Uncategorized - D’Costa Law

Recent FINRA Broker Complaints 03/2025

D'Costa Law — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:54:16 GMT

Alexandre Maltez (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Firm) – Broker Alexandre Maltez (Maltez), currently associated with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, has a recent customer complaint alleging that Maltez recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. The Damage request is $50,000.
Alexander Creede (Independent Financial Group, LLC Firm) – Alexander Creede (Creede), currently associated with Independent Financial Group, LLC, has a recent customer complaint alleging that Creede recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. The Damage request is $100,000.
Chris Toomey (J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Firm) – Chris Toomey (Toomey), currently associated with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, has a recent customer complaint alleging that Toomey recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. The Damage request is $51,821.
Robert Rotunno (Spartan Capital Securities, LLC) Robert Rotunno (Rotunno), currently associated with Spartan Capital Securities, LLC, has 2 customer complaints alleging that Rotunno recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. There is currently a pending customer complaint with a damage request of $251,250.
Anthony Walia (Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC Firm) – Anthony Walia (Walia), currently associated with Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, has one customer complaint alleging that Walia recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
Keith Dagostino (Ef Hutton LLC Firm) – Keith Dagostino (Dagostino), previously associated with Ef Hutton LLC, has at one customer complaint alleging that Dagostino recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
Angelo Anello in Firm (LPL Financial LLC) – Angelo Anello (Anello), currently associated with LPL Financial LLC, has 2 customer complaints alleging that Anello recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. Anello has recently settled a customer complaint with a damage request of $84,538.

Investors who have suffered losses are encouraged to contact us at 1(516) 526 3082 or daniel.dcosta@danieldcostaesq.com for consultation. At D’Costa Law, P.C. our attorneys and staff are experienced in representing investors who have suffered securities losses due to the mishandling of their accounts. Claims may be brought in securities arbitration before FINRA. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.

Attention: Laidlaw & Company Investors

D'Costa Law — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:45:28 GMT

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is currently investigating investor complaints involving Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. (Laidlaw)[1] for recommending certain small cap investments underwritten or otherwise promoted by the firm. Laidlaw has been involved in the fraudulent promotion of numerous small cap stocks to their clients in violation of their duties to their clients to disclose conflicts of interests. These violations have also revealed an even more troublesome trend that Laidlaw is involved in pump-and-dump schemes.

Laidlaw has 13 total disclosures on its CRD including 9 Regulatory Events and 4 customer disputes. The disclosures involve: unsuitable trading, failure to supervise, negligence, churning, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unauthorized trading, and misrepresentation.

[1] https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/119037

Jessica Pinkard of First Citizens Investor Services has been permanently barred by FINRA

D'Costa Law — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:44:08 GMT

According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck CRD, Jessica Pinkard (Pinkard)[1], previously associated with First Citizens Investor Services, Inc., has been permanently barred by FINRA. The related disclosure event leading to Pinkard’s removal from FINRA registration involve First Citizens Investor Services, Inc. discharging Pinkard for “violating the policies of its banking affiliate by falsifying a customer’s signature on a wire agreement and facilitating cash exchanges.” Other disclosure events on Pinkard’s CRD include one tax lien, alleging that Pinkard recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints. Pinkard had been in the securities industry since 2018 and had been registered as a Broker with First Citizens Investor Services, Inc. since 2023.

[1] https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/7809362

Beware of Release Agreements

D'Costa Law — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:42:26 GMT

A former Wells Fargo customer and current client of D’Costa Law, P.C. located in Provo, Utah is asking a court to overturn an arbitration panel ruling denying a $2.5 million damage claim against Wells Fargo.

As published in numerous news articles and public court documents, Kenneth Grover is challenging a recent FINRA award where the arbitration panel exceeded its authority by granting Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss without allowing him to testify at a hearing. The panel issued its ruling unanimously in September after finding that Grover had previously signed a release agreement waiving all claims against the Wells Fargo. However, as stated in Grover’s petition to vacate papers, the release agreement is invalid because he was “improperly induced” to sign the agreement by his former broker, Scott W. Reed , who is now barred from the industry.[1]

[1] https://www.advisorhub.com/finra-bars-ex-wellsbroker-who-raised-3-5-mln-for-software-company/

Attention: Aegis Capital Investors

D'Costa Law — Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:31:51 GMT

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is currently investigating Aegis Capital[1] for costing investors billions of dollars in its role as the underwriter of stocks of small “low grade” companies that were about to be delisted or facing bankruptcy; purportedly, the only reason these companies were able to stay open was because the broker-dealer helped sell these “worthless stocks” to its customers, as well to customers of other brokerage firms.

According to a March 2024 article by SLCG Economic Consulting, who has been reviewing the activities of Aegis since 2010, Aegis was the “lone underwriter of 186 offerings totaling $1.9B for 111 issuers.” These self-directed underwritten offerings were allegedly re-traded in the broker-dealer’s retail brokerage clients’ accounts at substantial markups and markdowns without adequate disclosures to investors. Aegis acted as both market maker for a lot of the underwritten stocks and as research analyst with reports containing strong buy recommendations with unrealistic price targets for essentially worthless companies.

[1] https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/15007

Stock Loss Recovery Claims Process

D'Costa Law — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 22:42:11 GMT

Statement of Claim: A written statement prepared on behalf of the claimant and filled with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority(“FINRA”), in which the claimant must state the relief sought and the facts supporting the claims against the respondents.
Respondent’s Answer: Answer is due 45 days from the date of service of the Statement of claim. The Answer typically refutes the allegations found in the Statement of Claim.
Initial Pre-hearing Conference: The arbitrators and the parties(typically via phone) will select dates for the completion of discovery, the filing of any discovery related motions, or other motions(motions to dismiss), and the dates of any phone hearings or conferences with respect to these motions, the filing of pre-hearing briefs or memoranda, and the final hearing dates.
Discovery: Parties are required to exchange relevant documentation to the other party in support of their position. Motions are typically exchanged to compel the release of information that a party is reluctant to provide.
Provide Arbitrators Rankings List: Parties are provided 20 days to submit their arbitrator rankings to FINRA.
FINRA Hearing: Hearings usually last 2-3 days; however, it is not uncommon for a hearing to last several weeks depending on scheduling issues.
Award: Awards are typically issued within 30 days after the hearing.

It can take anywhere from 10 to 15 months to complete the securities arbitration process. We aim to process our claims faster than any other firm because of our unique approach. Claimant’s usually receive their award within a year from when it is filled or accept a settlement in a fraction of that time.

We accept representation on behalf of investors on a contingent fee basis, meaning there is no cost to you unless we make a recovery for you. Please contact us at (516) 526-3082 for a free consultation.

FINRA Arbitrator Selection Process is Under Fire

D'Costa Law — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 22:42:10 GMT

What probably would’ve been lost in the weeds of a Georgia State Court decision vacating a FINRA Arbitration Award has now caught fire and the eyes of the entire financial services and legal community. Judge Belinda E. Edwards, a State Court Judge in Fulton County Superior Court, vacated a 2019 decision in which Wells Fargo successfully defeated an investor’s $1.7 million damage claims over investment losses. The FINRA Award was vacated based in part on “grounds that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) administrators had allowed Wells Fargo and an outside lawyer to ‘manipulate’ the arbitrator selection process.¹ Specifically, “a FINRA dispute resolution director improperly granted Wells Fargo’s request to strike two arbitrators, including one from a computer-generated ‘neutral’ list, as part of an unwritten side agreement between the regulator and Wells’ lawyer.”²

Judge Edwards in her opinion emphatically stated that:

“Permitting one lawyer to secretly red line the neutral list makes the list anything but neutral, and calls into question the entire fairness of the arbitral forum,”

As primarily a Claimant/Investors rights attorney and proud member of the Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA), I can solemnly say that winning a FINRA Arbitration is an uphill battle. As outlined in my other article posted here regarding the “Stock Loss Recovery Claims Process,” from filing the Statement of Claim and taking the case all the way though a FINRA Evidentiary Hearing, the process can be daunting. Respondent/Brokerage Firms are at a clear advantage in having far greater resources than the average investor which plays a significant role in the management of a claim. My clients are often times depressed by their investment losses and fear expending any more time and resources to pursue a FINRA Arbitration claim. Throughout the entire FINRA Dispute Resolution process leading up to the Final Award, my clients feel that the chips are stacked against them. I, like many of my colleagues in the Claimant/Investors rights bar, have to constantly reassure our clients that the judicial process can be tiresome, but it is fair and just at the end.

But sadly it’s news like this that makes us push our heads back on our seat and look-up at the sky for some type of justification. Unfortunately, there is none and for good measure. Something has to change.

Imagine having a jury trial where you’re facing possible life in prison or even capital punishment and the Prosecution is allowed to secretly remove possible jury candidates before voir dire (jury selection); and even beyond that the Prosecution has the Judge remove certain members of the already appointed jury based on ex parte (communications with only one side – The Prosecution). The aftermath of such a gut-wrenching and infuriating discovery would certainly lead to removal of the particular Judge, disbarment of the prosecuting attorney, and hopefully some type of rehabilitation of the Defendant.

So what will be the aftermath of a similar discovery made in a FINRA Arbitration matter? The Public Investors Advocate Bar Association called for “an immediate investigation” by the Securities and Exchange Commission and hearings in Congress “as to FINRA’S operation of its arbitration forum. The secret agreement undermines the very neutrality of the computerized system,” it added, referencing the “surprising revelation of a corrupted arbitrator appointment system.” FINRA has of course responded the same way their friends in the brokerage industry would respond and denied the existence of any type of agreement between themselves and any firm.

The attorney involved in the tampering of the FINRA Arbitration selection process is Terry Weiss, a partner at Maynard Cooper & Gale in Atlanta – he represented Wells Fargo in the underlying FINRA Arbitration which was later vacated by Judge Edwards. I strongly believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The incentive for FINRA and their arbitrators to have implicit bias and make explicit “back-room” deals is too tempting to resist. FINRA’s bread and butter are the fees they collect from brokerage firms and their registered representatives. Keeping them in business, keeps FINRA in business. Plain and simple.

And FINRA arbitrators are nothing “special.” The FINRA arbitrator training is remedial and anyone from a former Chief Financial Officer to a Supermarket cashier can qualify to serve as an arbitrator. This laissez-faire attitude that FINRA has towards selecting arbitrators and monitoring arbitrator conduct has brought us to where we are now. FINRA arbitrators have nothing compelling them to give investors a fair and just dispute resolution process. But they certainly do have an incentive of siding with a brokerage firm where they or a family member can yield some type of business from today or in the future.

I can say with a strong sense of passion and confidence that PIABA will continue to fight for the rights of investors. We’ve are already setting meetings with congressional offices and discussing the matter with the SEC. The fight rages on.

¹ See “Judge Rebukes Finra Arbitration in Vacating Wells Fargo Award” article.

² Id.