Securities Lawyers Blog
Elder financial abuse, unauthorized trading, churning, and broker theft are among the most serious forms of broker misconduct, and they can occur at brokerage firms of every size. The investor attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP represent individuals and families who have suffered investment losses because of a dishonest or negligent financial advisor, including customers of firms such as Centaurus Financial, Inc. We review account activity, identify misconduct, and bring FINRA arbitration claims to recover what was lost.
Centaurus Financial is an independent broker-dealer and investment adviser that provides brokerage, insurance products, financial planning, portfolio management and pension consulting, primarily to individuals and families. Organized in California in 1992, the firm is headquartered in Anaheim and supports affiliated advisors in branch offices around the country.
Centaurus Financial, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 30833
- Regulatory Events: 19
- Arbitration Events: 8
- Broker Employees: 553
Centaurus Financial, Inc. – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 56882
- Assets Under Management: $9,740,127,253
- ADV Form Employee: 571
Centaurus Financial, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Case #2019064499301) – Between February 2016 and October 2019, Carroll violated FINRA Rules 2111, 2330, 1122, and 2010 by recommending unsuitable variable annuity exchanges, which caused customers to incur surrender charges. For these and other violations, Carroll is suspended for 12 months and fined $10,000. Between February 2016 and December 2025, the firm’s supervisory system and written supervisory procedures were not reasonably designed to supervise certain exchanges and purchases of variable annuities. From February 2016 through December 2019, it failed to reasonably supervise certain of Carroll’s recommendations regarding the exchange of variable annuities. From June 30, 2020 to December 31, 2025, the firm failed to reasonably supervise two representatives and violated Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) by failing to comply with Reg BI’s Conflict of Interest and Compliance Obligations regarding recommendations by the representatives to buy B-share variable annuities and enter into advisory agreements with the customers to manage the variable annuities’ sub-accounts. Thus, CFI violated Reg BI, and FINRA Rules 3110, 2330 and 2010 and is censured, fined $475,000, and ordered to pay restitution of $634,488.56.
FINRA v. Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Case #2018057298701) – Between September 2016 and September 2018, respondent Donnie E. Ingram, a registered representative with respondent Centaurus Financial, Inc. and an investment advisor through his own SEC-registered investment advisory firm, Ingram Advisory Services, LLC (Ingram Advisory), recommended to 81 customer accounts that they purchase 595 “standard version” Unit Investment Trusts (UITs) when there was an equivalent, lower cost “fee-based” UIT available. By recommending the standard version UITs instead of the fee-based UITs, Ingram caused his customers to incur initial and deferred sales charges that would have been waived had Ingram recommended the fee-based UITs. Ingram’s recommendations caused his customers to incur more than $300,000 of unnecessary, additional expenses, which resulted in a direct benefit to Centaurus and Ingram while providing no additional benefits to the customer. Similarly, during this same time period, Ingram recommended that his customers purchase Bluerock Residential Growth REIT Inc. (BRG), which was an offering of preferred stock of a real estate investment trust (REIT); and MacKenzie Realty Capital, Inc. (MAC), a non-traded business development company (BDC), through Centaurus, instead of through Ingram Advisory, which caused his customers to pay selling commissions. These commissions could have been avoided had Ingram taken advantage of his investment advisory relationship with the customers and purchased them through Ingram Advisory. Ingram’s conduct allowed him and Centaurus to share in the selling commissions that his customers incurred while providing his customers with no additional benefits. Ingram’s recommendations to these customers were unsuitable because Ingram had no reasonable basis to recommend the higher cost UITs, BRG, and MAC when he could have recommended the lower cost UITs, BRG, and MAC investments to his customers. In so doing, Ingram violated one of the industry’s fundamental principles—a registered representative cannot seek to maximize his own compensation to the detriment of his customers. Ingram’s conduct violated the reasonable-basis suitability obligation in FINRA Rule 2111(a) and thereby violated FINRA Rule 2010. Ingram’s conduct also independently violated FINRA Rule 2010 because Ingram failed to act with commercial honor and to observe just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of his business. In addition, Centaurus failed to reasonably supervise Ingram’s recommendations of UITs, BRG, and MAC. Supervisor 1 was the branch manager responsible for directly supervising Ingram, including his recommendations of UITs, BRG, and MAC. Supervisor 1, however, did not perform any suitability review of Ingram’s UIT, BRG, and MAC transactions as required by the firm’s written supervisory procedures (WSPs) and Ingram’s heightened plan of supervision.
Wondering whether you can sue your financial advisor or Centaurus Financial, Inc.? The investment loss attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP can answer that question after a free review of your account statements. We welcome all inquiries.