Securities Lawyers Blog
Can I sue my brokerage firm? Investors with accounts at TradeStation Securities, Inc. ask the investment dispute attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP that question when their losses do not match the market. In most cases the answer runs through FINRA arbitration, where claims for unsuitable investments, negligence, and failure to supervise are heard. Our attorneys can review your accounts, explain your options, and pursue a FINRA arbitration claim against the brokerage firm when the facts support one.
TradeStation Securities is an online broker-dealer and futures commission merchant that provides self-directed active traders and institutions with trading in stocks, options, futures, futures options, ETFs and mutual funds through its desktop, web, mobile and API trading platforms. Its roots trace to Omega Research, founded in 1982, and the firm is headquartered in Plantation, Florida, as a subsidiary of TradeStation Group, which was acquired by Japan’s Monex Group in 2011.
TradeStation Securities, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 39473
- Regulatory Events: 29
- Arbitration Events: 4
- Broker Employees: 133
TradeStation Securities, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Case #2022076787401) – From July to September 2022, TradeStation Securities distributed retail communications concerning crypto assets or crypto asset-related services which failed to clearly disclose that crypto assets were not offered through a registered broker-dealer or which did not provide a fair and balanced presentation of the benefits and risks of the products discussed. Therefore, Tradestation Securities violated FINRA Rules 2210(d) and 2010 and is censured and fined $85,000.
FINRA v. TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Case #2018057023701) – From January 2016 to March 2022, TradeStation failed to establish and implement an AML program reasonably designed to cause the reporting of suspicious trading by its customers. Specifically, the firm’s AML program did not establish reasonable procedures for escalating potentially suspicious trading for AML review and the firm failed to escalate certain trading in order to assess whether a suspicious activity report (SAR) should be filed. The firm thereby violated FINRA Rules 3310(a) and 2010. In addition, the firm did not establish reasonable written supervisory procedures (WSPs) in connection with the acceptance and resale of low-priced securities to achieve compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, thereby violating FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
FINRA v. TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Case #2014041812501) – Since January 2014, TradeStation has predominantly routed its customers’ equity and option orders to several market-makers and certain exchanges that paid the Firm for that order flow. As described below, TradeStation did not exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain whether the venues where it routed certain equity and option customer orders provided the best market for the subject securities as compared to the execution quality that was being provided at competing markets. In addition, the Firm did not review the execution quality it was receiving for certain order types. TradeStation also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), reasonably designed to achieve compliance with its best execution obligations under FINRA’s rules. Finally, the Firm failed to disclose material aspects of its relationship with the markets to which it routed most of its order flow. By virtue of the foregoing, TradeStation violated NASD Rules 3010(a) and (b), FINRA Rules 5310(a), 5310.09, 3110(a) and (b), Rule 606 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and FINRA Rule 2010.
FINRA v. TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Case #2014039942904) – In connection with Matter No. 20140399429, FINRA’s Trading and Financial Compliance Examination staff, on behalf of FINRA and several equity exchanges, reviewed the firm’s trading activity and written supervisory procedures during August 2014. During the review period, the firm failed on 14 occasions to provide written notification disclosing to its customer that a transaction was executed at an average price, in violation of SEC Rule 10b-10, and in six instances failed to provide an extended hours risk disclosure to a customer before accepting and executing an order outside of normal market hours, in violation of FINRA Rule 2265. The review also found deficiencies in the firm’s written supervisory procedures, including those relating to market access risk management controls under SEC Rule 15c3-5.
The FINRA actions described above involve TradeStation Securities, Inc. itself, and investors whose losses are connected to the conduct FINRA identified may have claims against the firm. Gana Weinstein LLP offers free consultations and we welcome all inquiries.