Super Lawyers
AVVO
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Martindale-Hubbell
BBB Accredited Business

Richard PittmanRichard Pittman (CRD#: 2845145), a registered representative with Cetera Advisors LLC in Memphis, Tennessee, is currently involved in a pending customer dispute in which a client alleges that Richard Pittman recommended unsuitable investments in 2008, according to his BrokerCheck record accessed on October 23, 2019. The investments in question involve oil and gas, as well as limited partnerships (in which an investor’s liability is limited to the amount they invested in a given business venture). The client, who filed the complaint on September 24, 2019, is seeking $150,000 in damages; the matter is pending.

This is not the only instance in which a client has alleged that Richard Pittman recommended unsuitable investments in 2008. The other three disclosures on Richard Pittman’s BrokerCheck involve the same allegations. On October 19, 2016, another client sued Richard Pittman for $200,000. The matter was ultimately settled for $75,000. On August 9, 2018, a client filed a complaint against Richard Pittman, requesting $736,000 in damages. The dispute was settled for $95,000. Just three months later, on October 31, 2018, a client sought $200,000 in damages, and the matter was settled for $75,000. All the investments involved oil and gas, as well as real estate. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are illiquid and are not suitable for investors who want to be able to easily convert their assets to cash should the need arise.

What does Richard Pittman have to say in response to these allegations? According to his Broker Comment, he “asserts that the investments were suitable at the point of sale, when suitability is determined. Later performance does not and cannot affect the initial suitability determination. Matter settled by the prior BD as a business decision.” Registered representatives have a responsibility to recommend suitable investments to their clients, considering their risk tolerance, long-term goals, and need for liquidity, along with other factors. If the recommended investments later performed such that a client lost a significant amount of money, it is possible that the registered representative placed the client in investments that were too risky given their unique goals and needs.

Kevin Fretz
Kevin Fretz (CRD#: 4128808), a former registered representative with LPL Financial LLC (CRD#: 6413), was terminated from his job on September 12, 2019. According to his BrokerCheck report accessed on October 28, 2019, “Representative maintained blank customer signed forms, failed to report customer complaints and failed to follow customer instructions to deposit funds to investments.” This is not the only disclosure on Kevin Fretz’s BrokerCheck report. On August 27, 2019, a customer alleged that Kevin Fretz engaged in forgery and misrepresented investment recommendations.

Why would a broker keep forms pre-signed by customers? While brokers might ask clients to pre-sign sign forms as a “matter of convenience,” clients should never agree to this because unscrupulous brokers can take advantage of the situation. Blank forms pre-signed by clients can end up as “blank checks” for brokers to facilitate whatever transactions they want, regardless of your best interests. If you later dispute a transaction, your stamp of approval will be on the form, making an unwanted transaction that much harder to contest.

Over his 19-year career in the securities industry, he has worked for six firms, three of which have had their registration status terminated by the SEC:

Yvonne SilgueroYvonne Silguero (CRD#: 3211495), a registered representative with LPL Financial LLC in McAllen, Texas and Brownsville, Texas, is currently involved in a $500,000 dispute over misrepresentation, according to her BrokerCheck report accessed on October 2, 2019. A client, who filed a complaint on August 9, 2019, alleges that Yvonne Silguero engaged in “negligence, gross negligence, misrepresentation, omission of material facts, breach of fiduciary duty through failure to supervise, and breach of contract” from July 2014 to October 2018.

Yvonne Silguero is also currently involved in a second customer dispute. Filing a complaint on April 12, 2017, a customer alleged that he was sold “unsuitable products for which he was not eligible.”

Yvonne Silguero has enjoyed a 20-year career in the securities industry. Before joining LPL Financial LLC (CRD#: 6413) in 2008, Yvonne Silguero worked for Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (CRD#: 6694) in Pharr, Texas.

David Miller (CRD#: 4648882), a registered representative with PeachCap Securities, is currently involved in a $1.2 million dispute after a client, who filed the dispute on August 8, 2019, complained about investment performance, according to his BrokerCheck report accessed on October 2, 2019. The investments in question are Direct Participation Programs (DPPs) and limited partnerships (LPs). DPPs are non-traded pooled investments in real estate or energy. DPPs allow investors to access a venture’s cash flow and tax benefits. This allows average investors to access investments normally reserved for wealthy investors. Most DPPs, however, are Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs); REITs are illiquid and thus are not suitable for all investors.  A limited partnership is established when two or more individuals partner to conduct a business venture. Limited partners are partial owners of a company; they can only be held liable up to the amount that they invested.

David Miller

Atlanta, Georgia skyline

This $1.2 million dispute over Direct Participation Programs and limited partnerships is not the only disclosure on David Miller’s BrokerCheck record.  On June 18, 2019, a customer complained about the performance of his DPPs and LPs, requesting $150,000 in damages. The matter was settled for $50,000. On April 5, 2019, a client filed a complaint regarding the performance of their DPPs. They requested $315,000 in damages; the matter was settled for the same sum. On December 17, 2018, a customer filed a complaint regarding the performance of DPPs and LP interests. The dispute was settled for $100,000.

Maria Hendershott (CRD#: 818681), a registered representative with Raymond James & Associates in Houston, Texas, is currently engaged in a customer dispute in which a client alleges “unsuitable investments, misrepresentations and omissions, [and] overconcentration,” among other allegations, according to her BrokerCheck report accessed on October 3, 2019. The client, who filed the complaint on August 5, 2019, is seeking $175,000 in damages. This is not the only disclosure on Maria Hendershott’s BrokerCheck record. This is an update to our previous article on Maria Hendershott.

Maria Hendershott
To review, one of Maria Hendershott’s clients filed a complaint on November 27, 2018, alleging that she engaged in “breach of contract and warranties, promissory estoppel, [and violated] provisions of the Texas state securities statues,” among other allegations. The client originally requested $500,000 in damages, but the matter was settled for $55,000.

On October 3, 2017, a client alleged “gross mismanagement of accounts, investor abuse, churning, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, [and] violation of industry rules.” The client requested $100,000 in damages, but the matter was settled for $75,000.

Rob Burns (CRD#: 4066393), a registered representative with Cetera Advisor Networks in Greenwood Village, Colorado, is currently involved in a pending customer dispute in which a client alleges that Rob Burns overconcentrated their portfolio and recommended unsuitable investments in alternative products, according to Rob Burns’ BrokerCheck record accessed on October 2, 2019. They also alleged that Rob Burns’ firm failed to do proper due diligence regarding the alternative investments. The client, who filed the customer dispute on August 9, 2019, is seeking $500,000 in damages.

Rob BurnsAlso known as private placements, alternative investments are only suitable for a small percentage of investors. “Accredited investors” have a high degree of financial literacy and at least an annual income of $200,000 or more. A problem has arisen, however, because these income and net worth guidelines have not changed since 1983. Thus, many individuals and families qualify as accredited investors based on their income but may find themselves in over their heads when it comes to these investments.

On August 3, 2018, a client alleged that Rob Burns recommended unsuitable investments, acted negligently, and breached his fiduciary duty.

iStock_sad-ppl-1-300x229Many people are surprised to learn that their investment losses are not covered by SIPC insurance. SIPC insurance may cover you in specific cases, but it’s important to know exactly what the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) does and does not do.

From 1968 to 1970, confidence in the securities market plummeted as many broker-dealers went out of business. To restore faith in the market, in 1970 Congress passed the Securities Investor Protection Act. Against this backdrop, SIPC was formed—as a non-profit membership organization with no regulatory authority.

Spearheaded by its new CEO, Josephine Wang, and funded by the financial services industry itself, SIPC does not rely on taxpayer funds and is not a government agency.

KushCo Holdings

Publicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in KushCo Holdings (OTC:KSHB) in connection to alleged securities law violations by KSHB. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in KushCo Holdings between July 13, 2017 and April 9, 2019.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, KSHB provided false and/or misleading material information and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, chiefly: that during its acquisitions of three companies—CMP Wellness LLC, Summit Innovations, LLC, and The Hybrid Creative—the company made accounting mistakes; that financial statements released earlier by the company, for fiscal years ending on August 31, 2018 and August 31, 2018, were not reliable; that the company’s net loss for that latter year, ending August 31, 2018, more than doubled what the company had reported in its previous statement; that representations made by the company and its managing officers that those previously released statements were accurate could no longer be relied upon either; and that consequently the company’s statements to the public during the relevant period were false and misleading. The complaint alleges that when true facts emerged, investors suffered losses.

According to the company’s website, KushCo Holdings is the parent company of brands involved in “specialized solutions for the cannabis market.” These brands include Kush Supply Company, a platform for the distribution of packaging, supplies, and accessories for the cannabis and CBD industry; Kush Energy, a provider of hydrocarbon gases and solvents; Hybrid Creative, a design agency “for clients across several industries”; and Koleto Innovations, which performs research and development “driving intellectual property development and acquisitions.” The company was founded in 2010 and describes itself as having sold more than one billion units, with customers comprising “more than 5,000 legally operated medical and adult-use dispensaries, growers, and producers” in three continents: North America, South America, and Europe. The company states that it has facilities in the US’s five largest cannabis markets and sales operations in every major US cannabis market; it also clarifies that “it has no direct involvement with the cannabis plant” and that none of its products contain THC or CBD. The company trades over-the-counter under the symbol KSHB.

Indivior PLCPublicly available records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Indivior PLC (OTC:INVVY) in connection to alleged securities law violations by INVVY. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Indivior PLC between March 10, 2015 and April 9, 2019.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, INVVY provided false and/or misleading material information and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, namely: that the company as well as its executive officers participated in a scheme designed to increase prescriptions of Suboxone Film; that in connection with this scheme, the company unlawfully gained billions in revenue as a result of the increase in Suboxone prescriptions obtained through deception of healthcare professionals and programs; that this conduct would lead to felony charges for the company; and that consequently the company’s statements to the public during the relevant period were false and misleading. The complaint alleges that when true facts emerged, investors suffered losses.

According to the company’s website, Indivior PLC is a medical company that describes itself as a “world leader in addiction treatment with over 20 years of experience and a patient-focused approach.” The company describes its goals as the advancement of scientific and social understanding of addiction, and the activation of global partnerships to make resources more accessible for patients. Its product pipeline includes “buprenorphine 1-month depot in Atrigel,” “Oral orexin-1 receptor antagonist,” “GABA-B Positive Allosteric Modulator,” “Arbaclofen Placarbil,” and “RBP-7000.” The company trades over-the-counter under the symbol INVVY.

Sprint Public records indicate that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Sprint (NYSE:S) in connection to alleged securities law violations.  Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding investments made in Sprint between January 31, 2019 and April 16, 2019.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that during the period in question, Sprint provided false and/or misleading material information and/or failed to disclose adverse material information to the public, namely: that the company made misrepresentations in its Form 10-Q filed for the period concluding on December 31, 2018, regarding the number of net postpaid subscribers it gained; that in a later letter sent to the Federal Communications Commission, the company admitted that its disclosure in the Form 10-Q were “incomplete”; and that in the same letter. the company disclosed that the net subscriber additions it reported also included subscribers who had been given “free lines.” The complaint alleges that when true facts emerged, investors suffered losses.

According to the company’s website, Sprint is a mobile technology company that offers “smartphones and tablets from top industry-leading manufacturers including Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC and more.” It serves consumers as well as enterprise clients, medium sized companies, and small businesses, offering wireless, wireline, and Internet of Things products and services. The company’s brands include Sprint, Boost Mobile, and Virgin Mobile. It has roughly 30,000 employees, 54.5 million customers as of March 31, 2019, and posted FY2018 revenue of $33.6 billion. Founded in 1988 in Abilene, Kansas, the company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol S.