Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as Oppenheimer & Co. 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.
Oppenheimer and Company is a full-service broker-dealer and investment bank providing wealth management, asset management, investment banking, equity and fixed income capital markets, public finance, and trust and institutional services. Tracing its roots back more than 140 years and headquartered in New York City, the firm is the principal operating subsidiary of the publicly traded Oppenheimer Holdings and operates branch offices across the United States along with affiliates in Europe, Israel and Asia.
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 249
- Regulatory Events: 103
- Arbitration Events: 180
- Broker Employees: 1,829
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 887
- Assets Under Management: $36,710,705,748
- ADV Form Employee: 2,806
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Case #2023077058901) – From at least January 2006 to the present, Oppenheimer sent an estimated 167,000 account statements to more than 800 customers that misidentified collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) issued by private entities (private label CMOs) as government agency bonds or corporate bonds. By making misleading statements in communications with customers, the firm violated NASD Rules 2210(d)(1) and 2110 and FINRA Rules 2210(d)(1) and 2010. The firm also violated NASD Rules 3110 and 2110 and FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010 by maintaining inaccurate customer account statements.
FINRA v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Case #2017052438501) – Between 2012 and 2017, Oppenheimer failed to reasonably supervise transactions that the firm’s registered representatives placed directly with product sponsors on behalf of firm customers (i.e., direct business transactions or held away securities transactions) in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. Oppenheimer did not take steps reasonably designed to ensure that direct business transactions appeared on the firm’s daily trade blotter, causing the firm to fail to run approximately 490,000 transactions (including dividend reinvestments) for over 14,000 customers through exception reports used to identify potential sales practice violations, including potentially unsuitable transactions. Oppenheimer also failed to ensure that it collected information for customers’ investment profiles (e.g., customers’ ages, investment time horizons and liquidity needs) that was relevant for making certain suitability determinations. As a result of the foregoing, Oppenheimer violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Rule 17a-3, NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rules 3110, 4511 and 2010.
FINRA v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Case #2018057952801) – From January 2014 through December 2019, Oppenheimer negligently misrepresented cost basis information on more than 1,000 customer account statements and Forms 1099. By making negligent misrepresentations on customer account statements and Forms 1099, Oppenheimer violated FINRA Rule 2010. By making and preserving inaccurate customer account statements, Oppenheimer violated FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010.
FINRA v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Case #2016050948101) – From January 2011 through December 2015 (the “Relevant Period”), Oppenheimer failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”), that were reasonably designed to supervise the suitability of representatives’ recommendations to customers as they pertain to early rollovers of Unit Investment Trusts. Based on the foregoing, Oppenheimer violated NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014) and FINRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on or after December 1, 2014) and FINRA Rule 2010.
FINRA v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Case #2016050508501) – This matter resulted from routine surveillance by the staff of the Customer Issues Group of the Department of Market Regulation. From January 1, 2013 to July 28, 2016, OPCO failed to record “Not Held” terms and conditions on the firm’s order memoranda for institutional customers of one of the firm’s trading desks. In addition, for the same orders, OPCO transmitted reports to the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) that failed to contain that “Not Held” special handling code. From April 1, 2013 to October 31, 2016, OPCO transmitted reports to OATS that failed to properly report the Market on Close (“MOC”) or Limit on Close (“LOC”) special handling codes. From January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2017, OPCO failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the rules of FINRA concerning maintaining accurate books and records, specifically order memoranda. From January 1, 2013 to the present, OPCO failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the rules of FINRA concerning OATS reporting. Thus, OPCO violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the Exchange Act”), and Rule 17a-3(a)(6)(i) thereunder, NASD Rules 3010(a) and 3010(b), and FINRA Rules 4511, 7450, 3110(a), 3110(b) and 2010.
You do not have to accept investment losses caused by broker negligence or fraud. Gana Weinstein LLP represents investors, including customers of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., in FINRA arbitration and in state and federal court, our consultations are free, and we welcome all inquiries.