The disciplinary proceeding focuses on Spartan Capital’s “churning” and “excessive trading” of customer accounts.  Generally, “churning” refers to the frequent buying and selling of securities in a customer account for the primary purpose of generating commissions.

FINRA’s Complaint Against Spartan Capital

According to FINRA, Spartan Capital “facilitated this churning and excessive trading, failing to take any meaningful steps to supervise the 39 registered representatives who carried out this misconduct on the firm’s behalf.”  Amongst other things, FINRA’s Complaint alleges:

• “Spartan allowed the Spartan Representatives to churn and excessively trade customer accounts despite glaring red flags that those representatives were committing misconduct and harming customers.”
• “Spartan routinely hired registered representatives with a history of customer complaints and regulatory inquiries into potential excessive and unsuitable trading of customer accounts.”
• “Spartan’s Business Depended on Excessively Trading Customer Accounts”

The Complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and FINRA Rules.

You May Be Entitled To Compensation If “Churning” Occurred In Your Spartan Capital Investment Accounts

FINRA and SEC rules and regulations require brokers to act in their clients’ best interest and have a reasonable basis that a recommended investment will be beneficial for the customer based on their investment objectives, liquidity needs, tax status, and risk tolerance, amongst other factors.

Silver Law Group is a leading investor rights firm representing main street investors in securities and investment fraud disputes nationwide. Our attorneys routinely handle class actions and other cases involving Ponzi schemes, investment frauds, and financial advisor misconduct.

If you have any questions about your Spartan Capital accounts, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. All case evaluations are free. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 to discuss how we can help.

The post Did You Lose Money Investing With Spartan Capital Securities? appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

Tunink is the subject of 26 disclosures, primarily customer disputes. LPL Financial discharged Turnink on 9/8/2025 because he “Failed to disclose and receive prior approval for loans from customers; and settled a customer complaint away from the Firm.” It is unknown which customer complaint he settled on his own.

FINRA issued a suspension, effective 4/6/2026, after Tunink failed to provide requested information to the agency for its investigation. Tunink is suspended in all capacities from association with any FINRA member. The suspension is effective until he provides FINRA with the requested information. Should Tunink fail to act, or request that his suspension be lifted within three months, the suspension is permanent as of 6/16/2026.

From 8/1/2025 through 3/12/26, customers filed 24 disputes against Tunink with similar allegations: that he borrowed money from them for an investment opportunity that was away from LPL Financial. Of the 24, four of them are pending, two were denied, and the remaining 18 were settled for a total of $2,167,718.90. The four pending claims have collective requested damages of $1,517,714.

Selling Away

Brokers have a carefully curated list of investment options to offer their clients. These are generally screened, vetted, and backed by the firm before the brokers are allowed to offer them as an investment option.

Sometimes brokers offer investment options without the benefit of their firm’s due diligence, called “selling away.” The broker may believe that they’ve done enough of their own due diligence to be able to offer something to their customers. But if an investment isn’t backed by the firm, there is the possibility that if the investment doesn’t pan out the investors will lose their funds because the firm didn’t sanction anything.

Brokers who sell away from their firm may do so for many reasons. In some cases, a client would like to invest in something that the firm doesn’t offer. The broker can request written permission to act on the client’s behalf to purchase something for them. But without the firm’s backing, buying something that the firm doesn’t sell or sanction can be bad for the investor.

Financial Advisors Should Not Borrow, Steal Or Take Money From Clients 

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post William Tunink Barred After Borrowing Over $3M From Clients For Independent Investment appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

J.P. Morgan discharged Ahmed in May of 2025 after a customer dispute with requested damages of $225 million. In this CRD dispute, the client alleges that Ahmed engaged in misrepresentation, excessive trading, and offered unsuitable investment recommendations from April 27, 2020, through October 25, 2023. This claim is currently pending.

The next customer dispute, filed on February 26, 2024, includes losses related to Ahmed’s investment recommendations from May 26, 2022, through September 29, 2023, and requests damages of $38 million. This claim is also pending. It’s not known if this claim is related to the most recent one.

Legal Fees And Indemnification In The Securities Industry

A recent news article on AdvisorHub details Ahmed’s activities related to the most recent disclosures, indicating that the two cases may be related. Following his departure from J. P. Morgan, Ahmed was also sued by a billionaire client for $225 million. The client claimed that Ahmed’s unsuitable recommendations were severely underperforming and generated $40 million in excessive fees, and alleged breach of fiduciary duty, securities fraud, and negligent supervision.

In a petition filed last October, Ahmed has asked J.P. Morgan to advance funds to cover his considerable legal bills, including attorney’s fees defending himself against this claim. The petition is heavily redacted, including the specifics of the case involved, which is believed to be this one.

Ahmed invokes his right to indemnification, or to have J. P. Morgan pay his legal expenses and reimburse him for funds he has already spent in the case. He claims that J. P. Morgan “expressly agreed” to this reimbursement arrangement as part of his employment, and reiterated it in separate employment agreements in both 2024 and 2025. These agreements for repayment were only in the event that Ahmed was not eligible for indemnification.

J.P. Morgan responded on May 16 that it was terminating its “voluntary advancement” agreements, demanding repayment to the firm of all expenses that it had paid previously. Ahmed’s petition has blacked out that part of the letter, which may contain the bank’s reasoning, the reason for his termination, the case specifics, as well as the dollar amounts already advanced.

Previous Customer Disputes Or Securities Arbitration Claims

On 2/22/2012, a customer filed a dispute involving “interest rate swaps” from July 2008 through February 2012. This claim was settled for $458,684.00.

Another customer dispute filed on 12/1/2008 also included allegations of unsuitable recommendations and “failure to follow instructions.” The customer requested damages of $336,000.00, and the claim was settled for $85,000.

The first customer dispute, filed on 9/18/2000, alleges that Ahmed sold three stocks in February of 2000 without authorization. The client requested $57,000 in damages. This claim was denied and defended by Merrill Lynch.

Did You Invest With Arif Ahmed? 

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post Broker Arif Ahmed Facing Customer Dispute of $225M appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

Smith is the subject of two disclosures. The most recent, filed on 12/2/2025, is a customer dispute alleging that Smith invested all his clients’ retirement assets in “illiquid structured notes.” They request damages of $2M. No additional information is available, and this claim is pending.

In a previous client dispute dated 10/16/2013, the client alleged that due to an incorrect address and failures to update, the client’s policy lapsed, and they missed a death benefit. They requested damages of $330,000.00 and were denied by the firm and refuted by Smith.

Structured Notes Involve Risks

Structured note investments are intended for seasoned investors who want to diversify while understanding and accepting the inherent risk. They are not intended for investors who are seeking a safe, steady income in their retirement with a conservative and low-risk investment strategy.

Structured notes are a “compounded” investment issued by banks and based on derivatives. It consists of a bond, or a loan you give to the issuer, and the derivative that determines its outcome. This note is then connected to a derivative, like an index or individual stock. The intent is for an investor to benefit from a potential upside while having some protection from its potential downside. However, they can also be expensive, as there are considerable fees involved that can eat into any returns.

Unlike investing in individual stocks or other investments, structured notes also lack liquidity. That is, should you decide that you want to un-invest, you generally can’t sell it because there isn’t a secondary market. Your only choice will likely be to resell it to the issuer for a greatly reduced rate. In that case, you will likely not recover much of your investment, if any.

Another scenario is if the issuer’s creditworthiness is in question, including a credit risk. If it experiences problems or folds, not only will you lose your investment, but you may also have to pay taxes.

There’s additional call risk should the issuer decide to redeem the note early. The investor will receive much less than the investment is worth, as the issuer will only offer as much as it wants. Additionally, the investor will be responsible for any federal taxes on this note, whether or not it matures or you receive any cash.

Smith’s investment of all the clients’ funds into structured notes was not in the best interest of the client. As with any investment your broker recommends, research, ask questions and get answers before investing any money into something new. Don’t be afraid to question your broker or seek another option before any investment.

Did You Invest With Dustin Smith? 

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post Broker Dustin Smith Subject Of Two Customer Disputes appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

“At the end of the day, Axos served as the clearing firm for a notorious Wall Street boiler room,” Scott said. “Axos had full transparency into Worden’s business.”

As the clearinghouse for all of Worden’s transactions, Axos knew what Worden was doing but did nothing to stop any activity they knew (or should have known) was illegal.

FINRA’s award stated that Worden Capital and its brokers were engaged “in egregiously unsuitable and excessive trading and churning, garnering over $16 million in commissions and fees while costing nearly all of [clients] out-of-pocket losses of over $12 million.”

In response, Axos filed a motion in a Manhattan federal court seeking to vacate the award, claiming it contained “fatal errors.”  However, as the article stated, the likelihood of a federal judge overturning FINRA’s award is very low.

Worden Capital closed in 2021, and FINRA expelled the firm in 2022. FINRA also barred CEO Jamie Worden from the securities industry. Three of his other previous employers have also been expelled. The investors filed their arbitration against Axos instead, since they could not collect from Worden Capital.

The  Brokerage Firm – Clearinghouse Relationship

As a clearinghouse, Axos is an intermediary between a broker-dealer and their retail customer, ensuring that both parties honor their obligations. It also ensures that trades are handled accurately and efficiently. These clearinghouses also contain some market disruptions and absorb some of the risks involved, including the default of either the broker-dealer or the customer.

The clearinghouse plays a vital role in the integrity of financial transactions. For the customer, a clearinghouse is the “middleman” between them and their broker-dealer.

While the broker-dealer handles the transactional trades and is a “face” to their clients, the clearinghouse handles the trade validation and other “back-office” functions and ensures that the trade is cleared. Clearinghouses also impose margin requirements to ensure enough capital to cover potential losses in a trader’s account.

When Can a Clearing Firm be Held Responsible for the Acts of an Introducing Firm

Clearing firms are essential to small brokerage firms to operate and provide significant support to their operations. Clearing firms have amazing transparency into brokerage firms operations and frequently help brokerage firms grow by providing financial and back office support.  While they may not be customer facing, clearing firms may be found to have aided or assisted misconduct by an introducing brokerage firm when it has knowledge of actual misconduct.

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses from stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post Scott Silver Speaks Out On Axos Clearing Arbitration Award appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

FINRA makes this information available, in part, to inform investors about potential red flags or problems with certain stockbrokers. If you invested anyone in this report and have questions about your legal rights, our attorneys will talk with you at no cost to explain your legal rights and about how we can help recover your investment losses through securities arbitration or litigation.

FINRA Rule 8210 allows FINRA’s enforcement attorneys the authority to investigate matters under its regulatory purview. FINRA Rule 8210 requires a stockbroker or other registered person of the request to provide documents or information “with respect to any matter in [an] investigation, complaint, examination or proceeding.”

The subject matter of a FINRA investigation or inquiry can include almost anything relating to the brokerage industry or the financial advisor’s activities. FINRA regulatory rules allow for broad authority to investigate violations of FINRA’s rules and regulations including, Rule 2010 (a FINRA member “shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade”). Under Rule 2010 FINRA can seek any documents or other information that FINRA believes is relevant to its inquiry. In 2013, FINRA announced in a regulatory notice that the scope of Rule 8210 had been clarified, stating that “all aspects of the relationship between a broker-dealer and its associated persons are potentially the subject of a Rule 8210 request.”

Securities Arbitration Claims Against Barred Brokers

Even after a broker is barred from the industry or otherwise faces disciplinary action, investors can still pursue stockbroker misconduct claims against their financial advisor and/or their brokerage firms. Financial Advisors who have engaged in misconduct or otherwise violated FINRA rules or regulations frequently surrender their license rather than cooperate in a FINRA investigation. In the past, FINRA barred brokers from the industry for participating in Ponzi schemes, elder financial fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other misconduct. While a bar from the securities industry can be a powerful piece of evidence for investors pursuing FINRA arbitration claims against their advisors and/or their brokerage firms, investors should work with experienced securities and investment fraud attorneys to help maximize their recovery.

FINRA arbitration is separate and distinct from FINRA’s regulatory obligations. In our experience, FINRA regulatory focuses on punishing the wrongdoers but rarely results in compensation for the victims. For investors who have been defrauded by a financial advisor or others, FINRA arbitration is frequently the best place to secure a recovery for losses.

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases through FINRA arbitration or court. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide in securities arbitration to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you do not pay legal fees unless we are successful.

The post FINRA Bars Stockbrokers For Failing To Provide FINRA With Information June 2026 appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

For example, FINRA Rule 3240 governs borrowing and lending arrangements between registered investment advisors (RIAs) and customers of their member firm. For the most part, this type of borrowing and lending is disfavored. Indeed, it is strictly prohibited unless certain conditions are met. FINRA routinely bars members who improperly take loans or otherwise take money from customers.

However, in most cases, investors hire investment fraud attorneys to pursue their losses against the advisor and/or the brokerage firm through FINRA arbitration to recover those losses. In many cases, brokerage firms may be held liable for failing to supervise the financial advisor or other negligence. Silver Law Group has represented investors in FINRA arbitration to recover money from brokers who improperly borrow money from customers, invest customers in personal investments or projects and for breach of fiduciary duty when stockbrokers improperly serve as trustees or beneficiaries of a will or trust.

Securities Arbitration Claims Against Barred Brokers

Even after a broker is barred from the industry or otherwise faces disciplinary action, investors can still pursue stockbroker misconduct claims against their financial advisor and/or their brokerage firms. Financial Advisors who have engaged in misconduct or otherwise violated FINRA rules or regulations frequently surrender their license rather than cooperate in a FINRA investigation. In the past, FINRA barred brokers from the industry for participating in Ponzi schemes, elder financial fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other misconduct. While a bar from the securities industry can be a powerful piece of evidence for investors pursuing FINRA arbitration claims against their advisors and/or their brokerage firms, investors should work with experienced securities and investment fraud attorneys to help maximize their recovery.

FINRA arbitration is separate and distinct from FINRA’s regulatory obligations. In our experience, FINRA regulatory focuses on punishing the wrongdoers but rarely results in compensation for the victims. For investors who have been defrauded by a financial advisor or others, FINRA arbitration is frequently the best place to secure a recovery for losses.

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases through FINRA arbitration or court. Our securities arbitration attorneys have represented investors in claims for theft, churning, improper outside business activities or selling away and other disputes against brokers and brokerage firms. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide in securities arbitration to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call us on 800-975-4345 to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you do not pay legal fees unless we are successful.

The post FINRA Suspends Registered Individuals For Violations Of FINRA Rules Failure To Provide Information June 2026 appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

Brokers and brokerage firms are obligated to satisfy all FINRA arbitration judgements, without any unreasonable or unwarranted delay. FINRA Rule 9554 allows FINRA to ensure that brokers and brokerage firms comply with the terms of securities arbitration awards.

What Is FINRA Rule 9554?

Under FINRA’s securities industry regulations, arbitration awards must be paid within 30 days of the date that the award was granted. If a broker or brokerage firm fails to comply with this requirement, then industry regulators can use FINRA Rule 9554 to take immediate enforcement action against them.

FINRA Rule 9554 allows for expedited suspension or cancellation of membership of any party that fails to comply with a FINRA arbitration award. Specifically, regulators are empowered to send the violating party a 21-day written notice that their securities industry membership will be revoked if they do not rectify the problem.

What Defenses Do Brokers Have Against A FINRA Rule 9554 Action?

Brokerage firms and stockbrokers primarily have four defenses to avoid expedited suspension under FINRA Rule 9554:

• They can prove that the arbitration award has already been paid in full.
• They can prove that they have reached a voluntary settlement on payment terms with the complaining customer.
• They can prove that they have taken further legal action, filing a claim to vacate or modify the award and that their motion to do so is still pending in the court; or
• They can prove that they have filed for bankruptcy or that this debt has already been discharged in bankruptcy.
• However, a financial advisor or brokerage firm cannot argue that they currently lack the “bona fide ability to pay.”

Rule 9554 is an important investor tool that helps maintain confidence in the securities arbitration process that claims will be satisfied. Unfortunately, many brokerage firms lack adequate insurance or are otherwise poorly capitalized and FINRA arbitration frequently exposes firms and individual financial advisors who fail to satisfy their financial obligations.

Securities Arbitration Claims Against Barred Brokers

Even after a broker is barred from the industry or otherwise faces disciplinary action, investors can still pursue stockbroker misconduct claims against their financial advisor and/or their brokerage firms. Financial Advisors who have engaged in misconduct or otherwise violated FINRA rules or regulations frequently surrender their license rather than cooperate in a FINRA investigation. In the past, FINRA barred brokers from the industry for participating in Ponzi schemes, elder financial fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other misconduct. While a bar from the securities industry can be a powerful piece of evidence for investors pursuing FINRA arbitration claims against their advisors and/or their brokerage firms, investors should work with experienced securities and investment fraud attorneys to help maximize their recovery.

FINRA arbitration is separate and distinct from FINRA’s regulatory obligations. In our experience, FINRA regulatory focuses on punishing the wrongdoers but rarely results in compensation for the victims. For investors who have been defrauded by a financial advisor or others, FINRA arbitration is frequently the best place to secure a recovery for losses.

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases through FINRA arbitration or court. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide in securities arbitration to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you do not pay legal fees unless we are successful.

Our lawyers have extensive experience collecting FINRA arbitration awards, prevailing on Motions to Vacate FINRA arbitration awards and using various collection efforts to enforce FINRA awards after they are received.

The post FINRA Suspends Stockbrokers For Failing To Comply With FINRA Arbitration Award Or Settlement Agreement June 2026 appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

Aether Holdings, Inc. alleges that it runs a financial technology (“fintech”) platform in the United States. The company claims to develop cloud-based software solutions, AI-driven analytics, and curated market intelligence platforms designed for both retail and institutional equity traders. However, the reality of what Aether has and does differs from what their website says.

In April 2025, Aether completed its initial public offering. The company sold 1,800,000 shares of common stock at $4.30 per share. This raised $7.74 million in gross revenue. Once the underwriters completed exercising their over-allotment option, the gross revenue went to $8.901 million. The Benchmark Company, LLC and Axiom Capital Management, Inc. acted as joint book-running managers for the offering.  Then on April 10, 2025, Aether’s shares began trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “ATHR.”

The Report That Uncovers Aether’s Fraud

BMF Reports is a company that uses forensic financial analysis to examine companies for anomalies and uncover untruths and frauds. Their direct and brusque manner discusses everything in a straightforward fashion.

In July 2025, BMF reports called “Paper Empire: Nasdaq ($ATHR) The Fraudulent Foundations of Aether Holdings.” In it, BMF described Aether as “the kind of fraud that wears a suit and rings the Nasdaq bell.” The report alleged that Aether was built on “fake filings, insider enrichment, and outright deception.”  The company is run through a New York virtual co-working office space of 235 square feet. The company has minimal equipment and property totaling less than $3,000. Not the high-powered equipment needed to run a fintech company.

BMF’s report also alleges lock-up violations and undisclosed insider dealings through 28 Ventures, as well as auditor red flags. Frank Cid is a barred-by-FINRA former broker involved with both Aether and 28 Ventures and working despite being barred. Many of Cid’s previous employers have also been expelled by FINRA. The report also said that Frank Cid sold shares during the IPO lock-up period through an undisclosed shell. He has a long history of broker misconduct.

BMF Reports concluded that, “This isn’t a business—it’s a blueprint for a pump-and-dump.”

BMF Reports also raised questions about its wholly owned subsidiary, Alpha Edge Media, Inc., and its recent purchase of AltcoinInvesting.co. In its announcement, Aether described the website as a specialized digital asset research and publication, and a Web3 media brand. In its report, BMF alleged that the acquired site had minimal traffic, no active newsletter, podcast, or content cadence, and no visible monetization or customer funnel. BMF describes this purchase as “a fake acquisition to justify a fake company.”

Recent Stock Underperformance

In March of 2026, Zachs Equity Research reported that Aether experienced a quarterly loss of $0.08 per share, along with an “earnings surprise” of +20.00%. The company also posted revenues of $0.34 million for the quarter ending March 2026.

Aether Holdings, Inc. shares have lost about 40.6% since the beginning of the year versus the S&P 500’s gain of 9.6%. The stock continues to underperform and is expected to continue that trend in the coming months.

Coupled with the info from BMF Reports, This leads investors to wonder if dividends will be longer than expected or if they are poised to lose their investment.

Did You Invest With Aether Holdings, Inc.?

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. Our securities fraud attorneys have extensive experience in class action litigation and in securities arbitration claims.  If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post New Report Questions Aether Holdings’ Financial Backing And Stability appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.

Cetera Investment Services discharged Cohen on 12/9/2025 after he continued to conduct business while he was suspended. The suspension was from allegations that he was directly collecting funds and using them to fund outside business activities. Cohen also refused to cooperate with the firm’s internal review process.

FINRA began its investigation following a complaint made directly to FINRA by a customer. After sending a request to Cohen for on-the-record testimony on 2/3/2026, Cohen responded via email that he would not appear at any time for on-the-record testimony, violating FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010. This led to the issuance of an Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) letter and a bar from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Cohen signed the letter on February 19, 2026, and the bar was effective on March 3, 2026.

Preceding Cohen’s termination and FINRA investigation are customer disputes that began the process. The most recent customer complaint was filed on 1/30/2026, and alleged that Cohen “received wire transfers directly from client as part of an alleged fraud. Alleged compensatory damages in [REDACTED] Amended SOC is $500,000.”

Previously, on 1/12/2026, another customer filed a dispute alleging that “the proceeds of a liquidated annuity were used for what he believed were purchases of investments and paid directly to his registered representative.”  The client requested $250,550.19 in damages, and the claim was settled for that amount.

Another customer filed a similar dispute alleging misappropriation of funds and requested $500,000 in damages on 1/8/2025. This claim is also pending.

Cohen also has three tax liens in his record totaling $ 367,365.82 from 2023, 2019, and 2017.

Did You Invest With David Nathan Cohen? 

Silver Law Group represents investors in securities and investment fraud cases. Our lawyers are admitted to practice in New York and Florida and represent investors nationwide to help recover investment losses due to stockbroker misconduct. If you have any questions about how your account has been handled, call to speak with an experienced securities attorney. Most cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning that you won’t owe us until we recover your money for you. Contact us today at (800) 975-4345 and let us know how we can help.

The post David Nathan Cohen Barred After Misappropriation Of Client Funds appeared first on Securities Arbitration Lawyers Blog.