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 Newbridge Securities Corporation, 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.
Newbridge Securities is a FINRA member broker-dealer and investment banking firm that provides securities brokerage, investment advisory, and investment banking services. Incorporated in Virginia in 1997 and registered as a broker-dealer since 2000, the firm is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.
Newbridge Securities Corporation – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 104065
- Regulatory Events: 33
- Arbitration Events: 4
- Broker Employees: 126
Newbridge Securities Corporation – In the News:
FINRA v. Newbridge Securities Corporation (Case #2019064511206) – From July 2015 through June 2020, Newbridge failed to reasonably supervise recommendations for margin use by two representatives in five customer accounts. As a result, Newbridge violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Newbridge Securities Corporation (Case #2020067800801) – In 2019, Newbridge was engaged to serve as lead underwriter for the anticipated small capitalization (small-cap) initial public offering (IPO) of a China-based issuer (Issuer A) on a U.S. exchange. Between June 2019 and July 2020, Issuer A referred more than 20 new customers to the firm, including individuals and entities based in China (Referred Customers), to participate in the offering. Newbridge failed to develop and implement an anti-money laundering (AML) program reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Customer Identification Program (CIP) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) requirements for the Referred Customers. As a result, the firm permitted numerous customers to open new accounts, despite multiple indicators that the firm did not know the true identity of the customers and without conducting ongoing customer due diligence. Therefore, the firm violated FINRA Rules 3310 and 2010. In addition, between January 2015 and November 2019, Newbridge failed to reasonably supervise recommendations to purchase variable rate structured products (VRSPs) made to 27 customers. As a result, the firm violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Newbridge Securities Corporation (Case #2019061764901) – Between October 25, 2016 and February 8, 2018, Newbridge failed to reasonably supervise representatives’ recommendations of an alternative mutual fund—the LJM Preservation & Growth Fund (LJM). Newbridge permitted the sale of LJM on its platform without conducting reasonable due diligence and without a sufficient understanding of its risks and features, including the fact that the fund pursued a risky strategy that relied, in part, on purchasing uncovered options. Newbridge also lacked a reasonable supervisory system to review representatives’ LJM recommendations. Newbridge representatives sold approximately $323,000 in LJM to customers. LJM’s value dropped 80% during an extreme volatility event in February 2018 and the fund ultimately liquidated and closed, resulting in thousands of dollars in losses for Newbridge’s customers. By virtue of the foregoing, Newbridge violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Newbridge Securities Corporation (Case #2019063371901) – In a 2016 contingency offering of securities, Newbridge violated Exchange Act § 15(c)(2), Rule 15c2-4 thereunder, and FINRA Rule 2010 by using an attorney as an escrow agent. In the same offering, Newbridge willfully violated Exchange Act Rule 10b-9 and FINRA Rule 2010 by including a non-bona fide investment in determining whether the offering met its required minimum contingency. The firm’s supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Exchange Act Rules, and, in this offering, both Newbridge and Jordan also failed to enforce the firm’s written procedures governing contingency offerings, thereby violating FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. In a 2018 contingency offering of securities, Newbridge willfully violated Exchange Act Rule 10b-9 and FINRA Rule 2010 when the offering did not meet its minimum contingency by the offering termination date in the offering documents, and the Firm failed to obtain timely positive consent from investors to extend the termination date or return funds to investors and sought to extend the termination date by negative consent. In addition to failing to have a supervisory system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Exchange Act Rule 10b-9, Newbridge and Jordan also failed to enforce the firm’s written procedures governing contingency offerings, thereby violating FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Newbridge Securities Corporation (Case #2016047569601) – At various times between July 2013 and July 2016, Newbridge failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures (WSPs), concerning the sale of complex securities such as structured notes and leveraged, inverse and inverse-leveraged exchange-traded funds (“Non-Traditional ETFs”) that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA’s suitability rule. In addition, from November 2015 through March 2016, Newbridge failed to have a reasonable basis to recommend the sale of a private placement offering because it failed to conduct reasonable due diligence on the offering. In addition, Newbridge and Newbridge’s Director of Investment Banking, Jordan, failed to reasonably supervise the offering because they allowed the firm to rely primarily on due diligence conducted by the issuer of the offering. Also, at various times between November 2015 and March 2016, Newbridge failed to comply with Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 15c2-4 thereunder in that it deposited investor funds into a law firm trust account for a private offering instead of requiring that an independent bank be established as the escrow agent. By virtue of the foregoing, Newbridge violated Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15c2-4 thereunder, and violated NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rules 2111, 3110, and 2010. Additionally, Jordan violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
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.