Thomas Duggan of Melville New York a stockbroker currently employed by Aegis Capital Corp has been identified in a customer initiated investment related arbitration claim where the customer sought $1,079,155.08 in damages founded on accusations of elder abuse relating to the customer’s investments between 2017 and 2019 while Duggan was employed by Aegis Capital Corp. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Arbitration No. 20-00216. According to the claim, transactions were unsuitable for the customer. The customer was allegedly defrauded by investing through Duggan. The claim also alleges breach of contract and negligence.
Duggan has been identified in two additional customer initiated investment related disputes pertaining to allegations of his misconduct while employed by securities broker dealers including Aegis Capital Corp. FINRA Public Disclosure indicates that a customer initiated investment related arbitration claim pertaining to Duggan’s conduct was settled to resolve allegations of unauthorized stock transactions by Duggan.
On January 10, 2019, another customer filed an investment related arbitration claim in reference to Duggan’s conduct where the customer sought $80,000.00 in damages based upon accusations of misrepresentation by Duggan between 2017 and 2019 when the stockbroker was associated with Aegis Capital Corp. FINRA Arbitration No. 19-00045. According to the claim, Duggan’s activities were in breach of contract. The claim also alleges that a fiduciary duty was not complied with which resulted in the customer’s losses.
Duggan has been registered with Aegis Capital Corp since January 29, 2016.
Official Review Site of AEGIS CAPITAL CORPORATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021
Aegis Capital Corp. Broker, Thomas Duggan, Has Had Three Customer Complaint Disclosures Since July 2001
Thomas Duggan (CRD #2757615) is a Financial Advisor at Aegis Capital Corp. in Melville, NY. Thomas Duggan has been in the securities industry since 1996 and previously worked at Maxim Group LLC and Investec Ernst and Company.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Thomas Duggan has been the subject of three (3) customer complaints during his career, alleging sales practice misconduct, including two since 2019. The complaints allege the following:
• January 2020—”Time frame: 6/2017 – 8/2019; Unsuitability, common law fraud, gross negligence, breach of contract, elder abuse.” Alleged damages are $1,079,155.08 and the matter remains pending.
• January 2019—”TIME FRAME: JUNE 2017 – PRESENT. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION.” Alleged damages are $80,000 and the matter remains pending.
• July 2001—”UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASE AND SALE.” The matter settled for $700.
For a copy of Thomas Duggan’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2757615#disclosuresSection
Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.
Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.
Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.
Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s:
• Age
• Other investments
• Financial situation and needs
• Tax status
• Investment objectives
• Time horizon
• Liquidity needs
• Risk tolerance
• Any other information disclosed by the customer
The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at 866.814.4549 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Thomas Duggan has been the subject of three (3) customer complaints during his career, alleging sales practice misconduct, including two since 2019. The complaints allege the following:
• January 2020—”Time frame: 6/2017 – 8/2019; Unsuitability, common law fraud, gross negligence, breach of contract, elder abuse.” Alleged damages are $1,079,155.08 and the matter remains pending.
• January 2019—”TIME FRAME: JUNE 2017 – PRESENT. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION.” Alleged damages are $80,000 and the matter remains pending.
• July 2001—”UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASE AND SALE.” The matter settled for $700.
For a copy of Thomas Duggan’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2757615#disclosuresSection
Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.
Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.
Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.
Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s:
• Age
• Other investments
• Financial situation and needs
• Tax status
• Investment objectives
• Time horizon
• Liquidity needs
• Risk tolerance
• Any other information disclosed by the customer
The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at 866.814.4549 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.
Aegis Capital Advisor Thomas Duggan Has Suitability Customer Complaints
The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating BrokerCheck records reports that financial advisor Thomas Duggan (Duggan), currently employed by Aegis Capital Corp. (Aegis Capital) has been subject to at least three customer complaints during the course of his career. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Duggan’s customer complaints alleges that Duggan recommended unsuitable investments in various investments and makes allegations including common law fraud, gross negligence, breach of contract, and elder abuse among other allegations of misconduct relating to the handling of their accounts.
In January 2020 a customer complained that Duggan violated the securities laws by alleging that Duggan made investments recommendations from June 2017 through August 2019 that were unsuitable and claimed common law fraud, gross negligence, breach of contract, and elder abuse. The claim alleges $1,079,155 in damages and is currently pending.
In January 2019 a customer complained that Duggan violated the securities laws by alleging that Duggan made investments recommendations from June 2017 through 2019 were in breach of his fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. The claim alleges $80,000 in damages and is currently pending.
Brokers are required under the securities laws to treat their clients fairly. This obligation includes the duties to disclose material risks of the investments they recommend and to present products, particularly complex or confusing products, in a fair and balanced manner that allows the client to evaluate the recommendation. Another important obligation advisors have is to make only suitable recommendations for investments to the client. There are many investments that are not appropriate for the majority of investors or for certain investors given their risk tolerance, age, and other factors. Advisors should not present these investment options to clients. There are two screens that advisors must employ to determine whether an investment is suitable for a client. First, there must be a reasonable basis for the recommendation – meaning that the product has been investigated and due diligence conducted into the investment’s features, benefits, risks, and other relevant factors. The advisor must conclude that the investment is suitable for at least some investors and some securities may be suitable for no one. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.
According to newsources, a study revealed that 7.3% of financial advisors had a customer complaint on their record when records from 2005 to 2015 were examined. Brokers must publicly disclose reportable events on their BrokerCheck reports that include customer complaints, IRS tax liens, judgments, investigations, terminations, and criminal cases. In addition, research has show a disturbing pattern with troublesome brokers where brokers with high numbers of customer complaints are not kicked out of the industry but instead these brokers are sifted to lower quality brokerage firms with loose hiring practices and higher rates of customer complaints. These lower quality firms may average brokers with five times as many complaints as the industry average.
Duggan entered the securities industry in 1996. From October 2002 until February 2016 Duggan was registered with Maxim Group LLC. Since January 2016 Duggan has been associated with Aeigs Capital out of the firm’s Melville, New York office location.
Investors who have suffered losses are encouraged to contact us at (800) 810-4262 for consultation. At Gana Weinstein LLP, our attorneys are experienced representing investors who have suffered securities losses due to the mishandling of their accounts. Claims may be brought in securities arbitration before FINRA. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.
In January 2020 a customer complained that Duggan violated the securities laws by alleging that Duggan made investments recommendations from June 2017 through August 2019 that were unsuitable and claimed common law fraud, gross negligence, breach of contract, and elder abuse. The claim alleges $1,079,155 in damages and is currently pending.
In January 2019 a customer complained that Duggan violated the securities laws by alleging that Duggan made investments recommendations from June 2017 through 2019 were in breach of his fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. The claim alleges $80,000 in damages and is currently pending.
Brokers are required under the securities laws to treat their clients fairly. This obligation includes the duties to disclose material risks of the investments they recommend and to present products, particularly complex or confusing products, in a fair and balanced manner that allows the client to evaluate the recommendation. Another important obligation advisors have is to make only suitable recommendations for investments to the client. There are many investments that are not appropriate for the majority of investors or for certain investors given their risk tolerance, age, and other factors. Advisors should not present these investment options to clients. There are two screens that advisors must employ to determine whether an investment is suitable for a client. First, there must be a reasonable basis for the recommendation – meaning that the product has been investigated and due diligence conducted into the investment’s features, benefits, risks, and other relevant factors. The advisor must conclude that the investment is suitable for at least some investors and some securities may be suitable for no one. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.
According to newsources, a study revealed that 7.3% of financial advisors had a customer complaint on their record when records from 2005 to 2015 were examined. Brokers must publicly disclose reportable events on their BrokerCheck reports that include customer complaints, IRS tax liens, judgments, investigations, terminations, and criminal cases. In addition, research has show a disturbing pattern with troublesome brokers where brokers with high numbers of customer complaints are not kicked out of the industry but instead these brokers are sifted to lower quality brokerage firms with loose hiring practices and higher rates of customer complaints. These lower quality firms may average brokers with five times as many complaints as the industry average.
Duggan entered the securities industry in 1996. From October 2002 until February 2016 Duggan was registered with Maxim Group LLC. Since January 2016 Duggan has been associated with Aeigs Capital out of the firm’s Melville, New York office location.
Investors who have suffered losses are encouraged to contact us at (800) 810-4262 for consultation. At Gana Weinstein LLP, our attorneys are experienced representing investors who have suffered securities losses due to the mishandling of their accounts. Claims may be brought in securities arbitration before FINRA. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.
AEGIS CAPITAL CORPORATION Agrees to Pay $950,000
August 2015 – According to a settlement with FINRA, the firm agreed to pay $950,000 over allegations of improper sales of billions of shares of unregistered penny stocks and anti-money- laundering supervisory lapses. Two former chief compliance officers at the firm also were suspended and fined over the charges.
Potential Lawsuits to Recover Financial LossesIf you have concerns regarding investments you purchased through Aegis Capital Corp. and would like to speak with a securities attorney, please call The White Law Group at 888-637-5510.
The White Law Group is a national securities arbitration, securities fraud, and investor protection law firm with offices in Chicago, Illinois.
AEGIS CAPITAL CORPORATION Fined $52,000
March 2017 – The firm was censured and fined $52,000 and ordered to pay $615.87, plus interest, in restitution to investors; and required to revise its WSPs. Apparently the order memoranda failed to document the correct information regarding orders and these tickets improperly indicated that the orders were “held” orders.
The findings also stated that in transactions for or with a customer, the firm reportedly failed to execute a customer order fully and promptly.
News From the Securities and Exchange Commission About AEGIS CAPITAL CORPORATION
March 2018 – According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulator censured Aegis after it found that from at least late 2012 through early 2014, Aegis reportedly failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) on hundreds of transactions when it knew, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions involved the use of the broker-dealer to facilitate fraudulent activity or had no business or apparent lawful purpose. Many of the transactions involved red flags of potential market manipulation, including high trading volume in companies with little or no business activity during a time of simultaneous promotional activity. Aegis reportedly did not file SARs on these transactions even when it specifically identified AML red flags implicated by these transactions in its written supervisory procedures. The firm was fined $750,000 and ordered to cease and desist.
March 2018 – The SEC fined $550,000 for supervisory issues related to penny stock transactions.
James B. Schwartz, Former Financial Advisor with Aegis Capital Corp. Barred for Churning Allegations
April 2019 - James B. Schwartz, Former Financial Advisor with Aegis Capital Corp. Barred for Churning Allegations
FINRA reportedly barred James B. Schwartz CRD # 3043085) after allegations of churning and excessively trading the accounts of customers of his member firm. The complaint alleges that Schwartz’s trading was unsuitable and caused combined losses of more than $660,000 in these customers’ accounts.
FINRA alleges that Schwartz’s trading generated gross sales credits and commissions of approximately $277,705, of which he reportedly received more than $194,000. The complaint also alleges that Schwartz conducted fraudulent and deceptive trading by exercising de facto control over the customers’ accounts and engaging in unauthorized trading.
Schwartz purportedly executed trades with a total principal value of approximately $10 million without his customers’ authorization, including alleged unauthorized trades he executed in a customer’s account after the customer had died.
Other Regulatory Actions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)