When communicating online or investing with any professional, make sure you know who you’re dealing with. Imposters might link to sites like BrokerCheck from phishing or similar scam websites, or through social media , trying to steal your personal information or your money. Please contact FINRA with any concerns.
THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING AUCTION RATE SCEURITIES. DAMAGES ARE UNSPECIFIED.
Settlement Amount
$400,000.00
Broker Comment
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, WHERE 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.
10/17/2000
Customer Dispute
Settled
Allegations
CLAIMANT CLAIMS FC'S RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE "CMM" WAS BOTH REPRESENTED AND UNSUITABLE.
Damage Amount Requested
$85,000.00
Settlement Amount
$22,500.00
Broker Comment
THE ALLEGATIONS ARE DENIED.
THE MATTER WAS SETTLED AS A GODD FAITH BUSINESS DECISION IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
7/15/1993
Customer Dispute
Settled
Allegations
THE CLIENT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION AND
INCONSISTENCIES WITH HER INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES REGARDING A
$5,000.00 INVESTMENT IN ONE PARTNERSHIP AND $10,000.00 IN
ANOTHER, BOTH PURCHASED THREE YEARS EARLIER. DESPITE THE TOTAL
OF $15,000.00 INVESTED, SHE CLAIMED DAMAGES OF NOT LESS THAN
$50,000.00.
Damage Amount Requested
$50,000.00
Settlement Amount
$12,000.00
Broker Comment
AFTER MERRILL LYNCH INITIALLY REJECTED HER
CLAIMS, THE CLIENT FILED AN ARBITRATION WHICH WAS SETTLED BY
EXCHANGING $15,600.00 FOR THE PARTNERSHIP'S UNITS AT A NET COST
OF $12,000.00 TO THE FIRM. THE DECISION TO SETTLE WAS
EMPHATICALLY NOT BASED ON ANY CONCESSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
CLIENT'S ALLEGATIONS BUT TO AVOID THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF A
FORMAL PROCEEDING BY CONTRAST TO THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT.
MERRILL LYNCH AND JAMES COFFEE STRONGLY DENY THE
ALLEGATIONS. THE CLIENT WAS PROVIDED PROSPECTUSES ON BOTH
PARTNERSHIPS AND NEITHER THE NATURE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THEIR
AMOUNT RELATIVE TO HER OVERALL PORTFOLIO AND NET WORTH SUPPORT
HER ALLEGATIONS. FOR THESE REASONS, MERRILL LYNCH DID NOT FIND
ANY FAULT WITH MR. COFFEE OR ASK HIM TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SETTLEMENT.
Disclosures can be customer complaints or arbitrations, regulatory actions, employment terminations, bankruptcy filings and certain civil or criminal proceedings that they were a part of.
Disclosures can be customer complaints or arbitrations, regulatory actions, employment terminations, bankruptcy filings and certain civil or criminal proceedings that they were a part of.