Securities Lawyers Blog
According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker James Warring (Warring), previously associated with Emerson Equity LLC, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Warring recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on September 08, 2025.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’), Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’), and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (‘Investment Company Act’) against James D. Warring (‘Respondent’ or ‘Warring’). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the ‘Offer’) which the Commission has determined to accept. On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that these proceedings arise out of violations of the Advisers Act by Warring, majority owner of the corporate parent of SEC-registered investment adviser EagleStone Wealth Advisors, Inc. (‘EagleStone’). Over a period of years, Warring, acting knowingly and/or recklessly, breached his fiduciary duty to one of his investment advisory clients (the ‘Client’). Warring and the Client entered into a romantic relationship. After the relationship commenced, Warring arranged for the Client to make and forgive a loan to his family members; charged the Client and certain of her trusts unauthorized and undisclosed fees; and advised the Client to enter into agreements purportedly authorizing, waiving, and forgiving problematic transactions and fees. As a result of this conduct, Warring willfully violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.