Securities Lawyers Blog

Broker Mario Divita in Traderfield Securities INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 10, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

Previously financial advisor Mario Divita (Divita), previously employed by brokerage firm Traderfield Securities INC. 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 September 05, 2023.

Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm and Divita consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that they failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with rules governing registered representatives proposed OBAs. The findings stated that the firm and Divita knew that two of the firm’s representatives were engaged in outside activities that involved investment funds and private placement offerings, but neither the firm nor Divita evaluated the activities to determine whether they constituted outside securities activities. The representatives owned and received a fee for managing investment funds that raised $60 million from over 200 individual investors. The representatives presented the investment funds to the firm and Divita in discussions and emails as OBAs, so they understood that the representative’s OBAs were investment-related. However, neither Divita nor anyone else at the firm evaluated the representative’s proposed activities to determine whether they should be restricted or prohibited; whether they should have been treated as outside securities activities, with any transactions recorded on the firm’s books and records; and whether they would interfere with or otherwise compromise the representatives’ responsibilities to the firm or the firm’s customers, or be viewed as part of the firm’s business. In addition, the firm’s WSPs did not reference or otherwise require the firm to comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 3270.01 or the factors listed there.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker William Weisbrod in Firm Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments

January 10, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

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

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on August 02, 2023.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Weisbrod consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he breached fiduciary duties owed to a community bank for which he served as an advisory director and consultant. The findings stated that the bank was a customer of Weisbrod’s member firm and relied upon his investment knowledge and experience to determine its investment strategy. Weisbrod breached his fiduciary duties to the bank by directing it to engage in an investment strategy that generated revenue for Weisbrod but exposed the bank to excessive risk and unnecessary trading costs. At Weisbrod’s recommendation, the bank opened brokerage accounts at the firm with a registered representative who worked in the same office as Weisbrod. Although Weisbrod represented to the firm that he would not be involved with the bank’s investments through it, Weisbrod directed the trading in the bank’s accounts. Weisbrod recommended that the bank engage in a risky trading strategy involving fixed-income securities purchased through the firm. Weisbrod’s trading generated over $1 million in commissions for the registered representative assigned to the bank’s accounts, who directed more than $370,000 of these commissions to Weisbrod, through a series of payments that Weisbrod did not disclose to the bank. Weisbrod recommended that the bank trade through the firm even though it lacked a fixed-income trading desk. Because the firm lacked a fixed-income trading desk, it had to use a third-party ‘broker’s broker’ to acquire fixed-income securities for the bank, which caused the bank to pay approximately $1.25 million in additional markups to the broker’s broker. Weisbrod did not disclose these markups to the bank. As a result of Weisbrod’s trading strategy, the bank spent more than $600,000 to remediate the risk of its investment portfolio. The findings also stated that Weisbrod falsely represented to the firm that he was not involved with the bank’s investments through it in connection with the firm’s inquiry into his OBA involving the bank.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Alan Appelbaum in Firm Aegis Capital Corp.

January 10, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Alan Appelbaum (Appelbaum), previously associated with Aegis Capital Corp., has at least 3 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 2 regulatory events, alleging that Appelbaum recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on December 07, 2023.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted Alan Z. Appelbaum (‘Respondent’). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the ‘Offer’) which the Commission has determined to accept. The Commission finds that on November 14, 2023, a final judgment was entered, by consent, against Appelbaum, providing permanent injunctive relief under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alan Z. Appelbaum, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Commission’s complaint filed in the above-referenced civil action alleged that, from July 2017 through May 2019, Appelbaum disregarded his obligations to seven customers and violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making unsuitable investment recommendations. The complaint further alleged that Appelbaum engaged in unauthorized trading, also in violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Ian Pierce in Firm Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Ian Pierce (Pierce), previously associated with Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, has at least 3 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, 2 regulatory events, alleging that Pierce recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on June 26, 2025.

The Consent Order alleged that, from June 2018 through November 2024, Respondent Pierce transacted business as an investment adviser absent registration in violation of Section 36b-6(c)(1) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, and that Respondent fraudulently obtained and/or misappropriated at least $164,000 from at least four Connecticut customers who received no money in return in violation of Section 36b-5(a) of the Act.

Broker Thomas Shultz in Realta Equities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Thomas Shultz (Shultz), currently associated with Realta Equities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Shultz recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a pending customer complaint with a damage request of $245,000.00 on December 03, 2025.

The claimant alleges unsuitable investments.

Broker Thomas Baumann in Spartan Capital Securities, LLC Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

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

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on April 10, 2024.

Baumann was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he failed to provide information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation of Baumann’s potentially unauthorized trading of equity securities in the account of a member firm customer

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Alfred Chan in Firm Ni Advisors

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

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

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on August 27, 2024.

Chan made misrepresentations, and employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud investment advisory clients, engaged in a transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon clients, or engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative, in violation of sections 25401 and 25235 of the CSL

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Nicholas Schiano in Firm Spartan Capital Securities, LLC

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Nicholas Schiano (Schiano), currently associated with Spartan Capital Securities, LLC, has been subject to at least 6 disclosable events. These events include 4 customer complaints, 2 regulatory events. Several of those complaints against Schiano concern allegations of high frequency trading activity also referred to as churning or excessive trading among other securities laws violations.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on June 05, 2025.

On May 8, 2025, without admitting or denying the findings, Respondent entered into an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (‘AWC’) with FINRA wherein Schiano consented to the entry of findings that between September 2017 and March 2022, he excessively traded the accounts of two senior customers with speculative investment objectives. Schiano’s trading resulted in high turnover rates and cost-to-equity ratios that exceeded the traditional guideposts of six and 20 percent, respectively, as well as significant losses. Between September 2017 and March 2022, Schiano recommended 102 transactions in the account of Customer A, a 67-year old small business owner, resulting in an annualized turnover rate of fourteen and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 65 percent, commissions of $40,515, and realized losses of $13,349. Between October 2017 and December 2018, Schiano and another representative recommended 31 transactions in the account of Customer B, a 70-year retiree, resulting in an annualized turnover rate of 18 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 76 percent, commissions of $30,510 and realized losses of $48,895. Schiano agreed to a six-month suspension from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities, a fine in the amount of $5,000, and partial restitution of $55,770 plus interest.

Broker Larry Michaels in Crown Capital Securities, L.p. Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

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

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on April 18, 2024.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Michaels consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion authority without prior written authorization from the customers. The findings stated that Michaels’ member firm did not accept any of the customer accounts as discretionary and the firm’s WSPs prohibited the exercise of discretionary authority in brokerage accounts. The findings also stated that Michaels failed to notify his firm about the full nature of his participation in an OBA. Upon joining his firm, Michaels disclosed his role as an owner of an accounting business and that he was engaged in providing income tax preparation and accounting services and his firm approved this OBA based on this disclosed role. However, Michaels’ work for his company exceeded the scope of his disclosed role as he provided additional services to his company clients, some of which were his firms brokerage customers, including acting as a manager and/or consultant to assist his company clients in managing and growing their businesses. Additionally, Michaels acted as an incorporator and filed articles of incorporation for several businesses on behalf of his company clients, and was listed as a governor, who had the authority to make decisions on behalf of, at least one company.

Broker Christopher Mccoy in Calton & Associates, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

January 9, 2026 | by Staff Attorney

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

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on July 16, 2025.

Respondent admits that he provided materially untrue and incorrect information, within the meaning of Section 211 0(a)(2) of the Insurance Law, on his renewal application to act as an agent pursuant to Section 2103(a) of the Insurance Law, submitted to the Department on or about March 29, 2021, in that he failed to disclose that he was named or involved in two FINRA arbitration proceedings. Respondent hereby waives his right to notice and a hearing on said charges and agrees, in lieu of any other disciplinary action which might be taken by the Department in consequence of the foregoing, to the imposition of a penalty in the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00}, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Respondent agrees to take all necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of similar violations and acknowledges that this Stipulation and any admission herein\, contained May be used against him if the Department, for any reason other than the specific acts herein considered, institutes disciplinary action.