ProEquities

Broker Adam Feierstein in Proequities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

November 25, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Adam Feierstein (Feierstein), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include 2 customer complaints, alleging that Feierstein recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a settled customer complaint with a damage request of $400,000.00 on May 16, 2022.

Claimants allege that Mr. Feierstein recommended an unsuitable investment.

There are Recent Customer Complaints with Broker Lawrence Combs in Firm Proequities, INC.

November 4, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Lawrence Combs (Combs), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Combs recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a settled customer complaint with a damage request of $348,500.00 on October 12, 2022.

Client alleges unsuitable recommendations regarding alternative investments made from 2006 to 2015.

Broker Jack Teboda in Proequities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

September 22, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Jack Teboda (Teboda), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Teboda recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a award / judgment customer complaint with a damage request of $1,993,268.00 on February 03, 2023.

Jack Teboda was a subject of the customer’s complaint against his member firm that asserted the following causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, negligence/negligent misrepresentation/omission, breach of contract, restitution, and negligent supervision.

Broker Cara Miller in Proequities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

September 3, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Cara Miller (Miller), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Miller recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a settled customer complaint with a damage request of $30,000.00 on July 23, 2025.

Alleged unsuitable investment in limited partnership

Broker Timothy Newell in Proequities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

July 4, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Timothy Newell (Newell), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Newell recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a settled customer complaint with a damage request of $3,713,544.00 on October 16, 2023.

On or around October 16, 2023, Claimant requested to initiate arbitration proceedings against Harvest Investment Services, LLC, and Tim Newell (‘Respondents’), alleging violations of Illinois securities laws among a number of causes of action arising out of Respondents’ investment advisory services to Claimant between November 2015 and June 2023. Respondents denied all of Claimant’s allegations; however, in the interest of avoiding additional costly and time-consuming legal proceedings, Respondents during the mediation process agreed to settle Claimant’s claims.

Broker Randall Morris in Proequities, INC. Firm Has Customer Complaint

June 2, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Randall Morris (Morris), previously associated with Proequities, INC., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one customer complaint, alleging that Morris recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a settled customer complaint with a damage request of $45,000.00 on February 20, 2024.

Claimants allege Mr. Morris made unsuitable recommendations for the purchase of two alternative investments.

Broker Cara Miller in Proequities, Inc. Firm Has Customer Complaint

April 5, 2025 | by Staff Attorney

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Cara Miller (Miller), previously associated with Proequities, Inc., has at least 4 disclosable events. These events include 4 customer complaints, alleging that Miller 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 $950,000.00 on August 19, 2024.

Claimants allege that registered representative made unsuitable recommendations for purchase of alternative investments.

Advisor Marc Linsky Accused of Recommending GPB Capital

May 15, 2020 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor Marc Linsky (Linsky), currently employed by ProEquities, Inc. (ProEquities) has been subject to at least one customer complaint during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report one of the customer complaints appears to concern fraudulent GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments.

GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officier being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation. Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships. While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice. In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future. The firm has admitted that it has never been profitable and has merely returned investor capital in the past in order to fake a successful business model. In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto. By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

In January 2020 a customer complained that Linsky violated the securities laws by alleging that Linsky engaged in sales practice violations related to negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Pennsylvania Securities Act, violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and breach of contract in relation to investment recommendation in GPB Auto made by representative in October of 2016. The claim alleges $80,000 in damages and is currently pending.

Our firm has analyzed the GPB Capital offerings and believe that brokerage firms did not review GPB Capital offerings in any significant detail. Any serious due diligence would have revealed that GPB Capital was a dubious offering destined to fail. In complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) our clients have alleged that GPB Capital’s scam was highly predictable and easy to spot. Nearly every aspect of the offering raised unanswerable questions from GPB Capital’s senior management, fantastical business claims, and intra-fund lending practices.

Michael McTigue Terminated by ProEquities Over Multiple Rule Violations

December 21, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) advisor Michael McTigue (McTigue), in August 2017, was terminated by his employer ProEquities after the firm alleged that during a recent branch inspection of the firm discovered issues relating to (1) use of unapproved email address; (2) use of unapproved performance report; (3) customer signature discrepancies on firm paperwork; (4) frequent trading of mutual fund A shares; (5) breakpoint sales of mutual funds; (6) unapproved marketing materials; (7) undisclosed outside business activities (OBA); and (8) text messaging a customer. When the firm presented these issues to McTigue and requested an explanation he resigned prior to submitting explanation to all of the issues.

At this time it is unclear the extent and scope of McTigue’s securities violations and outside business activities. McTigue’s CRD lists that he operates a d/b/a called South Coast Financial as an outside business activity. In addition, McTigue lists Realty South as a real estate business. While at this time it is unknown if McTigue used these businesses and unapproved communications methods to sell investments, the providing of loans or selling of notes and other investments outside of a brokerage firm constitutes impermissible private securities transactions – a practice known in the industry as “selling away”.

In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. However, even though when these incidents occur the brokerage firm claims ignorance of their advisor’s activities the firm is obligated under the FINRA rules to properly monitor and supervise its employees in order to detect and prevent brokers from offering investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away misconduct often occurs where brokerage firms either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.

Broker Raymond Harrison Has Complaints Over Non-Traded REITs

November 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Raymond Harrison (Harrison) currently associated with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (Cambridge) alleging unsuitable investments , lack of due diligence, lack of supervision, and omissions of material information among other claims. According to brokercheck records Harrison has been subject to six customer complaints and two financial disclosures. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), equipment leasing funds – such as LEAF or ICON, and other alternative investments.

In October 2016 a customer filed a complaint alleging unsuitable investments for investment experience and risk tolerance, lack of adequate due diligence in regard to investments, a lack of supervision and the omission of material information. The customer claimed damages of $603,000. The claim is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients in illiquid alternative investments products. All of these investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them and have created a large market for a failed product. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.