Articles Tagged with Raymond James & Associates

shutterstock_61142644-300x225Our firm is investigating customer disclosure claims concerning broker John Nelson Crook (Crook). Crook’s FINRA BrokerCheck record shows several disclosures of allegations concerning churning (excessive trading, unauthorized trading, unsuitability, and breach of fiduciary duty. His BrokerCheck records also show a disclosure concerning an employment separation after allegations.

In July 2015, Crook was discharged from Raymond James & Associates Inc due to the findings that that the financial advisor allegedly did not respond in a timely manner to a supervisory review of trading activity. In addition, Crook allegedly did not provide a legitimate explanation for the trading activity in a certain client’s account, which lead to his termination from the firm in July 2015.

The most recent customer complaint against Crook was received in November 2015.During the period between August 2006 and June 2015, Crook allegedly engaged in excessive and unauthorized trading. Crook allegedly also recommended unsuitable investment products to his client, fraudulently misrepresented, and breached his fiduciary duty. The alleged damages are worth over $4 Million and the case is currently pending.

shutterstock_132704474-300x200Gana Weinstein LLP’s investment fraud attorneys are investigating multiple customer disputes filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) again broker Todd Douglas Ryman (Ryman). According to Ryman’s FINRA BrokerCheck records, there are several disclosures on his record pertaining to unauthorized trading, unsuitable trading, misrepresentation of material facts, amongst other allegations.

Ryman entered the securities industry in 1995 and currently employed at Suntrust Investment Services, Inc. since February 2017. He was previously employed at:

• Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (September 2016 – February 2017)

shutterstock_177792281The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced enforcement actions against 36 municipal bond underwriting brokerage firms for material misstatements and omissions in municipal bond offering documents. The SEC offered favorable settlement terms to municipal bond underwriters and issuers who self-reported securities law violations leading to the settlements.

The SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2014, 36 brokerage and financial firms violated federal securities laws by selling municipal bonds using offering documents that contained materially false statements or omissions about the bond issuers’ compliance with their obligation to disclosure. The firms were also alleged by the SEC to have failed to conduct adequate due diligence to identify the misstatements and omissions before offering and selling the bonds to their customers.

The municipal bond market is a $3.7 trillion market. Continuing disclosure provides municipal bond investors with information about the solvency and financial fitness of issuers on an ongoing basis. The SEC had previously identified issuers’ failure to comply with their continuing disclosure obligations as being a major challenge for investors seeking up to date information about their municipal bond holdings.

Contact Information