Securities Lawyers Blog
The securities lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP represent investors who have been mistreated by their brokers and suffered investment losses. Our firm is experienced in bringing claims against brokerage firms, such as Ameritas Investment Company, LLC, to hold Wall Street responsible for their misconduct. When a client contacts our firm they can expect that our attorneys will have the knowledge and ability to evaluate the potential claims and analyze their trading activity for red flags of misconduct. Our consultations are designed to help provide clients with all available options.
Ameritas Investment Company, LLC is the broker-dealer and investment adviser of Ameritas, giving financial professionals access to wealth management platforms, investment products, and support services alongside its affiliate Ameritas Advisory Services. Headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska and registered since 1984, the firm celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2025.
Ameritas Investment Company, LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 14869
- Regulatory Events: 21
- Arbitration Events: 2
- Broker Employees: 844
Ameritas Investment Company, LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Ameritas Investment Company, LLC (Case #2018056443101) – Between February 10, 2018 and August 20, 2018 (the “Relevant Period”), Ameritas provided underwriting services for a municipal issuer with which it had an active “blanket” financial advisory agreement, and thereby acted simultaneously as the issuer’s financial advisor and its underwriter. Through this conduct, Ameritas violated MSRB Rule G-23.
FINRA v. Ameritas Investment Company, LLC (Case #2015043583901) – Between September 2013 and July 2015 (the “Relevant Period”), AIC failed to establish, maintain, and enforce an adequate supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) related to the sale of multi-share class variable annuities (“VAs”). AIC also failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA Rule 2121 (Fair Prices and Commissions). As a result of the foregoing conduct, the Firm violated FINRA Rule 2330(d), NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct prior to December 31, 2014), FINRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on and after December 31, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
FINRA v. Ameritas Investment Company, LLC (Case #2015046904101) – For more than two years, AIC did not adequately supervise recommendations to liquidate securities in order to purchase equity-indexed annuities (“EIAs”), nor did AIC record the resulting transactions. Instead, AIC, without adequate supervision, mistakenly treated those recommendations and transactions as outside business activities. Between October 1, 2013 and mid-2016, on at least 125 occasions AIC’s registered representatives received compensation in connection with recommending the liquidation of securities in order to purchase EIAs. As a result, AIC violated NASD Rule 3010(a) and FINRA Rules 2010, 3110(a), 3270, and 4511(a).
FINRA v. Ameritas Investment Company, LLC (Case #2014043064701) – AIC did not detect that one of its representatives sought to change a customer’s address of record to the address of the representative’s branch office, then requested disbursements from the customer’s account to her new address of record. As a result, AIC sent $34,000 from the customer’s account to the representative’s branch, where he misappropriated the money. By failing to adequately monitor and otherwise supervise the representative’s activity, AIC violated NASD Rules 2110, 3010(a) and (b), and 3012(a)(2)(B). After the representative’s improper activities were discovered in June 2014, AIC terminated his association with the firm, reimbursed the customer’s losses, and modified its policies governing customers’ address changes.
Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of investors in investment disputes with their brokers and brokerage firms. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.