Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc.. Many investors do not recognize broker misconduct in their accounts, and those that do are often hesitant to seek help. Broker misconduct spans many issues that violate industry rules, including unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable asset allocation, and churning. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP can analyze your accounts and investments to determine if there was misconduct in the handling of your account.
Berthel, Fisher and Company Financial Services is an independent broker-dealer offering investment products and advisory services along with practice management, compliance, and succession planning support for financial professionals, alongside affiliated advisory and insurance units. Founded in 1985 by Tom Berthel and Fred Fisher, the firm is headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as a subsidiary of Berthel Fisher and Company, and it serves financial professionals nationwide after growing through acquisitions of representative groups in Iowa, Ohio, and Texas.
Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 13609
- Regulatory Events: 27
- Arbitration Events: 15
- Broker Employees: 289
Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 62277
- Assets Under Management: $906,439,489
- ADV Form Employee: 100
Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. (Case #2018057425202) – In August 2015, when reviewing a customer’s request for approval to trade options in his brokerage account, Berthel Fisher failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the customer’s investment experience and knowledge, in violation of FINRA Rules 2360(b)(16)(B) and 2010. Between August 2015 and February 2018, Berthel Fisher, through Broker A, recommended options transactions to the same customer without having reasonable grounds for believing that the transactions were suitable for that customer. Through this conduct, Berthel Fisher violated FINRA Rules 2360(b)(19), 2111, and 2010. During the same period, Berthel Fisher failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA’s rules pertaining to the suitability of options trading in customer accounts. Berthel Fisher also failed to enforce multiple provisions of its written supervisory procedures pertaining to options trading. Through this conduct, Berthel Fisher violated FINRA Rules 2360(b)(20)(A), 3110(a), 3110(b), and 2010.
FINRA v. Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. (Case #2014039169601) – Over a two-year period, Jeffrey Dragon, a registered representative of Berthel, Fisher & Co. Financial Services, Inc., generated approximately $417,000 in concessions for himself and his firm, at the expense of his customers, by recommending and effecting a pattern of unsuitable short-term trading of unit investment trusts (“UITs”). Specifically, between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 (the “UIT Period”) Dragon recommended to 12 customers – many of whom were seniors, unsophisticated investors, or both – that they liquidate UIT positions that they had held for only a few months, and which they had purchased on Dragon’s recommendations, and then use the proceeds to purchase other UITs. Because each UIT purchased carried a new sales load, and because UITs are designed not to be actively traded, Dragon’s recommendations were excessive and unsuitable. Dragon’s recommendations to these customers were further unsuitable, in that he designed his recommendations to prevent his customers’ UIT purchases from qualifying for sales charge discounts. Despite regularly recommending that customers purchase UITs in amounts that exceeded volume-discount “breakpoints” of $50,000 and $100,000, Dragon routinely structured their investments – by spreading the amounts over smaller purchases and multiple days – in order to avoid reaching those thresholds. By doing so, Dragon sought to increase his concessions at his customers’ expense. Berthel Fisher allowed this activity to occur – and, in fact, profited from it – as a direct result of its inadequate system for supervising UIT trading.
Gana Weinstein LLP has successfully litigated broker disputes through verdict or settlement. We represent both individuals and institutions throughout the country in FINRA arbitration, as well as commercial litigation in state and federal courts. Our consultations are both free and thorough and our securities litigation attorneys can help you uncover wrongful activity in your account.