Articles Tagged with IFS Securities

shutterstock_123758422-300x200Our securities fraud attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Barry Rumpel (Rumpel) currently associated with IFS Securities alleging unsuitable investments among other claims.  The majority of the complaints involve variable universal life insurance policies (VULs).  According to brokercheck records Rumpel has been subject to four customer complaints, one employment separation for cause, and one criminal matter.

In May 2016 Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (Woodbury Financial) alleged that Rumpel engaged in a personal financial transaction with a client and terminated Rumpel.  The most recent customer complaint was filed in October 2016 and alleged that a VUL sold to the customer and his wife were not suitable and that wrong net worth was entered in application in 2011 and 2012.  The claim was dismissed.

VULs are often unsuitable life insurance products for many investors due to their high costs compared to traditional life insurance policies.  VULs can also lapse if policy premiums are not paid resulting in a complete loss of the investors capital without any life insurance benefit.

shutterstock_170709014Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against financial advisor Guy Deemer (Deemer) currently registered with IFS Securities, alleging excessive trading or churning and unauthorized trading among other claims.  According to brokercheck records Deemer has been subject to six customer complaints, two regulatory actions, and one employment termination for cause.

In September 2015 Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (Oppenheimer) terminated Deemer after alleging that he failed to follow management’s directions when he failed to move accounts from transaction based to fee based.

In July 2014 a customer filed a complaint alleging excessive trading activity from July 2009 through December 2013.  The customer alleged $300,000 in damages.  The claim was settled for $115,000.