version UITs, BRG, and MAC through Centaurus due to the transactional sales charges and admitted that Ingram recommended the higher-cost UITs for “the compensation.”

In addition to the branch manager’s responsibilities, Centaurus’s Written Supervisory Procedures (WSPs) required a trading principal to carefully review UIT order forms for potential violations, unsuitable transactions, and other potential infractions. During the relevant period, no trading principal at Centaurus conducted any suitability review of Ingram’s UIT recommendations. The WSPs also mandated a Regional Compliance Supervisor (RCS) to review the suitability of Ingram’s investment recommendations of alternative investments or non-conventional investments (NCIs), such as BRG and MAC. The RCS responsible for Ingram’s recommendations, however, failed to consider the costs of his recommendations as part of the review.

About Iorio Altamirano LLP

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm located in New York, NY. We represent investors nationwide and vigorously pursue FINRA arbitration claims on behalf of investors to recover investment losses.

We have over 20 years of combined experience as securities arbitration lawyers and have helped investors recover investment losses in over 1,000 cases. Our firm will file a FINRA securities arbitration claim on your behalf on a contingency fee basis to try to recover your losses. If we do not obtain a recovery, you do not owe us a legal fee.

If you have invested in alternative investments such as GWG L Bonds, REITS, or UITs through Centaurus Financial, Inc., contact securities arbitration lawyers August Iorio at august@ia-law.com or Jorge Altamirano at jorge@ia-law.com. Alternatively, you may reach the firm by phone toll-free at (646) 330-4624.

Mr. Hicks, a veteran broker of nearly 50 years, has been associated with Southeast Investments, N.C. Inc. since April 2014.

If you or a loved one were a customer of Mercer Hicks III, contact New York 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 Southeast Investments, N.C.

FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding No. 201705287301

FINRA’s investigation began in September 2017, then a nephew of one of Mr. Hicks’ customers called FINRA’s Senior Helpline. The customer was 90 years old, suffering from dementia, and needed to sell her shares to help pay for the cost of her nursing home care. Mr. Hicks had sold the customer two REITs, one when she was 87 years old and the second when she was 88.

In April 2018, the Senior Helpline received another call. This time, the call came from the son of an 85-year-old woman who had 90 percent of her investment in non-traded REITS.

A complaint was filed by FINRA’s Department of Enforcement in December 2019. In responding to the complaint, Mr. Hicks denied the allegations generally but admitted that he made the recommendations. He also admitted that he recommended that four of the customers liquidate investments in variable annuities, which he had previously recommended to them, and reinvest the funds in the REITS and BDCA.

From June 2014 through July 2017, Mr. Hicks recommended eight non-traded REITs to four of his customers and recommended BDCA to two of them. The total invested by the five customers came to nearly $665,000.

A REIT is an entity that allows investors to invest in income-producing real estate. A REIT uses investors’ capital to purchase a portfolio of properties, such as office buildings, hotels, and apartments. There are two types of publicly available REITs: traded and non-traded. Traded REITs are bought and sold on a national securities exchange. Non-traded REITs are not. All of Mr. Hicks recommended REITs were non-traded. Non-traded REITs are not liquid until the REIT liquidates assets or lists its shares on an exchange. These events are not guaranteed or may not occur for more than ten years after an investor purchases shares. A non-traded REIT may allow investors to redeem their shares, but redemption opportunities are limited. The REIT may require that shares be redeemed at a discount, so an investor who redeems shares does not recover the amount invested. A REIT has the discretion to terminate a share-redemption program without notice. Non-traded REITs often charge high fees and may make distributions to investors from their offering proceeds—the investors’ money—reducing the value of shares and the cash available to the REIT to purchase assets. Non-traded REITS are risky investments and are not suitable for investors who need illiquidity.

Business development companies are entities that invest in the debt and equity of small and medium-sized businesses that are not able to acquire capital easily. Non-traded business development companies are not publicly traded and are illiquid, risky investments. Business Development Company of America (BDCA), a non-traded business development company, is a finance company that invests in middle-market companies. As stated on the first page of its prospectus, an investment in BDCA is speculative with “a high degree of risk, including the risk of a complete loss of investment.” The prospectus also warns that investors “should not expect to sell” their shares, and if they are able to do so, they will “likely receive less” than they paid for them.

The BDCA prospectus contains a section describing the company’s suitability standards. It makes clear that BDCA is a high-risk investment. It states that BDCA’s stock is “suitable only as a long-term investment for persons of adequate financial means who have no need for liquidity in this investment.” It specifies that BDCA “will not sell shares” to residents of certain states “unless they meet special suitability standards.” For North Carolina residents to qualify, they must have, at a minimum, both liquid assets of $85,000 and gross income of $85,000, or a minimum liquid net worth of $300,000.

FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers’ decision also concluded the following findings of fact:

• Hicks and FINRA stipulated that both BDCA and the non-traded REITS that Mr. Hicks recommended were illiquid and exposed investors to a high level of risks.
• Hicks, who was first “introduced” and “exposed” to non-traded REITs and BDCA in 2013, failed to understand non-traded REITs and BDCA.
• Hicks’ understanding of non-traded REITS was seriously flawed. When he recommended BDCA, for example, he testified that he “did not understand the risks, that’s for sure. Mr. Hicks considered non-traded REITs to be conservative or moderate investments.
• Hicks testified that he believed that BDCA was a REIT, but it was not.
• Hicks only read a few pages of a REIT’s prospectus and did not know what, if any, due diligence Capital Investment (his prior employer) or Southeast Investments performed to ascertain suitability of the non-traded REITs and BDCA investments he recommended.

The decision also included a summary of each of Mr. Hicks’ unsuitable recommendations. The following is a summary of each customer and the unsuitable recommendations:

Customer 1:

A retired minister, born in 1933, lives alone in Whispering Pines, North Carolina. Hicks made two investment recommendations to the customer. In 2010, Mr. Hicks recommended a variable annuity. In December 2014, Mr. Hicks recommended BDCA. The customer made two withdrawals from her variable annuity and purchased $25,000 worth of shares of BDCA. The customer had a stated investment objective of “preservation of capital” and risk tolerance of “conservative.” Mr. Hicks also indicated that her investment knowledge was “low.” According to account opening documents. Mr. Hicks stated that the client had a liquid net worth was between $150,000 to $249,999, under the minimum required to invest in BDCA in North Carolina. In late 2020 or early 2021, the customer required that Mr. Hicks liquidate her share so that she could reinvest her funds. He was not able to do so because the shares were illiquid. As of the date of the hearing, the customer was still unable to liquidate her shares.

Customer 2:

A retired school nurse, born in 1934, residing in Pinehurst, North Carolina. The customer, who is also a widow, suffers from severely impaired hearing and high blood pressure. Over the years, Mr. Hicks recommended a variable annuity, BDCA, and an ARC-sponsored non-traded Realty, Realty Finance Trust, Inc. Despite being satisfied with her annuity, in late 2014, when she was 80 years old, Mr. Hicks recommended withdrawing $27,600 from her annuity account to purchase non-traded shares of BDCA, and she did so. Hicks completed the suitability section of the paperwork associated with the BDCA purchase. He characterized her investment objectives as “income,” her risk tolerance as “moderate,” and her investment purpose as “save for retirement,” although she was already retired. However, when interviewed by FIRNA, Mr. Hicks stated that the customer’s risk tolerance was “conservative” and that he had overestimated her net and liquid assets. According to her daughter, the customer had liquid assets of between $50,000 and $100,000, not $100,000 to $50000.

In June 2015, when the customer was 81-year-old, Mr. Hicks made his third recommendation, and she invested $15,000 in non-traded REITS ARC Finance. The account application again misstated her risk tolerance and liquid net worth. Mr. Hicks did not inform the customer of the risks listed in the prospectus, including that the company had no established sources of financing. He did not inform the customer that, according to the prospectus, ARC Finance was an emerging-growth company; investing in it involved “a high degree of risk,” and investors should purchase shares only if they could afford a complete loss.

Mr. Hicks conceded that the customer did not meet ARC Finance prospectus’ minimum suitability thresholds, and the customer did not meet the North Carolina suitability requirements investing with BDCA. Mr. Hicks did not tell the customer this at the time of the recommendations and did not warn her of the risks of investing in BDCA.

Customer 3:

A retired civil servant, born in 1927, living in a nursing home in Pinehurst, North Carolina. The customer began to suffer from dementia in 2017. In July 2014, when the customer was 87 years old, Mr. Hicks recommended that she invest $37,900 in a non-traded REIT, American Retail Centers of America, Inc. (“ARC Retail”). According to Mr. Hicks, the customer made the investment within an IRA, and he filed out her IRA application.

In June 2015, Mr. Hicks recommended, and the customer purchased, shares of another non-traded REIT, American Realty Capital New York City REIT, Inc. (“ARC NYC”) for $12,500.

Mr. Hicks admitted that he did not speak to the customer when filling out the application forms to determine whether the customer met the minimum suitability standards.

The two investments in non-traded REITS, totaling $50,400, constituted 50% of her liquid assets before she made the investments.

The customer’s nephew was able to eventually liquidate the REITS at discounted prices.

Customer 4:

A retired high school teacher and widow, born in 1941, who lives in a retirement home in Burlington, North Carolina. The customer received an inheritance in 2012 when one of her four daughters had passed away. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hicks contacted her by a cold call. The customer’s prior investing experience was limited to a retirement account. In 2013, Mr. Hicks recommended two variable annuities. In 2014 and 2015, Mr. Hicks recommended five more investments in non-traded REITS, including American Realty Capital Healthcare II, Inc., ARC Retail, and ARC NYC. The total amount invested was nearly $88,000. Hicks admitted to not describing the REITs as high risk, and if he had, she would not have invested in them. Mr. Hicks viewed the customer as a conservative investor with low investment knowledge. Mr. Hicks did not inform the customer that she did not meet the minimum suitability requirements described in the prospectus because he was not aware of the requirements. Mr. Hicks also improperly inflated his representations of the customer’s net worth and liquid assets in account documents and that he made unfounded assumptions that changes had occurred to improve her financial situation.

Customer 5:

A retired housewife, born in 1932. She lived in Pinehurst, North Carolina, from 2009 until her death in August 2018. Hicks acquired the customer after a cold call. In 2010, he recommended a variable annuity. In 2012, he recommended that the customer purchase a second variable annuity. Starting in April 2014, when the customer was 81 years old, Mr. Hicks began to recommend non-traded REITs. Over a three-year period, Mr. Hicks recommended eight investments in six different non-traded REITS, five sponsored by ARC: ARC Retail, ARC NYC, American Realty Capital Global Trust, Inc, American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust, and Phillips Edison Grocery Center REIT II, Inc. He also recommended one other non-traded REIT, Steadfast Apartment REIT III. The customer funded these investments by withdrawals from her variable annuities and incurred penalties. She was 84 years old in July 2017 when she made her last REIT purchase for $124,000, bringing her total investments in non-traded REITS to $459,272. There were numerous discrepancies on the application forms regarding the customers’ liquid net worth.

Mr. Hicks acknowledged that when he recommended non-traded REITS to the customer, he did not warn her of the high degree of risk involved, and he did not know that investing in them involved a high level of risk, even though the first few pages of each prospectus contain virtually identical warnings making the high risk and illiquidity of investing crystal clear. He also admitted that he did not warn the customer of the risk that she was overconcentrating her assets in illiquid non-traded REITs.

The customer’s health began to decline in 2015 when she began to experience seizures. A seizure likely caused a fall, resulting in a severe head injury in February 2018. She was hospitalized and then, unable to care for herself, transferred to a skilled nursing facility. A month after the customer was hospitalized, the customer’s daughter sought to liquidate some of her mother’s REIT holdings to pay for additional treatments and found she could not. The customer passed away in August 2018.

FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers concluded that Hicks failed to comply with the requirement that he tailor his recommendations to ensure they were suitable to each customer’s financial situation, needs, and investment objectives.

The panel of hearing officers also concluded that Mr. Hicks did not conduct reasonable due diligence to assess the suitability of BDCA and the non-traded REITs. He did not know that BDCA was a business development corporation. He did not understand what it invested in. He did not understand the risks of investing in BDCA. Nonetheless, he recommended it to customers. His lack of understanding when making the recommendations violated the suitability rule.

Financial Advisor Mercer Hicks III (CRD No. 245170)

Mercer Hicks III had 48 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with 15 different firms, including one firm that has been expelled by FINRA.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Hicks’ employment has been terminated three times by brokerage firms after allegations of wrongful conduct. In 2014, he was discharged from Capital Investment Group, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a client in dealing with an insurance company in violation of firm policy and industry standards. In 2009, he was “permitted to resign” after Mr. Hicks submitted a signed variable annuity contract that contained incorrect fees. The firm requested that the forms be fixed and initialed by the client. Mr. Hicks allegedly signed the forms himself. In 1997, Mr. Hicks was fired for not following firm policy when processing an “LOA.”

Mr. Hicks’ public disclosure report with FIRNA also discloses that he has been the subject of numerous tax liens and a civil judgment.

Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like Southeast Investments, N.C. Inc. 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 Mercer Hicks II or Southeast Investments, N.C., Inc., 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.

At the time of the alleged conduct, Mr. Balardino was associated with MML Investors Services, LLC (“MML Investor Services”) in Elmsford, New York. Prior to being a broker at MML Investor Services, Mr. Belardino was associated with MSI Financial Services, Inc. (“MSI Financial Services”), also in Elmsford, New York.

If you or a loved one were a customer of broker Adam Belardino, MML Investor Services, LLC, or MSI Financial Services, Inc., contact securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of your legal rights.

Financial Advisor Adam Gerard Belardino (CRD No. 5221927)

Mr. Belardino had 11 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with three different firms:

• MML Investors Services, LLC in Elmsford, New York, from March 2017 to April 2019.
• MSI Financial Services, Inc. in Elmsford, New York, from October 2007 to March 2017.
• Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Iselin, New Jersey, from May 2007 to July 2007.
• Metlife Securities Inc. in Shelton, Connecticut, from May 2007 to October 2007.

In terminating Mr. Belardino’s employment in March 2019, the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company alleged that the termination was connected to an investigation into a customer complaint.

Mr. Belardino has also been the subject of at least six customer disputes:

• Customer Dispute (March 2021): A customer filed a complaint with MSI Financial Services, Inc., alleging that a REIT that was sold to him was not suitable for his conservative portfolio. The customer did not file a securities arbitration complaint and instead complained directly to the firm. The dispute is pending.
• Customer Dispute (April 2020): A customer filed a complaint with MML Investor Services alleging that Mr. Belardino misrepresented the features and risk of a Variable Universal Life policy, including that he could lose the value of the policy if he failed to pay the premiums. The firm settled the matter for $51,133.
• Customer Dispute (May 2019): Customers filed a complaint with MSI Financial Services, Inc. alleging that Mr. Belardino misrepresented the features of an annuity and/or Business Development Corporation. The customers also alleged that Mr. Belardino acted without their consent. The customers did not file a securities arbitration complaint and instead complained directly to the firm. The firm denied the customers any compensation.
• Customer Dispute (May 2019): Customers filed a complaint with MML Investor Services alleging that Mr. Belardino conducted unauthorized transactions and solicited new accounts under false pretenses using forged signatures. MML Investor Services settled the matter for $69,408.
• Customer Dispute (April 2019): Customers filed a complaint with MML Investor Services alleging that in and around July 2018, mutual fund trades were executed in their joint brokerage account without their consent, and the signatures used were not valid. The customers also alleged that they had never agreed to the policy premium on a whole life insurance policy, nor was the policy ever delivered to them. The customers further alleged that a VUL policy was surrendered without their knowledge, and as a result, surrender fees were incurred. MML Investor Services settled the matter for $6,783.
• Customer Dispute (March 2019): A customer filed a complaint with MML Investors Services, LLC, alleging Mr. Belardino misrepresented their account values, engaged in excessive levels of trading, and failed t comply with requests to have their accounts liquidated and the proceeds distributed. MML Investor Services settled the matter for $1,53,066.

Excessive trading occurs when a financial advisor makes many trades in a customer’s account, not to benefit the customer but to generate commissions for the broker.

Unauthorized trading often occurs in non-discretionary accounts, where a customer retains discretion. In non-discretionary accounts, brokers must obtain a customer’s permission every time before placing a trade.

Excessive trading and unauthorized trading are unethical and illegal practices. They are all also violations of securities rules and regulations and can cause enormous harm to customers.

MML Investors Services, LLC and MSI Financial Services, Inc. – Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like MML Investors Services, LLC and MSI Financial Services, Inc. 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 their 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 or a loved one were a customer of broker Adam Belardino, MML Investor Services, LLC, or MSI Financial Services, Inc. and either sustained financial losses or suspect that Mr. Belardino did not have your best interest in mind when recommending investments or making account transactions, 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 or annuity.

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.

On December 1, 2020, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a three-cause complaint against Mr. Stevens. The first cause of action charged that Mr. Stevens willfully failed to disclose a judgment and three tax liens on his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4). The second cause of action alleged that Mr. Stevens falsely represented to his firm that he did not have any unreported liens. The third cause of action alleged that Mr. Stevens failed twice to appear and testify at an on-the-record interview.

Mr. Stevens then failed to appear at two-pear hearing conferences scheduled by the hearing officer. FINRA’s Department of Enforcement then requested a default decision, which the hearing officer granted.

Mr. Stevens has been associated with the following broker-dealers:

• D.H. Hill Securities, LLLP in St. Augustine, FL, from June 2006 to February 2020.
• NYLife Securities in St. Augustine, FL, from July 1987 to May 2006.
• Eagle Strategies Corp, from February 1995 to December 1996.

As discussed more fully below, Mr. Stevens has also been the subject of numerous customer disputes that have resulted in monetary settlements to customers.

If you have suffered financial losses investing with Mr. Stevens or suspect that Mr. Stevens did not have your best interest in mind when recommending an investment, account transactions, or annuities, contact New York securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of your account or annuity contract.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents investors that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as Cetera Advisor Networks LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.

Financial Advisor Charles Thomas Stevens (CRD No. 1698058)

Mr. Stevens has 32 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with three brokerage firms.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Stevens has recently been the subject of three customer complaints concerning investment recommendations that he made related to real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), Business Development Companies (“BDCs”), and variable annuities.

• Customer Dispute (July 2019): In July 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint seeking $100,000 in damages and alleging that Mr. Stevens made an unsuitable recommendation related to REITs. The customer asserted the following causes of action: common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract. The customer dispute is still pending.
• Customer Dispute (December 2017): In December 2017, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint seeking $150,000 in damages and alleging that Mr. Stevens made an unsuitable recommendation related to REITs and BDCs. The customer asserted the following causes of action: unsuitable recommendations, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, failure to supervise, and breach of contract. The dispute was settled by D.H. Hill Securities, LLLP, for $30,000.
• Customer Dispute (August 2017): In August 2017, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint alleging that Mr. Stevens made an unsuitable recommendation related to REITs, BDCs, and a variable annuity. The customer asserted the following causes of action: unsuitable recommendations, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, failure to supervise, and breach of contract. The dispute was settled by D.H. Hill Securities, LLLP, for $35,000.

D.H. Hill Securities, LLLP – Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like D.H. Hill Securities, LLLP 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

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.

If you or a loved one were a customer of Charles Stevens or D.H. Hill Securities and either sustained financial losses or suspect inappropriate activity in your investment or retirement accounts, 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.

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

Mr. Rigoni has been associated with the following broker-dealers:

• Cetera Advisor Networks LLC in Lake Forest, Illinois, from September 2019 to August 2020.
• Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. in Lake Forest, Illinois, from November 2010 to September 2019.
• Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. in Lake Forest, Illinois, from October 2008 to December 2010.
• Edward Jones in Antioch, Illinois, from October 2000 to November 2008.

According to this public disclosure report with FINRA, Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC allowed Mr. Rigoni to “voluntarily resign” after Mr. Rigoni was named a Respondent in the FINRA complaint alleging that he willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose unsatisfied federal and state tax liens.

Mr. Rigoni has also been associated with the following entities: NSCG Insurance Solutions, LLC; Retirement Zone Radio; North Shore Capital Group; and Retirement Life Pro.

As discussed more fully below, Mr. Rigoni has also been the subject of numerous customer disputes that have resulted in monetary settlements to customers.

If you have suffered financial losses investing with Rigoni or suspect that Mr. Rigoni did not have your best interest in mind when recommending an investment, account transactions, or annuities, contact New York securities arbitration law firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free and confidential review of your account or annuity contract.

Iorio Altamirano LLP represents investors that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as Cetera Advisor Networks LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.

Financial Advisor Victor A. Rigoni III (CRD No. 4272056)

Mr. Rigoni has 19 years of experience in the securities industry and has been associated with four different brokerage firms.

According to his BrokerCheck report, Mr. Rigoni has been the subject of five customer complaints concerning investment recommendations that he made related to variable annuities, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and Exchange Traded-Funds (“ETFs”):

• Customer Dispute (November 2019): In November 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint seeking $99,000 in damages and alleging that Mr. Rigoni and Summit Brokerage Services made an unsuitable recommendation related to a variable annuity contract. The customer also alleged that Summit Brokerage Services breached its contract with the client. The dispute was settled for $18,000.
• Customer Dispute (May 2019): In November 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $100,000 in damages arising out of a REIT The customer alleged breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligence. Summit Brokerage Services settled the matter for $25,000.
• Customer Dispute (April 2019): In April 2019, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $100,00 in damages arising out of recommendations to invest in a REIT and variable annuity. The customer alleged breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of FINRA rules. Summit Brokerage Services and Mr. Rigoni settled the matter for $13,999.
• Customer Dispute (October 2018): In October 2018, a customer filed a securities arbitration complaint that alleged $125,000 in damages arising out of a recommendation to invest in a real estate security. The customer alleged breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of FINRA rules. Summit Brokerage Services settled the matter for $12,000.
• Customer Dispute (November 2010): In November 2010, a customer submitted a written complaint to Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., alleging $80,000 in damages. The customer alleged that (1) prior to transferring the investment account from Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. to Summit Brokerage Services, Inc., Mr. Rigoni liquidated holdings in the account for the purpose of generating new commissions at Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.; (2) Mr. Rigoni generated excessive commission; (3) investment were not suitable; and (4) Mr. Rigoni engaged in unauthorized trading; and (5) Mr. Rigoni made poor recommendations. Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. and Mr. Rigoni settled the dispute for $63,742.

Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. – Supervisory Duties

Brokerage firms like Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC and Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. 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

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.

If you or a loved one were a customer of Victor Rigoni and either sustained financial losses or suspect inappropriate activity in your investment or retirement accounts, 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.