FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Taliaferro consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation to determine whether he engaged in any sales practice violations during his associations with various member firms.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

Indefinite

7/15/2022

FINRA

Received notice FINRA inquiry into Mr. Taliaferro's activities as a registered representative.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION & UNSUITABILITY REGARDING R.H. MACY BONDS CUSTOMER CLAIMSED $19,551.00.

$19,551.00

$15,703.40

PAINE WEBBER SETTLED WITH THE CUSTOMER FOR $15,703.41 TO AVOID THE COST OF LITIGATION. PAINE WEBBER DID NOT ASK ME TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT. CUSTOMER [CUSTOMER CONTACTED] IN 1989 BOUGHT $19,551 OF R.H. MACY BONDS. HER PRIMARY INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE WAS CAPITAL GAINS. THE R.H. MACY BONDS AT THAT POINT IN TIME WERE A SUITABLE INVESTMENT FOR THE CUSTOMER. TWO YEARS LATER R.H. MACY FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY R.H. MACY WAS A PAINE WEBBER RESEARCH DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION.

CUSTOMERS ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION CORPORATE BONDS BOUGHT FROM 10/88 TO 12/88. SOUGHT $19,851.40 DAMAGES

$19,851.40

$10,000.00

$10,000 SETTLEMENT BY PAINE WEBBER TO AVOID THE COST OF LITIGATION CUSTOMER LOST $19,851.40 IN R H MACY BONDS BOUGHT 10/88 TO 12/88. WHEN R.H. MACY FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY IN JAN 1991. MACY BONDS WERE BACKED BY PAINEWEBBER RESEARCH DPET. "BUY" RECOMMENDATION WENT BANKRUPTCY 3 YEARS LATER. NO ONE COULD PREDICT THIS. CUSTOMER HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL BEFORE THIS, BUT ELECTED NOT TOO.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; UNSUITABILITY; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY TRUST.

$38,000.00

$17,500.00

$17,500 SETTLEMENT BY PAINEWEBBER TO CUSTOMER TO AVOID THE COST OF LITIGATION. PLEASE REFER TO COPY OF LETTER TO NYSE DATED JAN 06, 1995 ATTENTION [THIRD PARTY] FOR DETAILS OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINT BY [CUSTOMER'S] IN 10, 1994.

PAINEWEBBER, INC.

Discharged

NOT APPLICABLE Not Provided

TERMINATION FROM PAINE WEBBER DURING MY 7 YEAR CAREER AT PAINE WEBBER THERE WERE 5 CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME. TWO OF THESE WERE LETTERS OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT THE FILING OF CLAIMS. PAINE WEBBER'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WROTE LETTERS TO THESE CUSTOMERS EXPLAINING WHY THEIR COMPLAINTS WERE UNJUSTIFIED. THE CUSTOMERS TOOK NO FURTHE R ACTION. THE REMAINING 3 COMPLAINTS WERE ARBITRATION CLAIMS. ONE OF THESE CLAIMS WENT TO ARBIRATION HEARING.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUD FROM HIS INVESTMENTS IN PAINE WEBBER PROPRIETARY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, NON-PROPRIETARY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS AND TREASURY BOND OPTION TRADING.

$57,500.00

THE CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $57,500 - NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS IMPOSED. Not Provided

THERE WERE NO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BROKER TALIAFERRO. THE ALLEGATIONS WERE AGAINST THE "DUE DILIGENCE" OF PRUDENTIAL BACHE IN THE FOLLOWING LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS. PRU-BACHE ENERGY INCOME LP & SUMMIT LP. I WAS NOT NAMED IN THIS CLAIM. MISREPRESENTATION & UNSUITABILITY WAS CHARGED. $280,000 IN DAMAGES WERE CLAIMED.

$139,052.00

THE RESULT OF THE ARBITRATION HEARING WAS AN AWARD TO THE CLAIMANTS OF $139,052.00 THIS WAS A CLAIM AGAINST THE "DUE DILIGENCE" OF THE DIRECT INVESTMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PRUDENTIAL BACHE AND, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD NOT BE ON MY CRD OR ANY OTHER RECORD.

CONNECTICUT

Decision

Monetary/Fine

$750.00

THE LICENSING DEPARTMENT OF PAINE WEBBER FAILED TO TRANSFER MY CONNECTICUT REGISTRATION WHEN I TRANSFERRED MY EMPLOYMENT FROM PRUDENTIAL BACHE TO PAINE WEBBER IN AUGUST 1987. ASSUMING THAT THEY HAD TRANSFERRED MY CONNECTICUT REGISTRATION, I WENT AHEAD AND ENTERED THE TRANSACTION. THIS WAS THE FAULT OF THE PAINE WEBBER LICENSING DEPARTMENT.

EXCESSIVE TRADING, UNSUITABILITY & NEGLIGENCE. CUSTOMER LOST APPROXIMATELY $55,000 IN STOCKS, OPTIONS, AND TREASURY BONDS AND TREASURY BOND OPTIONS ON FUTURES & FUTURES ON TREASURY BONDS.

$55,000.00

$19,500.00

THIS CLAIM WAS SETTLED BEFORE THE ARBITRATION HEARING FOR $19,500. BROKER, ROBIN TALIAFERRO CONTRIBUTED APPROXIMATELY $8,000 TOWARDS THIS SETTLEMENT. TALIAFERRO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF E.F. HUTTON AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT. NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOLLOWED. THE CUSTOMER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CORPORATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF KUHN, LOEB AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT FINANCES & INVESTMENTS, YET, HE ALLEDGED THAT HE WAS UNSOPHISTICATED AND AS A RESULT LED INTO UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS. OVER 70% OF THE $55,000 CLAIM WAS DENIED TO HIM.

CUSTOMER, [CUSTOMER], CLAIMED BROTHER TALIAFERRO PUT HIM INTO UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS THAT RESULTED IN LOSS OF $22,000. PRUDENTIAL BACHE SETTLED THIS CLAIM FOR !6,000. BROKER TALIAFERRO DID NOT, WAS NOT ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SETTLEMENT.

$22,000.00

$16,000.00

$22,000 SETTLEMENT, NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOLLOWED [CUSTOMER'S] CLAIM, IN MY OPINION WAS FRAUDULENT. HE OPENED HIS ACCOUNT WITH APPROXIMATELY $20,000 TO $25,000. INITIALLY WE INVESTED IN CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTS. HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE LOW RETURNS OF THESE INVESTMENTS AND PRODDED THE BROKER TO SUGGEST MORE AGGRESSIVE INVESTMENTS. THE BROKER WARNED THE CUSTOMER THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WOULD INVOLVE HIGHER RISK. THE CLIENT SAID HE WAS PREPARED TO ASSUME THESE RISKS, THAT THE MONEY ON DEPOSIT WAS JUST A SMALL PORTION OF HIS OVERALL WEALTH AND IF LOST WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON HIS LIFESTYLE. AFTER THE $22,000 LOSS, HE CAME BACK & COMPLAINED OF UNSUITABILITY. TALIAFERRO URGED PRUDENTIAL BACHE TO NOT SETTLE THE CLAIM.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY AND EXCESSIVE COMMISSIONS

$92,449.50

$40,000.00

THE ARBITRATION RESULTED IN A $40,000 AWARD TO [CUSTOMER]. NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS IMPOSED. BROKER ROBIN TALIAFERRO WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF E.F. HUTTON AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING CONTRIBUTED $16,000 TOWARDS THIS AWARD. THE TIME PERIOD OF THE INVESTMENTS COMPLAINED OF WAS 1980 TO 1982. THE CUSTOMERS CLAIM WAS FOR $120,000 PLUS. THE ARBITRATION HEARING, THUS RESULTED IN DEYING OF MORE THAN 2/3 OF THE CUSTOMERS CLAIM. [CUSTOMER'S] [OTHER FAMILY MEMBER], WHO HAD RECEIVED AN AWARD AT HIS ARBITRATION HEARING ON 3/86, APPEARED AT THIS HEARING AND TESTIFIED ON HER BEHALF. THE AWARD TO [CUSTOMER], $40,000 WAS THE SAME AMOUNT AWARDED TO HER BROTHER.

UNSUITABILITY, EXCESSIVE COMMISSIONS, THIS HEARING RESULTED IN $40,000 AWARD TO [CUSTOMER]. NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS IMPOSED. THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED DECEMBER 1984. THE ARBITRATION HEARING TOOK PLACE IN MARCH 1986. TALIAFERRO, THE ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE CONTRIBUTED $4,000 TOWARDS THE ABOVE AWARD.

$236,808.07

$40,000.00

$40,000 AWARD TO CUSTOMER. BROKER CONTRIBUTED $4,000. NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS IMPOSED. THE CUSTOMERS CLAIM WAS FOR OVER $120,000. THE ARBITRATION PANEL DENIED 2/3 OF THIS CLAIM. THE TIME PERIOD OF THE INVESTMENTS BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT WERE 1980 TO 1982.