Securities Lawyers Blog

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Neil Fineman in Firm First Allied Securities, INC.

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Neil Fineman (Fineman), previously associated with First Allied Securities, INC., has at least 3 disclosable events. These events include 2 customer complaints, one regulatory event, alleging that Fineman recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on August 18, 2022.

Respondent Fineman failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

Broker Richard Crabtree in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating claims that Broker Richard Crabtree (Crabtree) has been accused by investors of engaging in fraudulent misappropriation of their funds. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), it appears that Crabtree was employed by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated at the time of the activity. If you have been a victim of Crabtree’s alleged misconduct our firm may be able to assist you in recovering funds.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on September 23, 2022.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’), Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’), Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’), and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (‘Investment Company Act’) against Richard M. Crabtree (‘Respondent’ or ‘Crabtree’). The Commission finds that Crabtree, defrauded his advisory client about the investments in the client’s accounts, their performance, and the value of the client’s assets. Crabtree, who was a Senior Vice President at a prominent investment adviser and resident director of the Annapolis, Maryland branch office of the investment adviser, deceived the client into believing that he had invested $250,000 of the client’s funds into a private investment partnership that was held outside of the Investment Adviser. Crabtree falsely represented to the client that the trading strategy was highly profitable and that the client’s interest in the private investment partnership grew to as high as approximately $10 million. However, Crabtree never invested any of the client’s funds into a private investment partnership, and none of its profits were real. To perpetuate and conceal this fraud, Crabtree repeatedly falsified records, including portfolio review reports, trading records, data in the investment adviser’s system, and mortgage payout letters, and liquidated securities in one of the client’s advisory accounts. As a result of his conduct, Crabtree willfully violated Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Robert Calamunci in Firm Xnergy Financial LLC

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Robert Calamunci (Calamunci), previously associated with Xnergy Financial LLC, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Calamunci recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on October 20, 2022.

Respondent Calamunci failed to respond to FINRA requests for information.

Broker Michael Lancaster in Ifp Securities, LLC Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

Previously financial advisor Michael Lancaster (Lancaster), previously employed by brokerage firm Ifp Securities, LLC has been subject to at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 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 final customer complaint on November 11, 2022.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Lancaster consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he recommended that a customer, who was 72 years old at the time, invest $70,000 in shares of a commercial equipment leasing and finance fund, which was an alternative investment, even though the investment was inconsistent with the customer’s investment profile and financial situation. The findings stated that the liquid net worth required for the customer’s investment amount, as stated in the investment prospectus, exceeded the customer’s liquid net worth. In addition, the high-risk and illiquid nature of the investment was not consistent with the customer’s moderate risk tolerance. Yet, the customer used funds from his retirement account to make the investment. Even though the investment subsequently declined in value, the customer continued to hold the investment based on Lancaster’s recommendation that he do so. The investment continued to decline in value until the customer liquidated the investment nearly 10 years later. The customer sustained losses and was compensated by Lancaster’s member firm. The findings also stated that after the customer complained to Lancaster about the performance of the investment, Lancaster made payments to the customer totaling $14,460.40 to attempt to settle the complaint without the knowledge or approval of his firm. The findings also included that Lancaster submitted compliance questionnaires to his firm falsely stating that he had not made any private settlement of claims or reimbursed customers for losses. Subsequently, the customer, through his attorney, sent a written complaint to the firm regarding Lancaster, including Lancaster’s attempt to settle his complaint.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Barry Garapedian in Firm Morgan Stanley

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Barry Garapedian (Garapedian), previously associated with Morgan Stanley, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Garapedian recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on November 28, 2022.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Garapedian consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he caused his member firm to maintain inaccurate books and records by falsifying the representative code for trades in the firm’s order entry system, causing the firm’s trade confirmations to show an inaccurate representative code. The findings stated that Garapedian and other registered representatives working from the same branch office entered into an agreement through which they agreed to service certain customer accounts, including executing trades for those accounts, under a joint representative code that they shared with the estate of a retired representative. The agreement set forth what percentages of the commissions the estate of the retired representative, Garapedian, and the other representatives earned on trades placed using the joint representative code. Although the firm’s system correctly prepopulated the trades with a joint representative code Garapedian shared with the estate of the retired representative, he directed a junior registered representative to enter transactions under different joint representative codes through which he received a higher percentage of commissions than what he was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. Garapedian also directed the junior registered representative to enter additional trades under different joint representative codes through which he received a lower percentage of commissions than what he was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. Garapedian mistakenly assumed that he had permission to change the representative codes in this manner to equalize commissions earned by him and the other registered representatives across accounts serviced by the branch office, including those covered by the joint production agreement. However, Garapedian had not verified that the estate of the retired representative agreed that he could change the representative code for the transactions at issue. As a result, Garapedian’s actions caused the firm’s trade confirmations to inaccurately reflect another joint representative code instead of the joint representative code that Garapedian shared with the estate of the retired representative. Garapedian’s actions resulted in his receiving higher commissions and the retired representative’s estate receiving less commissions from the trades than what each was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. The firm has since paid restitution of approximately $8,000 to the estate of the retired representative, which is the approximate amount of additional commissions Garapedian received as a result of changing the representative code on the trades.

Broker Mark Martino in the Benchmark Company, LLC Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 12, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

Currently financial advisor Mark Martino (Martino), currently employed by brokerage firm the Benchmark Company, LLC has been subject to at least 3 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 2 regulatory events. 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 final customer complaint on August 15, 2022.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Martino consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he failed to conduct reasonable ongoing due diligence for a private placement offering by a Canadian start-up company. The findings stated that Martino learned that the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had sued the company’s founder for fraud in connection with a different company that he had previously founded. Martino also learned that the FTC had obtained a court order freezing the founder’s assets as well as the assets of any companies he owned or controlled. Before the start of the offering’s selling period, Martino recognized the FTC’s lawsuit against the founder to be a red flag given his role with the company. After selling began, the FTC sought to freeze all of the company’s assets and to hold the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) in contempt for funneling the company’s assets to the founder for his personal use. Martino was unaware of these developments during the three-month offering period because he unreasonably relied on the issuer to keep him apprised of developments in the lawsuit, even though some prospective investors were reluctant to invest due to concerns with the lawsuit and one investor demanded his money back after learning of the lawsuit. Shortly after the end of the selling period, the court held the CEO in contempt and issued an order requiring the company to transfer $1.205 million to a court-appointed receiver. The company subsequently failed to repay the investors in the offering when the debenture units matured. Martino personally received $61,248 in placement agent fees from sales of the offering subsequent to the developments in the FTC lawsuit. The findings also stated that Martino recommended the offering to his member firm’s customers without a reasonable basis. Martino did not request a written explanation of the FTC lawsuit from the issuer, did not take steps to verify oral representations regarding developments in the lawsuit, did not review the lawsuit’s public docket, and took no steps to otherwise track developments in the lawsuit. By failing to conduct reasonable ongoing due diligence of an acknowledged red flag, Martino failed to timely learn of material developments in the FTC lawsuit and thus did not have a reasonable understanding of the potential risks of the offering. As such, Martino lacked a reasonable basis to continue to recommend the offering to customers. The findings also included that Martino failed to reasonably supervise the firm’s due diligence of the offering. Martino was the representative at the firm who conducted the due diligence of the offering, and was also the firm’s designated supervisor for diligence of private placements. In addition, Martino was the firm’s CEO and the designated supervisor for its main office. Given his roles, Martino was responsible for implementing the firm’s supervisory system including as it related to private placements. The firm’s written supervisory procedures (WSPs) required the firm to conduct due diligence of each private placement offered by the firm and to update its due diligence as needed until effectiveness of the offering. Martino and his firm, however, did not implement a reasonable process for conducting ongoing due diligence. While the firm’s WSPs also required it to review any red flags and not simply rely on representations by the issuer’s management, the procedures did not specifically address continuing monitoring of identified red flags as part of the firm’s ongoing due diligence. FINRA found that Martino used text messaging applications on his personal cell phone to communicate with the company’s founder, CEO, and prospective investors regarding the offering. Those communications, which concerned the firm’s securities business, were not preserved by the firm. As a result, Martino caused his firm to fail to preserve required books and records.

Broker Joshua Nicholas in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 11, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Joshua Nicholas (Nicholas), previously associated with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, has at least 5 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 4 regulatory events, alleging that Nicholas recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on April 24, 2023.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’) against Joshua David Nicholas (‘Nicholas’ or ‘Respondent’). The Commission finds that on April 19, 2023, a final judgment was entered by consent against Nicholas, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Empires Consulting Corp., et al., 1:22-cv-21995-CMA, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Commission’s complaint alleged that Nicholas and others fraudulently raised at least $40 million of investor funds in EmpiresX investments by falsely claiming that EmpiresX could earn an expected investment return through a proprietary trading ‘bot’ or by manual trading performed by Nicholas. In reality, the bot was fake, Nicholas and others traded only a fraction of the funds they took from investors, and that limited trading failed to earn the purported return. Nicholas and others further lied to investors to provide assurances of the safety of their investment, including by falsely telling investors that EmpiresX had filed SEC registration paperwork. Instead, Nicholas and others misappropriated that investor money for personal uses such as cars, real estate, and travel. The complaint also alleged that Nicholas and others sold unregistered securities. On September 8, 2022, Nicholas pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. \\u00a7 371, 15 U.S.C. \\u00a7\\u00a7 78j(b) and 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. \\u00a7 240.10b-5, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in United States v. Joshua David Nicholas, 1:22-cr-20296-JEM. In connection with that plea, Respondent admitted that he conspired with others to commit securities fraud by offering EmpiresX investments through devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud, and materially false statements and omissions. Specifically, Respondent admitted that the purported EmpiresX bot was not real, and that EmpiresX was instead a Ponzi scheme that paid earlier investors with money obtained from later investors. Respondent further admitted that in marketing EmpiresX investments, he misrepresented himself as another individual in order to conceal from investors and potential investors his prior disciplinary history.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Patrick Perugino in Firm Craft Capital Management LLC

January 11, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Patrick Perugino (Perugino), currently associated with Craft Capital Management LLC, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Perugino recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on December 05, 2022.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Perugino consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion in customer accounts to effect trades without prior written authorization from the customers and without his member firms having accepted the accounts as discretionary in writing. The findings stated that for one of the customers, Perugino exercised discretion in placing a trade in the customer’s account while Perugino was associated with one of his firms. With respect to the other customers, Perugino engaged in discretionary trading by placing numerous trades in their accounts while these accounts were at his other firms. Although one of the firm’s WSPs permitted discretionary accounts, Perugino did not follow the firm’s procedures to obtain written authorization from the customers or seek approval from the firm to maintain any discretionary accounts at the firm. Instead, Perugino failed to disclose the discretionary trading, incorrectly marking on two firm annual attestations that he did not handle any customer accounts on a discretionary basis.

Broker Miche Jean in Morgan Stanley Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 11, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Miche Jean (Jean), previously associated with Morgan Stanley, has at least 4 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 3 regulatory events, alleging that Jean recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on March 10, 2023.

Jean was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he failed to provide information and documents and appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into whether he converted money from his customer through fraudulent ACH transfers to pay his personal credit card.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Joseph Kirkland in Firm LPL Financial LLC

January 11, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Joseph Kirkland (Kirkland), previously associated with LPL Financial LLC, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Kirkland recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on April 04, 2023.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’) against Joseph Kirkland (‘Respondent’). The Commission finds that on October 28, 2022, Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 1343 before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in United States v. Joseph Kirkland, et al., Crim. No. 3:21-cr-00082-ADC-MDM (D.P.R.). Respondent is awaiting sentencing. In his guilty plea, Respondent stipulated that from on or about March 2016 to on or about June 2018, he conspired with others to defraud the Municipality of Mayag\\u00fcez, Puerto Rico (the ‘City’) and its municipal enterprise, Mayag\\u00fcez Economic Development, Inc. (‘MEDI’), and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and misleading statements involving the City’s funds. Respondent was the registered representative responsible for MEDI’s brokerage account at UBIS, which held $9 million of the City’s funds earmarked for improving a local trauma center. Respondent made and caused to be made materially false statements to the City, through electronic messages, asserting that the City’s $9 million in principal was invested at a high rate of return. In reality, Respondent caused financial transactions that depleted the City’s funds and converted a portion of the City’s funds to Respondent’s own personal use.