Background: LPL Financial LLC

LPL Financial LLC, a long-standing member of FINRA since 1973, operates as a significant player in the securities industry and is one of the larger “independent” FINRA firms. Headquartered in Fort Mill, South Carolina, LPL boasts a considerable network, with over 27,000 registered representatives across more than 18,000 branch offices. Most advisors who are registered with independent firms operate out of small one or two advisor offices. Although independent firms have the same supervisory duties and more traditional firms with big branch offices, proper supervision does not always occur.

Overview of Allegations

The allegations against LPL Financial LLC span a significant timeframe, from January 2012 to November 2022. Among the key alleged violations cited by FINRA include the firm’s failure to reasonably supervise transactions conducted directly with product sponsors on behalf of customers. This lack of oversight led to approximately 830,000 transactions not being reported, raising concerns about potential sales practice violations and unsuitable recommendations.

Moreover, LPL’s shortcomings extended to inaccurate information provided to customers regarding switch transactions, where approximately 11,300 letters were found to contain misleading fee information. This negligence in supervision and communication not only violated FINRA rules but also compromised the interests of customers.

Furthermore, the firm failed to establish a proper supervisory system for recommendations involving publicly traded securities of business development companies (BDCs which are considered “alternative” investments), leading to potential overconcentration in Listed BDC investments for certain customers. The AWC stated: “LPL also failed to have a reasonable supervisory system to ensure the collection of information for its direct business customers’ investment profiles—such as the customers’ ages, investment time horizons, and liquidity needs—that was relevant for making suitability determinations. LPL relied on its representatives to collect such information by completing new account forms for direct business transactions. However, the firm did not take steps to ensure that representatives completed the new account forms.”

Consequences and Sanctions

In response to these violations, LPL Financial LLC has consented to several sanctions imposed by FINRA, including a censure, a substantial fine of $5.5 million, and restitution totaling $651,374.51 plus interest. Additionally, the firm is required to undertake remedial actions within a specified timeframe to address the identified issues and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Contact a Securities Fraud Lawyer if you may have a claim.

If you think you may have a potential claim for unsuitable investments or failure to supervise against a financial advisory firm such as LPL, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

As shown by Mr. Starke’s FINRA Brokercheck report, found here, in the last two years customers have filed seven complaints against Mr. Starke, most involving allegations of the sale of illiquid, unsuitable, and high-risk investments.

Alternative Investments, which include REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), are often sold as an alternative to more traditional stocks, bonds, and stock and bond funds. These higher-risk investments are often touted for their high returns, especially in a low interest rate environment, however those high returns are accompanied with corresponding high risk.

In addition to their often high-risk nature, alternative investments may also have significant liquidity risk. Because they are typically not traded on an exchange, investors may not be able to determine the actual value of the investment, and further if the investment experiences problems, investors may not be able to sell or otherwise get out of the problem investment.

Pursuant to the Virginia Securities Act, financial advisors are required to disclose the risks associated with investments that are being recommended, and the Act provides for an award of rescission or losses, interest, and reasonable attorneys fees.

Prior to recommending the purchase of specific investments or a specific investment strategy to a customer, a stockbroker / financial advisor such as Mr. Starke is required to determine that the investments are suitable to that particular investor (or in the “best interest” of the customer after 2020). A suitability determination is based upon many different factors such as age, investment objectives, risk tolerance, employment situation, needs, income, assets, and investment experience. If an advisor’s recommendations of unsuitable investments result in the investor incurring significant losses, that investor may have a suitability, negligence, and breach of contract claim against the broker and his/her firm.

Generally, retirees and those on a fixed income should not have their life savings concentrated in high-risk illiquid investments due to the risk of loss as well as the difficulties of selling the investments.

Greco & Greco’s local Virginia-based lawyers have been representing Virginia residents for decades in claims against their financial advisors and brokerage firms. If you have suffered losses in unsuitable high-risk and illiquid investments and wish to discuss your potential claims with a local lawyer, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case.

Greco & Greco is investigating investor losses in the following alternative investments:

• GWG L Bonds
• Moody National REIT
• Mobile Infrastructure
• Parking REIT
• Necessity Retail REIT
• American Finance Trust
• Silver Star Properties REIT
• First Capital Real Estate Trust
• Priority Income Fund
• American Hospitality Properties Fund
• Phoenix American Hospitality
• Commonwealth Capital
• Hospitality Investors Trust
• American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust

The Brokercheck report also states that Western International discharged Mr. Kennedy in 2021 after allegations were made about unauthorized options trading.

Mr. Kennedy was registered with Western at a branch office in Woodland Hills, California and Tarzana, California.

The securities fraud attorneys at Greco & Greco have extensive experience arbitrating claims on behalf of customers against Western International. One can also read here about a recent FINRA action against Western International regarding supervisory failures in the sale of GWG L bonds by Western brokers, and another related to non traded REIT sales.

If you have lost money as a result of unauthorized trading or unsuitable options trading by your financial advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case. We have represented wronged customers from California and across the country for decades.

These investments obviously carry higher risks than if an investor just invests in a single stock, and can include similar risks to using margin to purchase more shares of a stock than you can afford with cash, or risk shorting a stock in the hope that the price declines. Additionally, similar to inverse and leveraged ETFs that are spread over a sector of stocks, these ETFs reset daily, so if they are held for more than a day the price of the ETF can diverge significantly from the price of the underlying stock.

Financial advisors should not be recommending or purchasing these types of ETFs for retail investors unless the investor understands the risks involved and can afford to take those risks. Such a recommendation should be suitable and in the best interest of the customer. If you have lost monies in a single stock ETF that you did not understand or that was not suitable for your risk tolerance, please contact W. Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case.

REITs – Real Estate Investment Trusts – are investment companies that invest in a portfolio of various real estate properties. A non traded REIT is not traded on any exchange, and often is illiquid with no short term method of selling the investment.

FINRA charged Western with failing to implement and follow a reasonable supervisory system to ensure that REIT sales were suitable for the customers to whom they were recommended. Although Western had a REIT suitability form, they system did not require supervisors approving sales to review important suitability information from new account forms such as age, objectives, risk tolerance, income, etc.

The letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent (AWC) further discussed the extreme misconduct of an unnamed Western advisor who sold REITs to a majority of his customers, including those with limited financial resources and investment experience. Several significant facts were disclosed in the AWC which should have, but didn’t, trigger supervisory action, included the fact that 19 of the 59 customers sold the REITs were 60 years old or older, many were recommended to switch from variable annuities to REITs, and in some years 90% of the broker’s commissions were from REIT sales.

Western agreed to a public censure, a $400,000 fine, and restitution payments of $471,401.57.

Non-traded REITs are often considered speculative high risk investments, and as such they would not be suitable for many customers who could not afford to take the associated risks, such as senior citizens, retirees, and those on a fixed income. If you have lost money in unsuitable REITs, or if you are unable to sell or exit a REIT that is unsuitable, please contact our securities fraud lawyers for a free consultation about your case. These unsuitable sales can support a FINRA arbitration claim based on securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

The AWC discussed the fact that Janney’s supervisory system red flagged these concentrations, but Janney “failed to take reasonable steps to understand the potential risks and rewards.”

In addition to being censured by FINRA, Janney was fined $100,000 and ordered to pay restitution to the customers that had not yet received restitution in the total amount of $145,019.

Concentration of customer accounts in one sector such as energy, or in multiple master limited partnerships (MLPs), can result in an unsuitable risk in customer accounts, and also may violate Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI). Firms such as Janney are required to have in place reasonable systems to supervise their advisors and accounts to attempt to prevent such violations.

If you have lost monies resulting from unsuitable overconcentration in a single sector, in oil and gas, or in unsuitable MLPs, we may be able to help. Please contact our securities fraud lawyers at Greco & Greco for a free attorney consultation.