FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Garapedian consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he caused his member firm to maintain inaccurate books and records by falsifying the representative code for trades in the firm's order entry system, causing the firm's trade confirmations to show an inaccurate representative code. The findings stated that Garapedian and other registered representatives working from the same branch office entered into an agreement through which they agreed to service certain customer accounts, including executing trades for those accounts, under a joint representative code that they shared with the estate of a retired representative. The agreement set forth what percentages of the commissions the estate of the retired representative, Garapedian, and the other representatives earned on trades placed using the joint representative code. Although the firm's system correctly prepopulated the trades with a joint representative code Garapedian shared with the estate of the retired representative, he directed a junior registered representative to enter transactions under different joint representative codes through which he received a higher percentage of commissions than what he was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. Garapedian also directed the junior registered representative to enter additional trades under different joint representative codes through which he received a lower percentage of commissions than what he was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. Garapedian mistakenly assumed that he had permission to change the representative codes in this manner to equalize commissions earned by him and the other registered representatives across accounts serviced by the branch office, including those covered by the joint production agreement. However, Garapedian had not verified that the estate of the retired representative agreed that he could change the representative code for the transactions at issue. As a result, Garapedian's actions caused the firm's trade confirmations to inaccurately reflect another joint representative code instead of the joint representative code that Garapedian shared with the estate of the retired representative. Garapedian's actions resulted in his receiving higher commissions and the retired representative's estate receiving less commissions from the trades than what each was entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement. The firm has since paid restitution of approximately $8,000 to the estate of the retired representative, which is the approximate amount of additional commissions Garapedian received as a result of changing the representative code on the trades.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$5,000.00

Suspension

All Capacities

Three Months

12/5/2022

3/4/2023

Claimant alleges, inter alia, that the securities purchased in her account were unsuitable for her - 2016-2017

$1,414,268.49

$350,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGED THAT HE WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTIONS HE RECEIVED WERE COMING FROM INCOME GENERATED IN THE ACCOUNT, NOT THE PRINCIPAL AND THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS CONSISTENTLY EARNING ENOUGH TO COVER THE WITHDRAWALS. UNSPECIFIED.

MSSB

Permitted to Resign

Allegations that the representative submitted transactions under production numbers that were inconsistent with agreement with another representative resulting in a shortfall of revenue credited to the other representative.

Customer alleges that his account had excessive fees, investments were unsuitable, and investments were overconcentrated.

$713,000.00

$110,000.00

I deny the allegations the customer has made. Investments I recommended were suitable, and the investments and fees were thoroughly discussed with the customer. The complaint was settled to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. Morgan Stanley and the Financial Advisor strongly deny the allegations the customer has made. Investments recommended were suitable, and the investments and fees were thoroughly discussed with the customer.

Claimant alleged, inter alia, unsuitable recommendations with respect to investments - 2013 to 2015

$170,000.00

In order to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay Claimant $170,000.00 in full and final settlement of any and all claims asserted by Claimant in this proceeding.

CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY, INTER ALIA, WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENTS - MARCH 2013 - DECEMBER 2017.

$106,178.00

CLIENT ALLEGES, INTER ALIA, THAT THE SECURITIES PURCHASED IN HER ACCOUNTS WERE UNSUITABLE FOR HER. 2016-2017

CLIENT ALLEGES, INTER ALIA, THAT THE INVESTMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR HIS ACCOUNT WERE UNSUITABLE. 2009-2015

$444,000.00

COMPLAINT ABOUT AUCTION RATE SECURITIES THAT ALLEGED SUITABILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED.

$125,000.00

CLIENT DEEMED ELIGIBLE FOR GLOBAL ARS REGULATORY SETTLEMENT FOR FULL VALUE OF ARS INVESTMENT.

COMPLAINT ABOUT AUCTION RATE SECURITIES THAT ALLEGED FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED.

$1,500,000.00

THIS MATTER INVOLVES THE SALE OF AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS). THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE TOOK PLACE BEFORE MID-FEBRUARY 2008, WHEN THE ARS MARKET SUFFERED WIDESPREAD AUCTION FAILURES AND ILLIQUIDITY. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CAUSE, CONTRIBUTE OR HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THESE MARKET EVENTS. THE FIRM REACHED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN OF ITS REGULATORS, PURSUANT TO WHICH IT REPURCHASED ARS FOR THEIR FULL PAR VALUE FROM CERTAIN CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTANT CLIENT, WHETHER THEY COMPLAINED OR NOT. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE CLIENT, AND WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IN ITEM 11 ABOVE REFLECTS THE PAR VALUE OF THE REPURCHASED ARS, AS REQUIRED BY FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.

ALLEGATIONS OF SUITABILITY AND LACK OF DIVERSIFICATION OF INVESTMENTS IN ACCOUNT.

$166,605.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND FRAUD. THE TIME PERIOD APPEARS TO BE FROM FEBRUARY 2000 THROUGH MAY 2002.

$150,000.00

$42,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGED UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS AND MISREPRESENTATION 1997-2003 DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED

CLAIM DENIED.

ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY, OVER CONCENTRATION IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS UTILIZING MARGIN, FAILURE TO DISCLOSE RISKS AND NEGLIGENCE BETWEEN AUGUST 2000-AUGUST 2001.

$1,190,000.00

$100,000.00

THE CLIENT ALLEGES UNAUTHORIZED TRADING. ALLEGED DAMAGES WERE UNSPECIFIED.

THE TRADES IN QUESTION WERE REVERESED AT NO LOSS TO THE CLIENT. THERE WERE NO OPTIONS OR COMMODITIES INVOLVED. AMOUNT OF $27000.00 CONTACT: MIRIAM FINKEL (212) 723-3051 NOT PROVIDED

MISREPRESENTATION-SUITABILITY ALLEGED DAMAGES-$24,378.00

$24,378.40

$17,018.75

AWARD-$17,018.75 CONTACT PERSON: [THIRD PARTY] (212) 816-7613 NOT PROVIDED

[CUSTOMER] HAS ALLEGED LOSSES AND INTEREST OF APPROXIMATELY $30,000. DUE TO TRADING OF MUTUAL FUNDS BY FC BARRY GARAPEDIAN

$30,000.00

$12,000.00

THE FIRM SETTLED FOR $12,000. 00 TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER SOLELY TO AVOID THE TIME, EXPENSES AND UNCERTAINTY OF TRIAL FOR THE ELDERLY CLIENT. I PAID $6,000.00. MR. GARAPEDIAN HANDLED THIS ACCOUNT SATISFACTORILY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WHILE [THIRD PARTY](SINCE DECEASED) WAS A JOINT TENANT. [CUSTOMER] CLAIMS LOSSES DUE TO SALE OF VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS. MR. GARAPEDIAN NOTES THAT DUE TO HER CONCERN OVER THE EARLY 1991 PERSION GULF SITUATION, SHE INSISTED ON LIQUIDATED OF THOSE FUNDS AT VERY LOW NAV PRICES. MR. GARAPEDIAN ADVISED AGAINST THIS SALE, BUT [CUSTOMER] INSISTED. AFTER TWO YEARS [CUSTOMER] IS COMPLAINING FOR THE FIRST TIME.