Brokerage Firm Alert: Our Investment Fraud Attorneys Are Investigating Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc.
Did You Lose Money Because of Cadaret, Grant & Co.? Are You Aware of Complaints and Fines Against Cadaret, Grant & Co.?
Updated on: December 21, 2023
Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. (“Cadaret, Grant & Co.”) (CRD # 10641) is a broker-dealer and has been the subject of at least sixteen (16) complaints filed by regulatory organizations like FINRA and many more by investors like yourself. At Patil Law, we have investigated Cadaret, Grant & Co., its regulatory complaints and fines, and its customer complaints. If you’ve invested your hard-earned money with Cadaret, Grant & Co., you should be very concerned about any regulatory actions, regulatory fines, or customer complaints against your brokerage firm.
Our team of attorneys specialize in representing investors with claims of fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty against this organization and its financial advisors. As an investor, you may be entitled to compensation for losses accrued due to mismanagement of your investments.
If you believe you have a claim against Cadaret, Grant & Co., you should strongly consider hiring an investment fraud lawyer and not wait until it’s too late to file a claim. Reach out to our legal team via the secure and private online form or call our firm directly toll-free at 1-800-950-6553 for a free consultation so that we can discuss your case and see what we can do to help you get the compensation you need and deserve. We do not charge anything for the ability to discuss your matter and evaluate your potential case.
Jump to Topic
Do I Have an Investment Fraud Case Against Cadaret, Grant & Co.?
How To File a Claim Against Cadaret, Grant & Co. To Get Your Money Back
Client Complaints – Is Your Financial Advisor on This List?
Did Misconduct By a Cadaret, Grant & Co. Advisor Impact Your Investments? What Can You Do?
Cadaret, Grant & Co. Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
A Closer Look Into Cadaret, Grant & Co.’s Regulatory Issues
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
Do I Have an Investment Fraud Case Against Cadaret, Grant & Co.?
✅ YES, if you’ve experienced financial losses due to the actions or misconduct of Cadaret, Grant & Co. or its staff, you have the right to pursue legal action against them. You can sue Cadaret, Grant & Co. but the odds are you signed away your right to sue in court and agreed to resolve your dispute in a FINRA arbitration proceeding.
FINRA arbitration proceedings are generally private proceedings that can last anywhere from a few months to approximately a year. Our attorneys have personal experience in representing clients in FINRA arbitration proceedings and know very well how you can not only sue Cadaret, Grant & Co. in FINRA arbitration proceedings, but WIN that arbitration. The easiest way to know if you have a case against Cadaret, Grant & Co. is to reach out to our legal team at Patil Law via the secure and private online form or call us toll-free at 1-800-950-6553 for a complimentary consultation.
Who is Cadaret, Grant & Co.?
Cadaret, Grant & Co. (CRD # 10641) is a registered broker-dealer. It operates as a full-service independent broker-dealer, providing a range of financial products and services to individual investors and financial advisors. As a registered broker-dealer, Cadaret, Grant & Co. is subject to regulations and oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
It is required to comply with industry standards and regulations to ensure the protection of its clients’ interests. A failure to comply with industry standards by either its brokers or the firm itself can result in disciplinary actions, fines, or other penalties imposed by regulatory authorities.
How To File A Claim Against Cadaret, Grant & Co. To Get Your Money Back
If you have questions about Cadaret, Grant & Co., its advisors, or the management or performance of your accounts, please contact our legal team at Patil Law via the secure and private online form or call us toll-free at 1-800-950-6553 for a free and complimentary initial consultation. Our attorneys have experience handling well over a thousand securities arbitration claims, and our law firm has successfully recovered over $25 million for our clients to date.
We understand the stress that comes along with realizing that your financial advisor or brokerage firm has made poor decisions with your money. We can help you, as we have helped hundreds of other clients in the past.
Client Complaints – Is Your Financial Advisor on This List?
There have been scores of customer complaints filed against Cadaret, Grant & Co. stockbrokers and investment advisors over the years. Many of these complaints deal with financial advisor misconduct, poor or unsuitable investment recommendations, failure by these brokerage firms to supervise their employees (the financial advisors), and general fraud against consumers. We have launched many investigations of current and former Cadaret, Grant & Co. advisors:
- Akhil Kumar with Cadaret, Grant & Co. (previously with Cambridge Investment Research and Voya Financial Advisors)
- William Johnson currently unaffiliated (previously with Cadaret, Grant & Co. and Voya Financial Advisors)
- Kevin Curry with Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. (previously with Royal Alliance Associates and Petersen Investments)
- Richard Laskin with Cetera Advisors LLC (previously with Cadaret, Grant & Co. and SII Investments)
- Merri Hall with LPL Financial LLC (previously with Cadaret, Grant & Co. and M&T Securities)
- James Thomas Booth currently barred (previously with Cadaret Grant & Co. and Invest Financial Corporation)
Did Misconduct By a Cadaret, Grant & Co. Advisor Impact Your Investments?
If you have lost money investing with any of these Cadaret, Grant & Co. advisors or others within this brokerage firm, it’s important that you reach out to an investment loss attorney quickly because the statutes of limitations can bar your claims. Call our legal team at Patil Law toll-free at 1-800-950-6553 or reach out to us via the secure and private online form for a free initial consultation.
Cadaret, Grant & Co. Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
There have been approximately sixteen (16) state and self-regulatory body disclosure events against Cadaret, Grant & Co.; that is, final and formal proceedings initiated by a regulatory authority like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or self-regulatory body like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for a violation(s) of investment-related rules or regulations. In addition, there have been countless customer complaints filed against Cadaret, Grant & Co. for misconduct by its securities sales and investment advisory representatives that are not reported by the firm on its Central Depository Record.
Our legal team at Patil Law has reported and written about these regulatory problems and customer complaints over many years. A few of the notable FINRA Sanctions for its Supervisory Failures are below.
A Closer Look Into Cadaret, Grant & Co.’s Regulatory Issues
Cadaret, Grant & Co. has been repeatedly censured, warned, and fined for its own misconduct and failure to supervise its army of financial advisors. Details of sixteen (16) regulatory issues are listed below.
Fined $90,000 for Allegedly Hiring An Unregistered Investment Advisor (Docket/Case Number: 190106)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
CG employed at least one unregistered investment advisor in violation of section 301 (C.1) (1) (II) of the 1972 Act.
Fined $500,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Properly Overseeing Cadaret Grant’s Advisors And Their Recommendations (Docket/Case Number: 3-18738)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Sec Admin release 33-10542, 34-84074, IA Release 40-5003/ September 11, 2018:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. (“Cadaret Grant”), Arthur Grant (“Grant”), Beda Lee Johnson (“Johnson”), and Eugene Long (“Long”) (Individually a “respondent” and collectively the “respondents”). The Commission finds that these proceedings arise out of the failure by Cadaret Grant, Grant and Johnson (“The supervisory respondents”) reasonably to supervise Cadaret Grant’s registered representatives with respect to their recommendations that customers buy and hold leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds and exchange traded notes (each individually and together, “non-traditional exchange traded products” or “non-traditional ETPS”) between January 2015 and December 2016 (“relevant period”). Beginning in January 2015, Eugene Long and certain other Cadaret Grant registered representatives believed oil prices had fallen and would recover over several months. These representatives recommended that customers buy and hold a security called Velocityshares 3x long crude oil ETN (“UWTI”), which is a complex exchange-traded note (“ETN”) that offers exposure to an index comprised of crude oil future contracts and provides triple leverage. They believed UWTI would increase in value with an increase in crude oil prices, even if held for several months. However, UWTI’s prospectus clearly stated that it offered no direct exposure to the spot price of crude oil and that it was not designed for holding periods longer than one day, but rather that it was suitable for sophisticated investors with very short investment horizons. The representatives either did not read, or read and dismissed these warnings without a reasonable investigation and lacked a reasonable basis for their recommendations in violation of sections 17(a)(2) and 17 (1)(3) of Securities Act. Cadaret Grant’s retail investors lost, on average, more than 90 percent of the amounts they invested in UWTI pursuant to the representatives’ recommendations.
Throughout the relevant time period, Cadarent Grant had policies that stated that registered representatives generally should not recommend non-traditional ETPs like UWTI for long or intermediate investment periods and that representatives should receive training and complete other requirements before recommending non-traditional ETPs to customers. As of January 2015, supervisory respondents failed to establish and implement a reasonable supervisory system for determining whether representatives had a reasonable basis for recommending that investors buy and hold non-traditional ETPs. Supervisory respondents failed to provide training to representatives concerning nontraditional ETPs so that they could form a reasonable basis for their recommendations. And throughout the relevant time period, supervisory respondents failed to implement Cadaret Grant’s specific policies and procedures pertaining to representative’s recommendations to brokerage customers involving nontraditional ETPs and failed to devote adequate resources to supervising representatives. Cadaret Grant also failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures designed to prevent unsuitable sales of nontraditional ETPs by investment advisory representatives to investment advisory clients in light of their investment objectives and financial condition.
Under the circumstances described, supervisory respondents failed reasonably to supervise registered representatives with respect to their recommendations to brokerage customers pertaining to certain nontraditional ETPs within the meaning of sections 15(b)(4)(e) and 15(b)(6). Cadaret Grant additionally willfully violated Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisory Act.
Fined $75,000 for Alleged Provision of Investment Advisory Services by an Unregistered Employee (Docket/Case Number: R-2018-0007)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Since 2010, one of Cadaret Grant’s investment adviser representatives, as defined in Rule 203A-3(a) under the investment adviser Act of 1940, had a place of business in Massachusetts and provided investment advisory services while the employee was not registered as an investment adviser representative in the Commonwealth.
Fined $2,250 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Disclosing Administrative Actions On Insurance Applications (Docket/Case Number: CSB-2016-1142423)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Failed to disclose administrative actions on insurance applications.
Fined $280,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Including; Investing Clients’ Money In High-Fee Mutual Fund Share Classes, Receiving Payments From Mutual Fund Complexes For Marketing Support, Failing To Refund Prepaid Fees To Clients, And Withdrawing Information About The Situation (Docket/Case Number: 3-18087)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Sec Admin Release 34-81274, IA Release 40-4736/ August 1, 2017
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), against Cadaret Grant & Co., Inc. (“Cadaret” or “respondent”).
The Commission finds that these proceedings arise from a series of failures by registered investment adviser Cadaret. First, from at least 2011 to 2016, Cadaret invested advisory clients in mutual fund share classes with 12B-1 fees instead of lower-fee share classes of the same funds that were available without 12B-1 fees. In its capacity as a broker-dealer, Cadaret received at least $1.93 million in 12B-fees for investing clients in the higher-fee share classes. Cadaret failed to disclose in its forms ADV or otherwise that it had conflict of interest concerning mutual fund share classes. The practice of investing clients in mutual fund share classes with 12B-1 fees rather than lower-fee share classes was also inconsistent with Cadaret’s duty to seek best execution for its clients. Although Cadaret represented in its forms ADV that it would comply with its duty to provide best execution for its clients, Cadaret’s representations were misleading in light of its failure to purchase lower fee share classes and its failure to conduct any analysis of which share class would be most appropriate for advisory clients.
Second, during the same period, Cadaret received marketing support payments from two mutual fund complexes. The mutual fund complexes paid marketing support fees to Cadaret when Cadaret invested its advisory clients in mutual fund share classes that charged 12B-1 fees but would not pay such fees when Cadaret invested them in lower-fee share classes. In total, cadaret received at least $235,000 in marketing support payments. Cadaret failed to disclose this conflict of interest related to its advisory clients in its forms ADV or otherwise. In addition, respondent failed to adopt any written compliance policies and procedures governing mutual fund share class selection.
Third, during the same period, Cadaret failed to refund prepaid advisory fees to clients who terminated their relationship with Cadaret before Cadaret earned all of the prepaid fees. Cadaret failed to disclose in its forms ADV or otherwise that it would retain unearned prepaid fees.
As a result, cadaret willfully violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.
Fined $1,500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Reporting Administrative Actions On Time
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Failed to timely disclose administrative actions on insurance licensing applications in violation of LA.R.S. 22:1554(a)(2) and LA. R.S. 22:1563(a).
Fined $15,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Adequately Oversee A Former Registered Representative (Docket/Case Number: 11-031-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The regulator alleges that applicant and a former Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction (“OSJ”) failed to supervise reasonably a former registered representative and that the registered representative committed a violation of the Vermont Uniform Securities Act.
Fined $1,859 for Allegedly Operating In Locations Without The Benefit Of Registration (Docket/Case Number: 2669-S-5/00)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
During a review of two branch office applications, the department became aware that Cadaret, Grant & Co., Inc. operated these locations in the state without the benefit of registration since April 1, 2000.
Fined $25,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Brokers to Secretly Sell, Conceal Transactions, And Deceive The Firm (Docket/Case Number: 96-2624-CO)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Alleged failure to adopt and enforce reasonable system of supervision based on the action of 2 brokers (1-CT & 1-NJ) who engaged in selling away & hid the transactions & deceived the firm. Failure to supervise & register 3 offices as CT branch offices.
Fined $10,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures to Follow Multiple Practice Rules (Docket/Case Number: CLE-270)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Violations of Article III, Section 1, 35(d)(1)(a) and (b), 35 (d)(2)(a), 27(a) and 27(c) of the rules of fair practice.
Fined $200,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Supervising Registered Representative Who Conducted Multiple Undisclosed Private Securities Transactions (AWC No. 2018057940801)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From April 2014 to March 2017 (the “Relevant Period”), Cadaret Grant failed to reasonably supervise registered representative, SP, who conducted multiple undisclosed private securities transactions. 1 The private securities transactions were part of a Ponzi scheme that SP orchestrated, which resulted in millions of dollars in losses to its victims, including several customers of Cadaret Grant.2 The Firm failed to take reasonable steps to investigate red flags that SP was involved in private securities transactions.
As a result of the foregoing, Cadaret Grant violated NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014), FINRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on or after December 1, 2014), and FINRA 2010.
Fined $800,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Providing Sufficient Resources and Implementing a System Designed to Detect Unsuitable Securities Recommendations (AWC No. 2014039071101)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
FINRA Rule 3110 requires that FINRA member firms establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with securities laws, regulations and pertinent rules. From August 2012 through May 2017 (the “Relevant Period”), Cadaret Grant failed to establish such a reasonably-designed supervisory system with respect to numerous areas of its business. In large part, the Firm’s supervisory deficiencies stemmed from its failure to devote sufficient resources to the supervision of the Firm’s personnel. For example, during the Relevant Period, the Firm employed just three individuals to review for suitability the securities transactions of more than 676 representatives working from more than 450 branch locations.
As set forth below, as a result of these, and other, deficiencies, Cadaret Grant violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Exchange Act Rule 17a-4, NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rules 2330, 3110, 4511 and 2010.
Fined $5,000 for Allegedly Recommending Unsuitable Strategy (AWC No. 2013038424401)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between May 201 1 and November 201 3 (the “Relevant Period”), Deremon recommended an investment strategy to customer JL, whereby Deremo obtained discretion to trade the entire account balance of JL’s VA and exchange between a money market subaccount and a precious metals mining subaccount, based on various factors monitored by Deremo. Deremo employed this recommended strategy for JL, which was unsuitable for JI, given his investment objective. risk tolerance. income needs, and age. Deremo’s recommendation of this strategy violated NASD Rule 2310 (for conduct prior to July 9, 2012), and FINRA Rules 2111 (for conduct on and after July 9, 2012) and 2010.
During the Relevant Period, Cadaret Grant failed to enforce its written supervisory procedures, in that the Firm did not adequately address the suitability of Deremo’s recommended investment strategy for customer JL. Through this conduct, Cadaret Grant violated NASD Rule 3010(b) and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $75,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Supervising VA Surrenders Recommended or Processed by Representatives (AWC No. 2014039684601)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From January 2011 to December 2014, Cadaret failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise VA surrenders recommended or processed by the Firm’s registered representatives where the surrenders were not part of an exchange or replacement done through the Firm in violation of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.? Cadaret also failed to create and maintain books and records reflecting such VA surrenders in violation of NASD Rule 3110(a) and FINRA Rules 451 1 and 2010.
Fined $200,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Representative to Recommended Unsuitable Variable Annuity (VA) Transactions to Elderly Customers (AWC No. 2008015475201)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Cadaret, acting through one of its then registered representatives, CB, recommended 19 unsuitable variable annuity (VA) transactions to 13 elderly customers between May 2006 and September 2008, thereby violating NASD Rules 2310, 2821(b), and 2110. The Firm failed to adequately supervise CB by not responding to red flags that CB was engaging in unsuitable recommendations involving variable annuity riders. The Firm also had inadequate systems and procedures in place to supervise its VA business, thereby violating NASD Rules 3010, 2821(c) and (d), and 2110. The Firm further failed, as it relates to CB and some of her colleagues, to enforce its rules surrounding the use of personal email accounts to conduct Firm business, thereby violating NASD Rules 3010,3110 and 2110, FINRA Rule 2010. and Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-4.
Fined $125,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Ensuring That Customers Received Sales Charge Discounts on Eligible Unit Investment Trust Purchases (AWC No. 2008015701101)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between September 2006 and June 2008 (the “Review Period”), Cadaret failed to establish an effective supervisory system and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that customers received appropriate “breakpoints” and “rollover and exchange” discounts (collectively, ”sales charge discounts”) on eligible Unit Investment Trust (“UIT’) purchases. Based on this failure, Cadaret violated NASD Rules 3010 and 2110. Further, Cadaret failed to apply sales charge discounts to customers’ eligible UIT purchases in violation of NASD Rule 2110. Cadaret also failed to include the required legend on customer UIT confirmations in Violation of NASD Rule 2830 and 2110.
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
If you have questions about Cadaret, Grant & Co., its advisors, or the management or performance of your accounts, please contact our team at Patil Law toll-free at 1-800-950-6553 for a free initial consultation. Or please reach out to us through our secure and private contact form and we will call you back quickly to discuss your case.
Our attorneys have experience handling well over a thousand securities arbitration claims, and our law firm has successfully recovered over $25 million for our clients to date. We understand the stress that comes along with realizing that your financial advisor or brokerage firm has made poor decisions with your money.
We can help you, as we have helped hundreds of other clients in the past. We are happy to serve you as well as to provide you with a custom report of your advisor’s and your brokerage firm’s complaints.