Brokerage Firm Alert: Our Investment Fraud Attorneys Are Investigating MML Investors Services Inc
Did You Lose Money Because of MML Investors? Are You Aware of Complaints and Fines Against MML Investors?
Updated on: December 30, 2023
MML Investors Services Inc (“MML Investors”) (CRD # 10409) is a broker-dealer and has been the subject of at least twenty-five (25) complaints filed by regulatory organizations like FINRA and many more by investors like yourself. At Patil Law, we have investigated MML Investors, its regulatory complaints and fines, and its customer complaints. If you’ve invested your hard-earned money with MML Investors, 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 MML Investors, 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 MML Investors?
How To File a Claim Against MML Investors To Get Your Money Back
Client Complaints – Is Your Financial Advisor on This List?
Did Misconduct By an MML Investors Advisor Impact Your Investments? What Can You Do?
MML Investors Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
A Closer Look Into MML Investors’ Regulatory Issues
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
Do I Have an Investment Fraud Case Against MML Investors?
✅ YES, if you’ve experienced financial losses due to the actions or misconduct of MML Investors or its staff, you have the right to pursue legal action against them. You can sue MML Investors 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 MML Investors in FINRA arbitration proceedings, but WIN that arbitration. The easiest way to know if you have a case against MML Investors 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 MML Investors?
MML Investors (CRD # 10409) 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, MML Investors 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 MML Investors To Get Your Money Back
If you have questions about MML Investors, 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 MML Investors 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 MML Investors advisors:
- John Pronovost with Infinex Investments (previously with Cambridge Investment Research Advisors and MML Investors)
- Curtis Harris with Cambridge Investment (previously with Cambridge Investment Research Advisors and MML Investors)
- Brian Lee with LPL Financial (previously with Cambridge Investment Research Advisors and MML Investors)
- Steven Koch with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with MML Investors)
- Gregory Ellis Gann with LPL Financial (previously with Intersecurities and MML Investors)
- James Maurice Farmer with LPL Financial (previously with Cambridge Investment Research Advisors and MML Investors)
- Robin Dale Blackman with IFP Securities (previously with LPL Financial and MML Investors)
- Brian Joseph Gaffney with LPL Financial (previously with MML Investors and New England Securities)
- Leonard Rickey currently unaffiliated (previously with LPL Financial and MML Investors)
- Victor Aponte-Echevarria with Cetera Advisor Networks (previously with Cetera Investment Advisers and MML Investors)
- Jake Warrington currently unaffiliated (previously with LPL Financial and MML Investors)
- Justin Byrd with LPL Financial (previously with MML Investors and NYLife Securities)
- Burton Apfelbaum with LPL Financial (previously with MML Investors and Pruco Securities Corporation)
- David Nastri with LPL Financial (previously with Uvest Financial Services and MML Investors)
- Julius Pappas with LPL Financial (previously with MML Investors and MSI Financial)
- Robert Cadena, Jr. with LPL Financial (previously with Invest Financial and MML Investors)
- Steven Rose currently unaffiliated (previously with LPL Financial and MML Investors)
- Ryan Hall with LPL Financial (previously with Centaurus Financial and MML Investors)
Did Misconduct By an MML Investors Advisor Impact Your Investments?
If you have lost money investing with any of these MML Investors 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.
MML Investors Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
There have been approximately twenty-five (25) state and self-regulatory body disclosure events against MML Investors; 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 MML Investors 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 MML Investors’ Regulatory Issues
MML Investors has been repeatedly censured, warned, and fined for its own misconduct and failure to supervise its army of financial advisors. Details of twenty-five (25) regulatory issues are listed below:
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Timely Amending Forms U4 and U5 to Report Disclosable Events (AWC No: 2020065534802)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From December 2018 through February 2021, MML failed to timely amend its associated persons’ Forms U4 and Forms U5 to report 39 customer complaints and dispositions, criminal charges, regulatory actions, and other disclosable events and failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure the timely reporting of disclosable events during that time. By reason of the foregoing, MML violated Article V Sections 2 and 3 of FINRA’s By-Laws and FlNRA Rules 1122, 3110, and 2010
Fined $617,726.28 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Representatives’ Recommendations (AWC No: 2019062530501)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From January 2013 to March 2017, MML failed to reasonably supervise registered representatives’ recommendations to customers to purchase particular share classes of 529 savings plans. MML did not provide adequate guidance to representatives regarding the share-class suitability factors specific to 529 plan investments when recommending 529 plans and did not provide supervisors with the information necessary to properly evaluate the suitability of 529 share-class recommendations. As a result of the foregoing, MML violated MSRB Rules G-27(a), (b) and (c).
Further, from July 2016 through October 2019, MML failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to identify customers’ contributions to mutual funds and 529 plans and determine whether those transactions qualified customers to take advantage of available breakpoint discounts. As a result of the foregoing, MML violated FINRA Rules 3110(a) and 2010 and MSRB Rules G-27(a) and (b).
As more fully described below, the Department of Enforcement credits MML for its extraordinary cooperation. Accordingly, this AWC includes a censure and an order for restitution and estimated interest of $744,220, but no fine for the firm’s supervisory failures.
Fined $75,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Preventing Representatives From Accessing Customer Information (AWC No: 2017056520301)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From March 2017 through March 2018 (the “Relevant Period”), MML failed to prevent certain registered and associated persons who had been terminated from the Firm from continuing to access customer records and information, including nonpublic personal information, in violation of the SEC’s Regulation S-P: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and Safeguarding Personal Information (“Regulation S-P”) and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $750,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Maintaining Electronic Brokerage Records (AWC No: 2016052647801)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Beginning in January 2001 and continuing to the present (the “Relevant Period”), MML failed to maintain approximately 2,400,000 electronic brokerage records in non-erasable and non rewritable format, known as WORM format, as required by Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act Of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 17a-4(f) promulgated thereunder, NASD Rule 3110 and FINRA Rule 4511. WORM stands for “write once, read many,” and is intended to prevent the alteration or destruction of broker-dealer records stored electronically. During the Relevant Period, the Firms also experienced related notice, audit and attestation deficiencies affecting the ability to adequately retain and preserve electronic records, in violation of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f), NASD Rules 3110 and FINRA Rule 4511. Finally, the Firms failed to enforce written supervisory procedures relating to compliance with the WORM requirement, in violation of NASD Rule 3010(b) and FINRA Rule 3110(b).
Fined for Allegedly Disadvantaging Certain Retirement Plan And Charitable Organization Customers Eligible For Class A Shares Purchase Without Frontend Sales Charge (AWC No: 2016049185701)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between July 1, 2009, and September 20, 2016 (the “Relevant Period”), MMLIS disadvantaged certain retirement plan and charitable organization customers that were eligible to purchase Class A shares in certain mutual funds without a frontend sales charge (“Eligible Customers”). These Eligible Customers were instead sold Class A shares with a front-end sales charge or Class B or C shares with back-end sales charges and higher ongoing fees and expenses. During this period, MMLIS failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that Eligible Customers who purchased mutual fund shares received the benefit of applicable sales charge waivers. As a result, MMLIS violated NASD Conduct Rule 3010 (for misconduct before December 1, 2014), FINRA Rule 3110 (for misconduct on or after December 1, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $125,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Representatives Regarding Their Unapproved Sale of Certain Private Securities (AWC No: 2009017118601)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
During the Relevant Period, the Firm violated NASD Rules 3010(a) and 2110 by failing to reasonably supervise its RRs in connection with their unapproved sale of certain private securities. The Firm’s written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) stated that RRs were prohibited from participating in private securities transactions without the prior written approval of the ChiefCompliance Officer or his or her delegate. Despite this prohibition, and numerous red flags described below indicating that IFG’s RRs were engaged in selling away, the Firm did not reasonably monitor for or review these indications to determine whether unapproved private securities transactions were occurring at the Firm. As a result of the Firm’s supervisory failures, certain IFG RRs recommended unapproved promissory notes to investors. Two of these IFG RRs sold unapproved ICI promissory notes to seven investors who sustained losses of up to $760,000 when the issuers of these promissory notes discontinued interest payments. The issuer of these unapproved promissory notes was ICI, which was later determined to be engaged in a multimillion dollar Ponzi scheme.
Fined $300,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Filing Forms On Time (AWC No: 2010020873501)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
MML failed to file timely Forms U5 and amendments to Forms U4 and U5. The firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the reporting requirements set forth in Article V of FINRA’s By-Laws. This conduct violated NASD Conduct Rules 3010 and 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $32,500 for Allegedly Purchasing Or Selling TRACE-Eligible Securities And Charging Commissions Exceeding The Limit (AWC No: 2009019499901)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
FINRA Rule 2010, NASD Rules 2110, 2440, 3010 – MML Investor Services, LLC purchased or sold Trade Reporting And Compliance Engine (TRACE)-eligible securities as agent for a customer in over-the-counter transactions for a commission or service charge that was in excess of a fair amount, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including market conditions with respect to such security at the time of the transaction, the expense of executing the order and the value of any service rendered by reason of experience in and knowledge of such security and the market therefore. The firm failed to enforce its written supervisory procedures by charging commissions in excess of the procedure’s limits, which specified that no commission shall exceed 2.25 percent of the principal amount of the transaction beyond a minimum $65 charge.
Fined $473,000 for Allegedly Making Unsuitable Recommendations of Class B Shares of Mutual Funds and Failing To Ensure That Clients Received the Opportunity to Purchase Class A Shares in Certain Mutual Funds at Net Asset Value (AWC No: EAF0401340002)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
MML Made Unsuitable Recommendations of Class B Shares of Mutual Funds and Failed To Establish, Maintain and Enforce Systems and Procedures Designed To Ensure That Its Clients Received the Opportunity to Purchase Class A Shares in Certain Mutual Funds at Net Asset Value
This matter arises from a review of MML’s sales of Class B shares of mutual funds and a review of MML’s sales to customers of mutual funds that offered “NAV Transfer Programs.”
With regard to the sale of Class B shares, between January 1, 2003 and July 31, 2004 (the “B Share Review Period”), MML effected transactions where it made recommendations to clients to purchase Class B shares through its registered representatives. In connection with its recommendations, MML did not consider on a consistent basis that an equal investment in Class A shares would generally have been more advantageous for certain clients. Accordingly, MML will undertake a remediation plan that includes more than 5,200 transactions involving at least 447 client households.
In particular, the Firm did not consistently consider that large investments in Class A shares of mutual funds entitle clients to breakpoint discounts on sales charges, generally beginning at the $50,000 investment level, which are not available for investments in Class B shares. In fact, clients may be entitled to breakpoints based upon a single mutual fund purchase, multiple purchases in the same ‘family of funds,” and/or mutual fund investments held, at the time of the new purchase, by members of the client’s “household,” as that term is defined in the prospectus of the fund in which the shares are being purchased. Unlike Class A shares, Class B shares are subject to contingent deferred sales charges (“CDSCs”) for a period of time, generally six years, as well as higher ongoing Rule 12b-l fees for as long as the Class B shares are held. The CDSCs and the higher ongoing distribution and service fees (“Rule 12b-l fees”) significantly affect the return on clients’ mutual fund investments.
In addition, MML’s supervisory and compliance policies and procedures during the review period were not reasonably established, maintained and/or enforced so that the Firm, at the point of each sale, provided consideration to, on a consistent basis, the benefits of the various mutual fund share classes as they applied to individual clients.
With regard to the sale of mutual funds that offered NAV programs, from January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004 (the “NAV Review Period”), certain mutual funds offered “NAV Transfer Programs” that allowed qualifying investors to purchase Class A shares at net asset value (“NAV”) and not pay any initial sales charges, if the client invested proceeds from the redemption of shares of another mutual fund and previously had paid either a front-end or back-end sales charge. During the NAV Review Period, MML failed to establish, maintain and enforce systems and procedures designed to ensure that all eligible investors received the opportunity to purchase Class A shares of such mutual funds at NAV.
During the NAV Review Period, MML failed to exercise reasonable due diligence to identify the essential terms and conditions of the NAV Transfer Programs of certain mutual funds, and failed to establish, maintain and enforce systems and procedures to ensure that its clients received NAV pricing when they qualified. As a result, investors who were eligible to purchase Class A shares under NAV Transfer Programs: (1) purchased Class A shares and incurred front-end sales charges that they should not have paid, and/or (2) purchased other share classes of these mutual funds and thereby became subject to CDSCs, as well as the higher ongoing Rule 12b-l fees, typically associated with Class B and Class C-shares.
Prior to NASD’s investigation, (1) MML initiated a self-review upon its discovery of the violations relating to NAV Transfer Programs, (2) after conducting an extensive and thorough review, the Firm identified the causes of the violations and corrected its systems to prevent future violations, and (3) the Firm acted promptly and in good faith to make customers whole. As a result, NASD concluded that it would not be appropriate in this case to impose a fine for the supervisory violations by MML described above with respect to NAV Transfer Programs.
Fined $10,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Submitting Relevant Adviser Representative Registration Application Materials (Docket/Case Number: ENF-23-020109)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
- MML was responsible for submitting the relevant investment adviser representative registration application materials for the individual, but it failed to do so from 2013 through 2023. MML’s periodic review of registration records did not capture the failure to register the individual as an investment adviser representative, notwithstanding internal records showing the individual as properly registered. Prior to self-reporting, MML confirmed that all other investment adviser representatives required to be registered in Michigan were properly registered.
- Despite being unregistered, the individual provided investment advisory services on MML’s behalf that required the individual to register under MCL 451.2404 from 2010 through 2023. The Bureau alleges that MML’s inadvertent failure to properly submit registration materials resulted in it materially aiding violations of MCL 451.2404 by the individual.
Fined $2,500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Conducting On-Site Branch Office Inspections (Docket/Case Number: 23-19295)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
MML Investors Services notified the Securities Administrator of the on-site inspections and virtual inspections of its Maine branch offices during 2022 as required by January 31, 2023. The Securities Administrator alleged that MML Investors Services failed to conduct on-site branch office inspections of all of its Maine branch offices in violation of order and rule CH. 504 §(7)(4)(B).
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Agent’s Variable Annuity Sales Practices (Docket/Case Number: E-2022-0027)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Securities Division alleged that MMLIS failed reasonably to supervise its agent’s variable annuity sales practices. Specifically, the Securities division alleged that MMLIS failed to ensure that its agent properly informed clients of the general terms of the variable annuities he recommended, and MMLIS failed to ensure that its agent properly disclosed the commissions he would receive in connection with clients’ purchases of variable annuities and their additional premium payments. MMLIS neither admitted nor denied the statements of fact and the violations of law in the consent order.
Fined $750,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Unregistered Individuals To Transact In Securities Business (Docket/Case Number: R-2019-0096)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Division alleges MML Investors Services, LLC (“MMLIS”) employed three hundred four (304) individuals who transacted securities business in Massachusetts, sixty three (63) individuals who supervised MMLIS agents transacting securities business in Massachusetts, and one hundred eleven (111) agency supervisory officers who assisted in supervising agents all while not registered as agents.
Fined $4,000,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Agents’ Posts About Securities On Social Media, Trading Accounts, And Excessive Trading (Docket/Case Number: E-2021-0004)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Failure to supervise broker-dealer agents’ posting about securities on social media, trading in outside accounts of other individuals, and excessive trading in personal accounts. These failures constituted violations Mass. Gen. Laws. 204(A)(2)(J).
Fined $700,000 for Allegedly Receiving Clients’ Investments Without Fully And Fairly Disclosing Their Conflicts Of Interest (Docket/Case Number: 3-20536)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The SEC 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 and Sections 203(E) and 203(K) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 against MML Investors Services, LLC (“MMLIS” or “respondent”). The Commission finds that: these proceedings arise out of breaches of fiduciary duties by MML Investors Services, LLC, a dually registered investment adviser and broker-dealer, and MSI Financial Services, Inc. (“MSI”), a formerly registered investment adviser and broker-dealer that was integrated with MMLIS in March 2017, in connection with third-party compensation that MMLIS and MSI received based on their advisory clients’ investments without fully and fairly disclosing their conflicts of interest. In particular, during certain periods since at least March 2015, MMLIS and MSI invested clients in certain share classes of mutual funds that resulted in the firms receiving revenue sharing payments pursuant to agreements with their unaffiliated clearing broker. In spite of these financial arrangements, MMLIS and MSI provided no disclosure or inadequate disclosure of the conflicts of interest arising from this compensation. MMLIS and MSI also breached their duty to seek best execution by causing certain advisory clients to invest in share classes of mutual funds that paid revenue sharing when share classes of the same funds were available to the clients that presented a more favorable value for these clients under the particular circumstances in place at the time of the transactions. Furthermore, MMLIS and MSI failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the Rules thereunder in connection with its mutual fund share class selection practices and disclosure of conflicts of interest arising out of its revenue sharing practices. As a result of the conduct described herein, MMLIS willfully violated Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.
Fined $100,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing An Agent (Docket/Case Number: 2013-06-03/#150020)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
MML Investors Services, LLC failed to reasonably supervise an agent of the firm.
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Preventing And Detecting Representative Violations (Docket/Case Number: DBR NO. 11-S-0114)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The State of Rhode Island alleged that MML Investors Services, LLC failed reasonably to enforce policies, procedures and systems reasonably designed to prevent, detect and address violations by a former register representative and failed reasonably to supervise activities at its OSJ and detached branch office constituting a violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-11-212(B)(11).
Fined $1,000 for Allegedly Operating An Unlicensed Branch Office (Docket/Case Number: CI10-237)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
That during the time period of July 3, 2009 through April 21, 2010 MML Investors Services, LLC operated a branch office in the State of Nevada, other than the principal office, without the benefit of being licensed pursuant NRS 90.360 (2) and (3).
Fined $2,000 for Allegedly Violating N.A.C. 90.327(1)(D)(1) (Docket/Case Number: CI08-109)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Securities Division of the State of Nevada alleged that the applicant violated N.A.C. 90.327(1)(D)(1).
Fined $45,064 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Unregistered Agents To Sell Variable Annuity Contracts (Docket/Case Number: 07-030-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
During the period between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2006, eleven agents sold ten variable annuity contracts to Vermont residents without being registered with the Vermont Securities Division, in violation of 9 V.S.A § 4213(A) and 9 V.S.A. § 5402(A) of the Vermont Securities Act.
Fined $10,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Unregistered Representative To Transact Business With Clients (Docket/Case Number: 06-091-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Commissioner alleged that the firm failed to properly register one representative in the state and subsequently allowed the unregistered representative to transact business with clients.
Fined $500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Renewing Investment Adviser Registration (Docket/Case Number: 2005-0668)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Maryland Securities Commissioner alleged that the firm failed to renew the investment adviser registration of a representative and subsequently allowed the unregistered investment adviser representative to receive compensation for soliciting clients from December 2004 until November 2005.
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Filing Amendments to Forms U4 And U5 On Time (Docket/Case Number: CAF040098)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Article V, Sections 2(C) and 3(B) of NASD’s by-laws, NASD Rules 2110, 3010 – MML Investors Services, Inc. filed at least 220 late amendments to forms U4 and U5, representing approximately 69% of the required amendments relating to reportable customer complaints, terminations, regulatory actions, and criminal disclosures. The firm’s supervisory system and procedures were not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with its Article V reporting obligations.
Fined $3,000 for Alleged Unregistered Activity (Docket/Case Number: 2922-S-2/00)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Unregistered Activity.
Fined $7,500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Timely Reporting Change Of Information With Respect To Agents (Docket/Case Number: 99-030, CAF-1359)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Violations of Sections 14.A(6) and (7) of the Texas Securities Act regarding failure to report any change in information previously reported to the securities commissioner with respect to agents within 30 days of the change.
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
If you have questions about MML Investors, 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.