Claimant alleges investments in risky high yield "junk" and Puerto Rico bonds with negligent supervision resulting in alleged damages of at least $170,000

$170,000.00

$25,000.00

Claimant alleges losses due to unsuitable investments in high yield "junk" bonds in the period of 2009-2015.

$615,000.00

$75,000.00

FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Lowi consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that she refused to appear for FINRA on-the-record testimony in connection with its investigation regarding customer complaints and arbitration claims alleging, among other things, unsuitable trading.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

all capacities

indefinite

11/3/2017

Client alleges the representative was involved as an "intermediary or conduit" in alleged unsutable recommendations of energy sector corporate bonds.

$45,000.00

$17,000.00

Clients allege the representative was involved as an "intermediary or conduit" in alleged unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments from 2010 through 2015. As a result of negligent supervision, the Clients had an over concentration in the energy market. They also allege breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud and deceit.

$175,000.00

$85,000.00

Clients claim that they wanted income and principal protection but a majority of their investments were high risk. They request that losses be refunded. Time frame is 2/22/2013 to 8/15/2016.

$65,000.00

$22,254.98

Client alleges the representative was involved as an "intermediary or conduit" in alleged unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments. This is one of numerous cases brought by [Attorney] involving former FA Lisa Lowi.

$50,000.00

$25,000.00

Clients allege the representative was involved as an "intermediary or conduit" in alleged unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments. This is one of numerous cases brought by [Attorney] involving former FA Lisa Lowi.

$225,000.00

$15,000.00

Client alleges the represntative was involved in alleged unsuitable recommendations of energy sectory corporate bonds investment.

$29,500.00

Client alleges the representative was involved as an "intermediary or conduit" in alleged unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments. This is one of numerous cases brought by Attorney [third party] involving former FA Lisa Lowi.

$400,000.00

$60,000.00

Clients allege overconcentration in energy sector corporate bonds, a violation of federal securities laws and breach of contract.

$750,000.00

$39,500.00

Clients allege over concentration in energy sector corporate bonds, a violation of federal securities laws and breach of contract.

$250,000.00

$40,000.00

Clients allege over-concentration in energy sector corporate bonds, in period 2013 to 2015, violation of federal securities laws and breach of contract.

$498,237.06

$85,000.00

Clients allege broker recommended unsuitable 'junk' bonds, in period 5/2013 to 9/2015. This is one of numerous cases brought by Attorney [Third Party] involving former FA Lisa Lowi.

$150,000.00

$10,000.00

Client complains that an energy-related bond was not in line with his investment goals and that that he was not kept informed of developments after he purchased the bonds. Time frame is 12/2014 to 5/2016.

$40,000.00

Clients complain of losses in energy-related bonds and claim that a particular purchase from February 2015 was unauthorized.

$59,617.00

$20,000.00

Claimants allege that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$275,000.00

$27,500.00

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$275,000.00

$47,500.00

Claimants allege that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$950,000.00

$187,500.00

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$75,000.00

$2,500.00

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$600,000.00

$27,500.00

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$350,000.00

$15,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$100,000.00

$22,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$500,000.00

$54,500.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$325,000.00

$62,500.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$375,000.00

$65,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$450,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$300,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$250,000.00

$15,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$175,000.00

$15,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$200,000.00

$20,000.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Claimant alleges that the representative was involved as an intermediary or conduit in unsuitable recommendations of energy sector corporate bond investments.

$375,000.00

$23,750.00

RR Comment: Registered Representative is not a named party to this claim, and is not alleged to have engaged in any wrong doing.

CLIENTS COMPLAIN THAT THEY WANTED ONLY CONSERVATIVE BONDS, BUT THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISOR RECOMMENDED THAT THEY PURCHASE HIGH YIELD BONDS WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY PERFORMED POORLY. TIME FRAME IS 10/2007 TO 8/2015.

$37,000.00

$16,653.75

CLIENT VERBALLY COMPLAINED ABOUT POOR SERVICE AND LOSSES SHE EXPERIENCED ON BONDS SHE PURCHASED ON HER FINANCIAL ADVISOR'S RECOMMENDATION. TIME FRAME 9/12 TO 11/15.

$45,000.00

$27,500.00

FA Comment: I adamantly deny the customer complaint as the recommendation of the investment was suitable. I was not involved in the decision to settle the complaint and I did not financially contribute to the settlement.

THIRD PARTY WROTE TO EXPRESS CONCERN REGARDING LOSSES CLIENT INCURRED ON BONDS WHICH HE BELIEVES WERE NOT SUITABLE FOR A CONSERVATIVE INVESTOR. TIME FRAME IS 11/14 TO 11/15.

$65,233.50

FA Comment: I adamantly deny the customer complaint as the recommendation of the investment was suitable. I was not involved in the decision to settle the complaint and I did not financially contribute to the settlement.

CLIENT COMPLAINS THAT SHE RECEIVED POOR SERVICE AND THAT BONDS SHE PURCHASED WERE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SOMEONE WITH HER RISK PROFILE. TIME FRAME IS 6/14 TO 10/15.

FA Comment: I adamantly deny the customer complaint as the recommendation of the investment was suitable and the allegation of "poor service" is not directed to me and if it is, it is baseless.

CLIENT COMPLAINS ABOUT A LOSS IN A CORPORATE BOND AND COMPLAINS THAT HER FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT ADVISE HER TO SELL THE BOND. TIME FRAME IS 06/13/13 TO 09/29/15.

$45,003.00

$15,000.00

FA Comment: I adamantly deny the customer complaint as the recommendation of the investment was suitable. I was not involved in the decision to settle the complaint and I did not financially contribute to the settlement.

CLIENT CONTENDS THAT THE BOND INVESTMENTS IN HIS ACCOUNT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH HIS INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE AND RISK TOLERANCE.

$10,000.00

FA Comment: I adamantly deny the customer complaint as the recommendation of the investment was suitable. I was not involved in the decision to settle the complaint and I did not financially contribute to the settlement.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE BACKING BEHIND A MUNICIPAL BOND SHE PURCHASED AS A NEW ISSUE IN APRIL 2008. NO SPECIFIC DAMAGES WERE CLAIMED BUT THE FIRM IS UNABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT DAMAGES WOULD NOT EXCEED $5,000 IF THE ALLEAGATIONS WERE TRUE.

THREE YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH IN 2001, CUSTOMER'S WIDOW ALLEGED THAT I IMPROPERLY SOLICITED HIM IN JANUARY 1997 TO EXCHANGE A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY FOR A VARIABLE ANNUITY. NO SPECIFIC DAMAGES ARE ALLEGED BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEATH BENEFIT ON THE SURRENDERED INSURANCE AND THE VALUE OF THE VARIABLE ANNUITY AT THE TIME OF HER HUSBAND'S DEATH EXCEEDS $5,000.