FINRA Arbitrators Expunge Unsuitability Complaints From Florida Financial Planner’s Record

• Case Outcome: Unanimous FINRA arbitration award granting full expungement of two customer disputes from a Florida advisor's CRD and BrokerCheck record.
• The Allegations: Two separate sets of clients alleged "unsuitable" investments following market downturns in 2007 and 2008–2009, despite previously signing documentation and approving the strategies.
• Panel Findings: The three-arbitrator panel in Boca Raton found the claims to be "factually impossible," "clearly erroneous," and "false."
• Credibility Assessment: The Panel explicitly noted that the customers' version of events was "not credible" and that the advisor had performed comprehensive due diligence.
• Evidence: The ruling was based on testimony and exhibits showing the advisor meticulously followed "Know Your Customer" (KYC) protocols and aligned investments with the clients' moderate-risk profiles.

A seasoned financial advisor in Florida with over two decades of exemplary service confronted two unfounded customer disputes alleging unsuitable investments amid market volatility. Backed by HLBS Law’s expert counsel, he sought FINRA arbitration to purge the specious marks from his CRD and BrokerCheck profiles, preserving his reputation for diligent, client-focused advice. 

The advisor joined the industry in July 2001, earning his Certified Financial Planner™ designation and building a practice rooted in thorough client assessments. In 2007, a gym owner in his late 50s with substantial experience, a liquid net worth of $800,000–$900,000, and total assets of $2M–$3M, engaged the advisor for growth-and-income strategies with moderate risk and long-term horizons. After detailed discussions, the client invested $784,000 in diversified closed-end funds, affirming his understanding of the investments in signed documents. 

The investor’s portfolio initially yielded an estimated $51,000 per year, and he never raised a complaint to the advisor. However, the client liquidated the investments amid the 2007 market dips and then claimed unsuitability and $32,000 losses. The firm investigated and denied the allegation, and no litigation ensued. 

Separately, in 2005, a couple in their late 50s with a $150,000 annual income and significant investment expertise inherited an account seeking retirement growth at moderate risk over the long term. The advisor recommended managed portfolios, blending mutual funds and ETFs. He explained all details and risks to the customers, and they approved the investments. 

During the 2008–2009 recession, the customers’ holdings declined, which prompted a 2010 complaint of “aggressive, low-grade” placements. The firm rejected the claim after review, and the clients pursued the claim no further. 

These isolated, unproven disclosures tainted the advisor’s otherwise impeccable record, while offering no genuine investor protection. 

Proceedings began in June 2025, with the respondent taking a neutral stance. Customers were properly notified and chose not to participate. A three-arbitrator Panel held a videoconference hearing in February 2026, in Boca Raton. Reviewing testimony from the advisor and expert witness, and exhibits, like client profiles and agreements, and hearing arguments presented by Tyler Reynolds, Esq., the Panel unanimously granted relief under FINRA Rule 2080.