Against Stifel: aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision of employee and breach of fiduciary duty. Against Rodemer: civil theft, breach of fiduciary duty, surcharge, civil fraud.

$110,090.74

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act") against Steven D. Rodemer ("Rodemer" or "Respondent"). The Commission finds that on September 9, 2020, a final judgment was entered by consent against Rodemer, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven D. Rodemer, Civil Action Number 1:20-cv-02687, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Commission's complaint alleged that Rodemer misappropriated a total of $451,889 from 2012 to 2019 while authorized as a power of attorney and serving as an investment adviser to an elderly client, outside of his employment at dually-registered broker-dealers and investment advisers. Rodemer used his position of trust to write checks to himself from the client's brokerage and bank accounts, charge personal expenses on the client's debit/credit card tied to the brokerage account, and withdraw cash from the brokerage account through ATM transactions. Rodemer used the money to make improvements on his second home and invest in an undisclosed brokerage account in his wife's name, among other things.

Order

Bar (Permanent)

association with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO

indefinite

9/11/2020

participation in any offering of a penny stock

indefinite

9/11/2020

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), for its Complaint against Rodemer, alleges that he abused his role as power of attorney to misappropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars from his elderly, widowed advisory client. Rodemer served as the investment adviser to the client and handled all of the client's finances, including advising her on overall investment strategy and placing orders to execute this strategy. He also met with the client to discuss her finances, and had the authority to and did move money between her bank and brokerage accounts. Rodemer took advantage of his position as the client's investment adviser, and the power of attorney authority she granted him, by misappropriating $451,889 of her funds. Rodemer used the funds for a variety of personal expenses, including to cover construction and maintenance costs on his vacation home, to pay insurance premiums, to fund an undisclosed brokerage account in his wife's name, to make credit card payments, and to pay for a number of other miscellaneous, everyday expenses like gas and groceries. Rodemer's deceptive conduct continued even after he became aware that his misconduct was being investigated. While engaged in this misconduct, Rodemer was a registered representative and investment adviser representative at a dually registered investment adviser and broker-dealer ("Registrant"). Registrant identified possible misconduct by Rodemer, and confronted him shortly thereafter. In an effort to avoid the consequences of his actions, Rodemer met with the client and had her sign a statement, which he prepared, noting that he had discussed his wrongdoing with her and identifying certain instances of his misappropriation. The statement, however, was incomplete and misleading, as it only disclosed the few transactions that Registrant had identified, and not the dozens of instances through which Rodemer had continually misappropriated funds from the client since 2012. By engaging in this conduct, Rodemer violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Unless restrained and enjoined, Rodemer will continue to violate the federal securities laws.

Judgment Rendered

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

Injunction

FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Rodemer consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA during its investigation into the conduct disclosed in a Form U5 submitted by his member firm. The findings stated that the firm submitted the Form U5 terminating Rodemer for taking money from a client account for his personal use without authorization.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

All capacities

Indefinite

3/26/2020

STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED

Discharged

FA took money from a client account for his personal use without authorization.

ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDICIARY DUTY, DAMAGES ALLEGED WERE $50,000. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON PAID SETTLEMENT OF $17,000 IN ENTIRETY IN RECOGNITION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED ON & REMOVED FROM COMPLAINT (8) AND INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO RESOLVE OF 5 YEARS. NO SETTLEMENT WAS WARRANTED ACCORDING TO SLH'S LOCAL ATTORNEY BUT HUTTON'S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES DIDN'T ALLOW SUCH ACTION

$50,000.00

$17,000.00

SETTLED FOR $17,000 NUMEROUS ATTORNEY REASSIGNMENTS BY CORPORATE OFFICE, LACK OF PRIORTY ISSUE WITH CORPORATE OFFICE. CLIENT WAS A SOPHISTICATED INDIVIDUAL AS DEMONSTRATED BY CASH WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS FROM VENDING MACHINE COMPANY HE OWNED.