Securities Lawyers Blog
Previously financial advisor Michael Lancaster (Lancaster), previously employed by brokerage firm Ifp Securities, LLC has been subject to at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event. According to a BrokerCheck reports most of the recent customer complaints concern either corporate debt securities or alternative investments such as direct participation products (DPPs) like business development companies (BDCs), non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil & gas programs, annuities, and private placements. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented hundreds of investors who suffered losses caused by these types of high risk, low reward products.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on November 11, 2022.
Without admitting or denying the findings, Lancaster consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he recommended that a customer, who was 72 years old at the time, invest $70,000 in shares of a commercial equipment leasing and finance fund, which was an alternative investment, even though the investment was inconsistent with the customer’s investment profile and financial situation. The findings stated that the liquid net worth required for the customer’s investment amount, as stated in the investment prospectus, exceeded the customer’s liquid net worth. In addition, the high-risk and illiquid nature of the investment was not consistent with the customer’s moderate risk tolerance. Yet, the customer used funds from his retirement account to make the investment. Even though the investment subsequently declined in value, the customer continued to hold the investment based on Lancaster’s recommendation that he do so. The investment continued to decline in value until the customer liquidated the investment nearly 10 years later. The customer sustained losses and was compensated by Lancaster’s member firm. The findings also stated that after the customer complained to Lancaster about the performance of the investment, Lancaster made payments to the customer totaling $14,460.40 to attempt to settle the complaint without the knowledge or approval of his firm. The findings also included that Lancaster submitted compliance questionnaires to his firm falsely stating that he had not made any private settlement of claims or reimbursed customers for losses. Subsequently, the customer, through his attorney, sent a written complaint to the firm regarding Lancaster, including Lancaster’s attempt to settle his complaint.