Securities Lawyers Blog
The investment lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP have experience helping investors determine whether their portfolio losses at investment firms, such as Raymond James & Associates, Inc., were caused by broker misconduct. There are many different ways that your broker can impermissibly drain your accounts. Our attorneys can help you understand the cause of your investment losses, uncover misconduct, and apply the law to hold accountable those responsible.
Raymond James and Associates is a full-service broker-dealer and qualified custodian that combines brokerage, insurance and municipal advisory activities with financial planning, portfolio management, pension consulting and adviser selection services. Headquartered at 880 Carillon Parkway in Saint Petersburg, Florida and formed in 1969 in Florida, the firm serves high-net-worth individuals, individuals, retirement plans, corporations and state and municipal governments.
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 705
- Regulatory Events: 181
- Arbitration Events: 72
- Broker Employees: 8,343
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. – Investment Advisors:
- SEC #: 10418
- Assets Under Management: $500,955,604,975
- ADV Form Employee: 16,780
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (Case #2023078630201) – From at least January 2018 through October 2024, Raymond James failed to report approximately 2.56 million fractional share liquidations to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (TRF) and the Over-the-Counter Reporting Facility (ORF), in violation of FINRA Rules 6380A, 6622, and 2010. From at least January 2018 through October 2024, Raymond James failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to comply with its reporting obligations for fractional share trades, in violation of FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010. For these violations, the firm is censured, fined $125,000, and subject to an undertaking to pay regulatory transaction fees as described below.
FINRA v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (Case #2018059564801) – Since at least January 2018, RJA and RJFS have failed to reasonably supervise the firms’ reporting, and timely reporting, of customer complaints via FINRA Rule 4530 filings and amendments to registered representatives’ Forms U4 and U5. The firms have not taken reasonable steps to ensure that firm personnel manually enter into the firms’ electronic system certain data required to make quarterly FINRA Rule 4530 filings. The firms also have not established reasonable controls to ensure that associated persons timely notify appropriate firm personnel of customer complaints. Raymond James therefore has violated Article V, Sections 2 and 3 of FINRA’s By-Laws, and FINRA Rules 3110, 1122, 4530, and 2010. From January 2012 to at least December 2017, RJA and RJFS also failed to reasonably supervise at least 4.7 million mutual fund purchases that the firms’ representatives made directly with mutual fund companies on behalf of firm customers (direct business transactions). The firms failed to ingest many transactions into their automated surveillance systems, and had not configured their systems to review many other transactions. As a result, the firms violated FINRA Rule 3110 and its predecessor, NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rule 2010.
FINRA v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (Case #2019061061201) – From January 2014 through May 2022, Raymond James sent its customers at least 1,850,000 confirmations that inaccurately disclosed the firm’s execution capacity or whether the trade was executed at an average price, or inaccurately disclosed or omitted its status as a market maker in the security. As a result, Raymond James violated Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, promulgated under Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Rule 17a-3, and FINRA Rules 2232, 4511, and 2010.
FINRA v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (Case #2018058633501) – From at least January 2012 through April 2018, RJFS failed to reasonably supervise two registered representatives who engaged in a scheme to overcharge commissions to seven institutional customers, which they serviced as part of a team.
FINRA v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (Case #2018057742301) – From April 1, 2009 through March 28, 2018, Raymond James failed to submit accurate minimum denomination and maximum interest rates to the MSRB’s Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency (SHORT) System, as was required by MSRB Rule G-34. Further, from April 2009 through July 2018, Raymond James failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, and failed to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures (WSPs), reasonably designed to ensure compliance with MSRB Rule G-34, in violation of MSRB Rule G-27.
Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of investors in investment disputes with their brokers and brokerage firms. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.