$110,350.00

Tax

I never received notice from the IRS nor the court regarding the lien. In a recent phone call the IRS informed me and my CPA that the lien is subject to withdrawal due to lack of notice.

Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2003, the FA misappropriated funds with intent to commit a theft.

$60,000.00

This is a personal matter between the advisor and siblings related to the estate of his parents. This is not a customer-related complaint. The advisor unequivocally disputes the claim. The Firm settled the matter for $60,000.00 to avoid further costs of litigation. This settlement was not an admission of liability. This settlement related only to claims against the Firm and not to the former FA.

$51,247.21

Tax

FINRA

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, MCGRATH CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT HE BORROWED A TOTAL OF $210,000 FROM HIS MEMBER FIRM'S CUSTOMER WHEN THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES PROHIBITED EMPLOYEES FROM BORROWING FUNDS FROM A CUSTOMER UNLESS THE CUSTOMER WAS AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, AND THE CUSTOMER WAS MCGRATH'S CUSTOMER BUT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY. MCGRATH SIGNED PROMISSORY NOTES THAT MEMORIALIZED THE LOANS. MCGRATH DEFAULTED ON THE LOANS, AND THE CUSTOMER FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OWED. ALTHOUGH CERTAIN OF THE CUSTOMER'S LOAN PROCEEDS AND MCGRATH'S LOAN REPAYMENTS CAME FROM FUNDS HELD IN THE FIRM'S ACCOUNTS, MCGRATH ARRANGED FOR THESE LOAN PROCEEDS AND LOAN REPAYMENTS TO BE SENT TO ACCOUNTS HELD AWAY FROM THE FIRM BEFORE THEY WERE TRANSMITTED TO MCGRATH OR THE CUSTOMER. IN DOING SO, MCGRATH CONCEALED THE LOAN FROM THE FIRM. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT MCGRATH MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FIRM WHEN, WHILE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRM, HE SUBMITTED THREE COMPLIANCE QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE FIRM, IN WHICH HE DENIED HAVING BORROWED FUNDS FROM ANY FIRM CUSTOMER.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

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

$10,000.00

Suspension

ANY CAPACITY

FOUR MONTHS

5/18/2015

9/17/2015

Fine paid in full on May 2, 2016.

FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION

ENGAGED IN PROHIBITED BUSINESS PRACTICES

Order

Cease and Desist

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

$10,000.00

Suspension

ALL CAPACITIES

30 DAYS

11/10/2014

12/10/2014

$38,567.28

Civil

OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.

Permitted to Resign

MR. MCGRATH WAS PERMITTED TO RESIGN ON JANUARY 10, 2014 BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO TIMELY FINALIZE ARRANGEMENTS TO REPAY LOANS HE RECEIVED FROM AN OPPENHEIMER CLIENT.

CLIENT HAD LOANED REP MONIES, FOR WHICH THE REP HAS GIVEN A REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AS SECURITY FOR REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN

CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT FA IS IN DEFAULT FOR FAILING TO PAY INTEREST PAYMENTS ON TWO LOANS EXTENDED BY THE CUSTOMER IN 2010 AND 2012.

$5,840.00

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED FA ADVISED THAT NO FEES WOULD BE CHARGED ON MONEYMARKET BUT DID NOT SPECIFY THAT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO MONEYMARKET MUTUAL FUNDS (6/30/2008-03/31/2009)***ARBITRATION ALLEGATIONS: CLAIMANTS, RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA ALLEGE FA RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS OF EQUITIES IN THEIR ACCOUNTS IN 2008. CLAIMANTS SEEK DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $1000,000.

$1,000,000.00

$200,000.00

VERBAL COMPLAINT SETTLED, SUBSEQUENTIALLY ARBITRATION WAS FILED. WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY LIABILITY, THE FIRM SETTLED THE MATTER FOR $200,000.00 TO AVOID THE EXPENSE AND UNCERTAINTY OF ARBITRATION. TO REITERATE, FA PATRICK MCGRATH WAS NOT NAMED AS A PARTY IN ACTION.

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED FA ADVISED THAT NO FEES WOULD BE CHARGED ON MONEYMARKET BUT DID NOT SPECIFY THAT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO MONEYMARKET MUTUAL FUNDS (6/30/2008-03/31/2009)

$25,113.95

I AM SIGNING THE AMENDMENT WITH GREAT RESERVATION IN THAT I INTEND TO VIGOROUSLY PURSUE AN EFFORT TO EXPUNGE THIS FROM MY RECORD. TO BE CLEAR, IN SIGNING I AM SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WELLS FARGO HAS PLACED THIS ON MY RECORD. AT THE REQUEST OF WELLS FARGO, I PROVIDED DETAILED RESPONSES DATED MAY 12 AND 15, 2009, IN WHICH I CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT MY CLIENT MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. HE SIMPLY INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER FEES HE WAS CHARGED BY THE FIRM WERE IN EXCESS OF THE WRITTEN SCHEDULE FOR WHICH HE SIGNED. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FEES WERE IN EXCESS. THE CREDIT THAT HE RECEIVED WAS A COMMISSION REVERSAL, NOT A SETTLEMENT.

CLIENT ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASE OR $10,000 WOTH OR PAINEWEBBER CALIFORNIA INCOME FUND IN APRIL OF 1994

$16,178.10

IN THE INTEREST OF CLIENT RELATIONS CLIENT WAS OFFERED $16,178.10 ON JUNE 16, 1994 THE TRANSACTION WAS THE PURCHASE OF A STATE SPECIFIC TAX EXEMPT BOND MUTUAL FUND (LEVEL LOAD). RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE AS A YEAR-END STRATEGY, PARTLY TO AVOID INTANGIBLE TAX.