Currently financial advisor Kim Monchik (Monchik), currently employed by brokerage firm Spartan Capital Securities, LLC has been subject to at least 3 disclosable events. These events include 2 customer complaints, one regulatory event. According to a BrokerCheck reports most of the recent customer complaints concern either corporate debt securities or alternative investments such as direct participation products (DPPs) like business development companies (BDCs), non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, annuities, and private placements. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented hundreds of investors who suffered losses caused by these types of high risk, low reward products.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a pending customer complaint on November 24, 2025.
Monchik was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that her member firm willfully violated Regulation Best Interest’s Care Obligation under Rule 15l-1(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Reg BI) by failing to have a reasonable basis to recommend investments to customers. The complaint alleges that the firm recommended securities that had a total principal value of over $24 million to 191 customers, the majority of whom were retail customers, through 16 private placement offerings (the Offerings). The firm, through Monchik, failed to conduct reasonable due diligence on the Offerings. The firm generated over $2.4 million in placement fees from these unsuitable recommendations. The complaint also alleges that in connection with the offer and sale of membership interests in the issuers of these Offerings, which were three unregistered, private investment funds (collectedly, the Atlas Funds), the Respondents recklessly or, at minimum, negligently disseminated, or caused the dissemination of, false and misleading information to Atlas Funds’ investors, in contravention of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’). The private placement memoranda (PPMs) misrepresented that Atlas Funds would not profit from any markup charged to customers in connection with their investments in the Offerings. Further, the Supplements misrepresented the price at which Atlas Funds purchased the membership interests in pre-IPO shares and from which entity the Atlas Funds acquired those interests. The Respondents also obtained money by means of the untrue statements when they raised capital from Atlas Fund investors (i.e., firm customers), in the Offerings and when they obtained placement fees, markups, and/or management fees. In total, the Atlas Funds and its manager, at the CEO’s direction, charged customers $3.25 million in markups, which directly benefitted the CEO, who owned and controlled those entities. As a result, the Respondents concealed the CEO’s additional compensation and the full extent of his economic self-interest in the Offerings. The complaint further alleges that the firm willfully violated its Disclosure Obligations under Reg BI by failing to fully and fairly disclose in writing conflicts of interest associated with its recommendations of investments in the Offerings. The offering documents did not fully and fairly disclose material facts related to the CEO’s ownership of the Atlas Funds and economic incentive to have firm representatives recommend the private placements in the Offerings; and Monchik’s role managing the Atlas entities and performing due diligence on the Offerings for both the Atlas Funds and the firm. In addition, the complaint alleges that the firm and Monchik failed to establish a supervisory system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Care Obligation of Reg BI as it relates to private placement offerings. The firm also willfully violated Reg BI by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Care Obligation of Reg BI. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the firm and Monchik failed to reasonably supervise the Offerings, including by failing to conduct reasonable due diligence on the Offerings, failing to maintain any records reflecting any due diligence that was completed on the Offerings, and failing to reasonably respond to red flags concerning the private investment funds’ ownership of the pre-IPO shares involved in the offerings. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the firm and Monchik, who was responsible for maintaining and updating the firm’s WSPs, failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written Conflict of Interest Procedures. The firm had no written policies or procedures addressing the identification, disclosure, or mitigation of conflicts of interest. As a result, the firm willfully violated Reg BI.
Securities Lawyers Blog
