Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as Edward Jones. 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.
Edward Jones is a financial services firm founded in 1922 that provides wealth management, retirement and college savings planning, investment recommendations in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, and insurance and annuity products to individual investors. The firm serves more than 9 million clients throughout the United States and, through an affiliate, in Canada.
Edward Jones – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 250
- Regulatory Events: 178
- Arbitration Events: 150
- Broker Employees: 24,163
Edward Jones – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 3297
- Assets Under Management: $1,013,608,323,988
- ADV Form Employee: 36,317
Edward Jones – In the News:
FINRA v. Edward Jones (Case #2020067346401) – From January 2018 through April 2021, Edward Jones failed to report approximately 2.7 million fractional share liquidations to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (TRF) or the Over-the-Counter Reporting Facility (ORF), in violation of FINRA Rules 6380A, 6622, and 2010. During the same period, the firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), reasonably designed to comply with its trade reporting obligations for fractional share trades, in violation of FINRA Rules 3110(a) and (b) and 2010. For these violations, the firm is censured, fined $125,000, and required to pay the regulatory transaction fees owed for the unreported fractional share trades pursuant to Section 3 of Schedule A to FINRA’s By-Laws.
FINRA v. Edward Jones (Case #2021069467101) – Between January 2015 and June 2020, Edward Jones failed to establish and maintain a system reasonably designed to supervise the application of sales charge waivers and fee rebates to which customers were entitled through rights of reinstatement offered by mutual fund companies. Consequently, customers paid $4,440,979 in excess sales charges and fees during the review period. Therefore, Edward Jones violated FINRA Rules 3110(a) and 2010.
FINRA v. Edward Jones (Case #2020066649301) – From May 2017 to March 2021, Edward Jones failed to timely or completely produce certain phone records responsive to FINRA document requests in ten separate FINRA investigations. In certain responses during this period, the firm also inaccurately represented to FINRA that phone records older than 18 months were not available, even though that was not the case. The firm also failed to promptly alert FINRA once it learned of its production failures. By reason of the foregoing, Edward Jones violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010.
FINRA v. Edward Jones (Case #2018056422401) – Edward Jones’ disclosures to FINRA of seventy-nine customer complaints over a two-year period understated the customers’ alleged damages. Those misleading filings violated FINRA Rules 1122 and 2010 and Article V, Section 2(c) of FINRA’s by-laws.
FINRA v. Edward Jones (Case #2016049783001) – From April 2010 through 2014 (the “Relevant Period”), the Firm failed to establish, maintain, and enforce an adequate supervisory system, including written procedures, concerning the creation and dissemination of consolidated reports in violation of NASD Rule 3010(a) and FINRA Rule 2010. During this time period, the Firm made available to its registered representatives two centralized and automated tools, which provided templates for reports that could be used to, among other things, present comprehensive financial information to customers, including outside asset information. While the Firm used internally approved templates, the Firm had no system or written procedures in place reasonably designed to minimize the risk that the reports could contain inaccurate information that potentially could be misused. In addition, although registered representatives printed the reports and provided them to customers, the Firm could track only whether a report was printed. It had no system or procedures to track whether reports were provided to customers. During the Relevant Period, registered representatives at the Firm generated approximately 52 million reports using the two tools.
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.