Securities Lawyers Blog
According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Benjamin Schick (Schick), currently associated with Cobalt Capital, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Schick 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 $900,000.00 on March 22, 2025.
Based on Respondent records, the Claimants’ investment in iCap investments through the Respondent totaled $210,000, making three purchases between December 2019 and January 2021-the last of which occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the Statement of Claim. However, Claimant claimed that from 2019 to 2022, Respondents recommended private iCap investment products totaling approximately $900,000. Claimant, nearing 70 years of age, claimed that she had made it clear at that time that she wanted a portion of her assets to be invested in safe, income-producing investments. Instead, Respondents allegedly recommended unsuitable, high-risk, alternative investments in complex securities products and in the process, ignored the concentration issues, misrepresented the material risks, and ignored the Claimant’s instructions.\, Claimant asserts that the iCap investments were presented with optimistic and baseless performance projections, while proper due diligence would have revealed significant losses, negative cash flows, and other issues. Respondents allegedly failed to disclose these risks or the concentration dangers of recommending multiple investments. By Fall 2023, material risks-such as lawsuits, halted payments to shareholders, payroll tax issues, and the resignation of the CEO-became public knowledge.\, Rather than disclosing these risks, Respondents allegedly assured Claimant that they had conducted due diligence and that iCap was a reliable investment. Claimant believes Respondents were negligent, breached fiduciary duties, and violated Regulation Best Interest (Rule 15l-1(a)) by recommending unsuitable non-traditional investments.\, Respondents are accused of failing to exercise the required care, skill, and diligence in understanding the risks and costs of these investments or comparing them to safer alternatives better suited to Claimant’s needs. They also allegedly failed in their ongoing responsibilities to monitor and assist Claimant and instead persuaded her to invest further in these high-risk products without proper disclosures or due diligence.