According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Steven Susoeff (Susoeff), previously associated with LPL Financial Corporation, has at least one disclosable event. These events include one tax lien, alleging that Susoeff recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on December 30, 2024.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Steven J. Susoeff (‘Susoeff’ or ‘Respondent’). Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the ‘Offer’) which the Commission has determined to accept. The Commission finds that on December 23, 2024, a final judgment was entered by consent against Susoeff, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, as set forth in the judgment entered in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven J. Susoeff, et al., Civil Action Number 2:23-cv-00173, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The Commission’s complaint alleged that between January 2021 and July 2021, Susoeff and Steve Susoeff, LLC dba Meritage Financial Group (‘Meritage Financial’) engaged in a fraudulent cherry-picking scheme in breach of their fiduciary duties to their clients. The Commission’s complaint alleged that Susoeff used Meritage Financial’s omnibus trading account to disproportionately allocate a number of favorable trades (i.e., trades that had a positive first day return) to three accounts held by his friend, his girlfriend, and himself (the ‘Favored Accounts’), while disproportionately allocating a number of unfavorable trades (i.e., trades that had negative first day returns) to the accounts his other clients (the ‘Disfavored Accounts’). The Complaint alleged that as a result, for the time period at issue, the Favored Accounts enjoyed first day positive returns, while the Disfavored Accounts suffered negative first day returns.