Articles Tagged with Westpark Capital

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Kim Kunz (Kunz), previously associated with Westpark Capital, INC., has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Kunz 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 $60,000.00 on July 08, 2025.

The claimants filed this action against Respondent relative to their purchase of GWG L Bonds for 1) breach of contract pursuant to the customer agreements; 2) breach of fiduciary duty of failing to act in Claimants’ best interests, to deal fairly and honestly with the Claimants, to observe fair business practices and equitable principles of trade as embodied in the standards of the securities industry, FINRA Rules, and Respondent’s own internal policies, to make only suitable investments and not to knowingly or negligently make material misrepresentations and omissions to Claimants; 3) failure to supervise by neglecting its duty to properly supervise and control its agents pursuant, but not limited, to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, FINRA Rule 3111, and Section 342 of the NYSE Rules; 4) negligence and gross negligence; 5) misrepresentations and omissions, 6) violation of FINRA Rules, 7) violation of the federal securities laws, 8) violation of the California Securities Act and 9) violation of the Best Interest Obligations (Reg B1).

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Kim Kunz (Kunz), previously associated with Westpark Capital, INC., has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Kunz 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 $60,000.00 on July 08, 2025.

The claimants filed this action against Respondent relative to their purchase of GWG L Bonds for 1) breach of contract pursuant to the customer agreements; 2) breach of fiduciary duty of failing to act in Claimants’ best interests, to deal fairly and honestly with the Claimants, to observe fair business practices and equitable principles of trade as embodied in the standards of the securities industry, FINRA Rules, and Respondent’s own internal policies, to make only suitable investments and not to knowingly or negligently make material misrepresentations and omissions to Claimants; 3) failure to supervise by neglecting its duty to properly supervise and control its agents pursuant, but not limited, to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act, FINRA Rule 3111, and Section 342 of the NYSE Rules; 4) negligence and gross negligence; 5) misrepresentations and omissions, 6) violation of FINRA Rules, 7) violation of the federal securities laws, 8) violation of the California Securities Act and 9) violation of the Best Interest Obligations (Reg B1).

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Kim Kunz (Kunz), previously associated with Westpark Capital, Inc., has at least one disclosable event. These events include one regulatory event, alleging that Kunz recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.

FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on August 05, 2024.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Kunz consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he willfully violated Rule 15/-1(a)(I) of the Exchange Act (Reg Bl) by recommending that two retail customers invest in a speculative, unrated debt security. The findings stated that the bonds that Kunz recommended to the customers were considered speculative, involved a high degree of risk, were illiquid, and were only suitable for persons with substantial financial resources and with no need for liquidity. Both customers had a stated moderate risk tolerance with an investment object of income and neither included speculation.