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 Drexel Hamilton, 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.
Drexel Hamilton is a veteran-owned institutional broker-dealer that provides brokerage and dealing in equities, corporate debt, government agency securities, and municipal finance, along with capital markets, initial public offering, and syndicate services. Founded in 2007 with a mission of creating financial services careers for disabled veterans, the firm has operated offices in cities including New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Houston, San Francisco, and Atlanta.
Drexel Hamilton, LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 143570
- Regulatory Events: 3
- Broker Employees: 30
Drexel Hamilton, LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Drexel Hamilton, LLC (Case #2020066940501) – From January 2016 through August 2018, Drexel Hamilton participated in primary offerings of municipal bonds as a syndicate member or member of the selling group. In the course of those activities, the firm submitted at least 572 orders on behalf of other broker-dealers during retail order periods without a basis for designating the orders as retail, and with zip codes not associated with a retail customer that made it appear that the orders qualified for submission during the retail order period. The firm also split at least 44 orders submitted during the retail order period that exceeded the $1 million per order maximum set by the issuer for the offering into smaller individual orders to evade the order limit. By submitting orders that violated the retail order period eligibility criteria set by issuing municipalities, the firm violated MSRB Rules G-11(k) and G-17. During the period of January 2016 through December 2022, the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the retail period eligibility criteria. As a result, the firm violated MSRB Rule G-27. From January 2016 to June 2018, Michael Ivcic worked as the municipal securities syndicate representative at Drexel Hamilton and was responsible for submitting the firm’s customer orders for new issue municipal bonds to the broker-dealer acting as the offering’s senior syndicate manager. Ivcic violated the retail order period eligibility criteria set by issuing municipalities by submitting 276 new issue retail orders with zip codes that were not associated with a retail customer and splitting 29 orders that exceeded the $1 million maximum allowed for retail investors into smaller orders to evade the limit set by the municipalities issuing those bonds. As a result, Ivcic willfully violated MSRB Rules G-11(k) and G-17, both independently and by acting in contravention of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Between January 2016 and August 2018, Frederick Phelan, a firm registered representative, violated the retail order period eligibility criteria set by issuing municipalities by submitting 46 order tickets for broker-dealers as new issue retail orders with zip codes that were not associated with a retail customer. As a result, Phelan willfully violated MSRB Rules G-11(k) and G-17. Between January 2016 and August 2018, David Steigerwald, a firm representative, violated the retail order period eligibility criteria set by issuing municipalities by submitting 127 order tickets for broker-dealers as new issue retail orders with zip codes that were not associated with a retail customer. As a result, Steigerwald willfully violated MSRB Rules G-11(k) and G-17.
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.