Securities Lawyers Blog
Our law firm represents individual and institutional investors that have been mistreated by their brokers and brokerage firms, such as Puma Capital, LLC. 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.
Puma Capital is a broker-dealer that acts as a market maker in selected equity securities and as an institutional agency broker specializing in the execution of complex option strategies involving listed equities and options. Formed in Florida in 2007, the firm operates from Theodore Fremd Avenue in Rye, New York, and is a member of Cboe EDGA and EDGX, NYSE Arca, and the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Puma Capital, LLC – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 146744
- Regulatory Events: 7
- Broker Employees: 23
Puma Capital, LLC – In the News:
FINRA v. Puma Capital, LLC (Case #2016048849001) – During the period of October 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017 (the “review period”), PUMA Capital failed to implement policies and procedures to reasonably avoid displaying, or engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying, locking or crossing quotations in over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities in violation of FINRA Rule 6437. By virtue of the foregoing, PUMA Capital violated FINRA Rules 6437 and 2010.
FINRA v. Puma Capital, LLC (Case #2016047676801) – Between March 7, 2014 and January 7, 2016 (the “Relevant Period”), the Firm failed to develop and implement an anti-money laundering (“AML”) program that was reasonably designed to achieve and monitor compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulations. Specifically, the Firm failed to establish and implement policies and procedures that could be reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of potentially suspicious activity relating to the liquidation of millions of shares of microcap securities. As a result of the foregoing, the Firm violated FINRA Rules 3310(a) and 2010. During the Relevant Period, the Firm also failed to establish, rnaintain and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”), that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). As a result of the foregoing, the Firm violated NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. Puma Capital, LLC (Case #2015045529901) – In connection with matter 20150455299, the Market Analysis Team of the Department of Market Regulation reviewed the firm’s compliance with Limit Order Display requirements during the period from January 1 through September 30, 2015. During the review period, the firm failed to publish immediately a bid or offer that reflected the price and full size of 21 customer limit orders for OTC Equity securities held by the firm that would have improved the firm’s bid or offer, in violation of FINRA Rule 6460.
Gana Weinstein LLP has successfully handled hundreds of customer investment disputes with their brokerage firms. Our attorneys can help you detect and uncover suspicious activity in your accounts. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.