Did You Lose Money Because of SagePoint Financial and Osaic Wealth? Are You Aware of Complaints and Fines Against SagePoint Financial and Osaic Wealth?
Updated on: December 14, 2023
SagePoint Financial, Inc. now called Osaic Wealth (“SagePoint Financial”) (CRD # 133763) is a broker-dealer and has been the subject of at least twenty-one (21) complaints filed by regulatory organizations like FINRA and many more by investors like yourself. At Patil Law, we have investigated SagePoint Financial, its regulatory complaints and fines, and its customer complaints. If you’ve invested your hard-earned money with SagePoint Financial, 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 SagePoint Financial, 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 SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
Who is SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
How To File a Claim Against SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) To Get Your Money Back
Client Complaints – Is Your Financial Advisor on This List?
Did Misconduct By a SagePoint Financial Advisor Impact Your Investments? What Can You Do?
SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
A Closer Look Into SagePoint Financial’s Regulatory Issues
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
Do I Have an Investment Fraud Case Against SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
✅ YES, if you’ve experienced financial losses due to the actions or misconduct of SagePoint Financial or its staff, you have the right to pursue legal action against them. You can sue SagePoint Financial 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 SagePoint Financial in FINRA arbitration proceedings, but WIN that arbitration. The easiest way to know if you have a case against SagePoint Financial 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 SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
SagePoint Financial (CRD # 133763) 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, SagePoint Financial 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 SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) To Get Your Money Back
If you have questions about SagePoint Financial, 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 SagePoint Financial 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 SagePoint Financial advisors:
- David Melilli currently barred (previously with Sagepoint Financial and Cambridge Investment Research)
- Delio Londono currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Unionbanc Investment Services)
- Timothy Vanlohuizen currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Sunamerica Securities)
- Andrew Melikidse with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Sunamerica Securities and WM Financial Services)
- Brett Weichbrod currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Pimco Investments)
- Robert Denouden currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services)
- Ernest Martinez currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Sunamerica Securities, Inc.)
- Doyle Brown with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Windrose Retirement Income Planners and The Ameriflex Group)
- Christopher Bice with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Sunamerica Securities)
- Steven Koch with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with MML Investors Services)
- Andrew Oster currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Securities America)
- Joseph Tonyan with Woodbury Financial Services (previously with Sagepoint Financial and LPL Financial)
- Troy Axelson with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with AIG Capital Services)
- Christopher Calandra with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Banc of America Investment Services)
- Joanne Corsaro currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Allstate Financial Services)
- Michael Hill with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Berthel Fisher & Company Financial Services)
- Bruce Slater with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with Transamerica Financial Advisors)
- Jason Adams currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and NYLife Securities)
- Troy Baily currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) and Axa Advisors)
- Alan Gnoinski with Sagepoint Financial (Osaic) (previously with United Planner’s Financial Services of America A Limited Partner and Next Financial Group)
- Daniel G Dillard currently unaffiliated (previously with Union Capital Company and Sagepoint Financial)
- Dominick Greco currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial and LPL Financial)
- Karen Briggs currently unaffiliated (previously with Sagepoint Financial and LPL Financial)
Did Misconduct By a SagePoint Financial Advisor Impact Your Investments?
If you have lost money investing with any of these SagePoint Financial 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.
SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
There have been approximately twenty-one (21) state and self-regulatory body disclosure events against SagePoint Financial; 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 SagePoint Financial 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 SagePoint Financial’s (now called Osaic Wealth) Regulatory Issues
SagePoint Financial has been repeatedly censured, warned, and fined for its own misconduct and failure to supervise its army of financial advisors. Details of twenty-one (21) regulatory issues are listed below:
Fined $156,903.93 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Ensuring All Eligible Customers Received Applicable Sales Charge Waivers or Special Share Classes (AWC No. 2021069460901)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From September 2015 to September 2020, Securities America, Royal Alliance, and SagePoint failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that all eligible customers received applicable sales charge waivers or special share classes in connection with rolling over 529 plans from one state plan to another. Some customers who were eligible for these waivers or special share classes did not receive them. Therefore, Respondents violated MSRB Rule G-27.
As more fully described below, FINRA credits Respondents for their extraordinary cooperation. Accordingly, this AWC includes an undertaking to pay restitution totaling approximately $515,000 plus interest, and censures, but no fines.
Fined $60,000 for Allegedly Withholding Important Information From Investors (AWC No. 2018060895801)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between May 4, 2018, and June 29, 2018, FSC Securities, Royal Alliance, SagePoint Financial and Woodbury Financial negligently failed to tell investors in an offering related to GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (GPB Capital) that the issuer failed to timely make required filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including filing audited financial statements. By virtue of the foregoing, each firm violated FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $35,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Complying With FINRA’s Suitability Requirements (AWC No. 2019061612601)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
During the period April 2014 through July 2017, SagePoint failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including WSPs, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the suitability requirements of FINRA Rule 2111 as they pertain to margin use. As a result, SagePoint failed to identify or reasonably respond to red flags of unsuitable use of margin in two customer accounts that caused the customers to pay more than $51,800 in commissions, fees, and margin interest. By this conduct, SagePoint violated NASD Rule 3010, FINRA Rules 3110 and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $63,274.73 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Observing The Share-Class Suitability Factors (AWC No. 2019062531501)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2018, Royal Alliance, Sagepoint, and FSC failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise 529 plan share-class recommendations in violation of MSRB Rule G-27. These three Advisor Group firms shared written supervisory procedures that did not reasonably address the share-class suitability factors specific to 529 plan investments. In addition, the firms’ transaction review system was not reasonably designed to identify 529 plan share-class recommendations that were inconsistent with the investment time horizon suggested by the age of the account beneficiary.
The firms voluntarily self-reported potential issues with their supervisory system to FINRA as part of the 529 Plan Share Class Initiative announced in Regulatory Notice 19- 04 and proposed a plan to remediate affected customers. Accordingly, the AWC includes a censure for each firm and orders of restitution and estimated interest totaling $485,441 but no fines.
Fined $700,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Imposing Heightened Supervision and Discipline to Specific Personnel (AWC No. 2019062873301)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From 2013 to the present, SagePoint failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to supervise associated persons with histories of industry and regulatory-related misconduct. SagePoint failed to assign clear responsibility for imposing heightened supervision and discipline to specific personnel, splitting that task between two different departments with no guidance as to how the departments should coordinate or fulfill their overlapping obligations. Additionally, SagePoint’s disciplinary record keeping was haphazard and fragmented, thus impeding firm personnel from accessing complete information about associated persons’ disciplinary histories when assessing whether to impose heightened supervision or discipline. As a result, the firm failed to escalate discipline and impose heightened supervision when associated persons’ misconduct presented heightened risks and failed to reasonably follow up on red flags of misconduct. SagePoint also lacked a supervisory system reasonably designed to comply with its obligations to report to FINRA multiple instances of violative misconduct by associated persons, as required by FINRA Rule 4530(b). The firm thus violated NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
Fined $300,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Supervising the Suitability of Representatives’ Recommendations to Customers (AWC No. 2018056858101)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From January 2013 through December 2017 (the Relevant Period), SagePoint failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures (WSPs) that were reasonably designed to supervise the suitability of representatives’ recommendations to customers for early rollovers of Unit Investment Trusts. Based on the foregoing, SagePoint violated NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014), FINRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on or after December 1, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $200,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing and Training That Led to Improper Sale and Supervision of Variable Annuities (AWC No. 2016047636601)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Royal Alliance (between February 2014 and December 2015) and FSC, SagePoint, and Woodbury (between January 2013 and December 2014) failed to establish, maintain and enforce a supervisory system and written procedures designed to reasonably supervise representatives’ sale of multi-share class variable annuities and failed to provide training to their representatives and principals on the sale and supervision of multi-share class variable annuities. As a result, the Advisor Group Firms violated FINRA Rules 2330(d) and (e), NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014), F1NRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on and after December 1, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
In addition, Royal Alliance (between February 2014 and March 2016) failed to reasonably supervise variable annuity exchanges in that it failed to implement a reasonable supervisory system and procedures to determine if any of its registered representatives had inappropriate rates of variable annuity exchanges. As a result, Royal Alliance violated FINRA Rule 2330(d), NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014), FINRA Rule 3110 (for conduct on and after December 1, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $75,000 for Allegedly Disadvantaging Retirement Plan and Charitable Organization Customers Eligible for Class A Shares Purchase Without Front-End Sales Charge (AWC No. 2017054229301)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2017 (the “Relevant Period”), SagePoint disadvantaged certain retirement plan and charitable organization customers that were eligible to purchase Class A shares in certain mutual funds without a front-end 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, SagePoint 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, SagePoint 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 $75,000 for Allegedly Applying an Inaccurate Accounting and Net Capital Treatment of Investment Advisory Fees (AWC No. 2016049751001)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between January 2010 and April 2016, Royal Alliance, FSC and SagePoint, and between January 2014 and March 2016, Woodbury applied an inaccurate accounting and net capital treatment of investment advisory fees. Subsequent adjustments to correct the net capital computations resulted in hindsight net capital deficiencies for Royal Alliance, FSC and SagePoint, and books and records violations and financial reporting inaccuracies across the Firms. During the time period of the violations discussed herein, Fields was the acting FINOP for the Firms.
Fined $300,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures in Making and Keeping Customer Account Information (AWC No. 2007010991902)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between November 2003 and August 2008 (the “Relevant Period”), approximately 3,925 employees of a California County Office of Education (“CCOE”) were enrolled into the CCOE’s Deferred Compensation Program’s (“DCP”) 403(b)/457(b) plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”). The majority of the Plan’s participants were directly enrolled by the Firm’s registered representatives (“RRs”). As part of the enrollment process, the Firm’s RRs offered the participants detailed asset allocation advice and provided specific investment recommendations. Despite the fact that the Firm’s RRs offered specific investment recommendations to its customers, the Firm’s written supervisory procedures did not require that the brokers enrolling the participants into the Plan record the customers’ investor profile information on a customer account application and did not require that the RRs maintain any customer files relating to the participants’ enrollment into the Plan. As a result, the Firm did not maintain or preserve records that would allow supervisory or other review of the RRs’ recommendations to determine whether they complied with the suitability requirements of NASD Rule 2310.
Therefore, the Firm failed to implement an adequate supervisory system, including written procedures, reasonably designed to comply with NASD Conduct Rules 2310(a) and 3110(a) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3010 (a) and (b) and 2110. Moreover, the Firm failed to make and keep customer account information in connection with the enrollment process in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3110(a) and 2110 and Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 17a-3 thereunder.
In addition, during the Relevant Period, the Firm permitted registered representative DP to simultaneously work as a full-time CCOE employee in the role of manager of the Plan and as an RR servicing the Plan as well as a supervisor managing other representatives servicing the Plan. However, the Firm did not implement adequate procedures to assess, investigate or inquire whether DP’s employment as manager of the Deferred Compensation Program conflicted with his role as an RR or with the Firm’s securities business. Accordingly, the Firm failed to implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to address any conflicts of interest posed by registered representative DP’s dual roles as manager of the DCP and registered representative/supervisor at the Firm, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3010(a) and 2110.
Moreover, between November 2003 and January 2009, the Firm failed to implement an adequate supervisory system, including written procedures, that was reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the correspondence-review requirements of NASD Conduct Rule 3010(d)(2) and, thus, violated NASD Conduct Rules 3010(a) and (b), 3010(d)(2), 2110 and FINRA Conduct Rule 2010.
Lastly, between April 2005 and January 2010, the Firm permitted DP to utilize an unapproved outside e-mail address to conduct securities-related business. As a result, the Firm did not retain all emails sent by and received by DP at the outside e-mail address. The Firm thus violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder, and NASD Conduct Rules 3110,2110 and FINRA Conduct Rule 2010.
Fined $300,000 for Alleged Failure in Accurately Completing Self-Assessment (AWC No. 2005000977001)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
NASD Rule 2110: The breakpoint self-assessment follow-up review conducted for the firm found that Sunamerica Securities, Inc., failed to accurately complete the self-assessment of Breakpoint Compliance and the firm’s self-assessment underreported the number of transactions with missed breakpoints. Had the firm accurately completed its self-assessment, FINRA would have directed the firm to undertake additional remedial steps.
Fined $10,000 for Alleged Failure in Accurately Completing Trade-by-Trade Review (AWC No. 2005001296901)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
NASD Rule 2110: The breakpoint self-assessment follow-up review conducted for Spelman & Co., found that the firm failed to accurately complete the required trade-by-trade review as part of the remediation process following the self-assessment.
Fined $15,000 for Allegedly Associating With An Individual Subject to Statutory Disqualification (AWC No. 2006003910901)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Article III, Section 3(A) of the NASD by-laws, NASD Rule 2110 – AIG Financial Advisors, Inc. permitted an individual subject to a statutory disqualification to be associated with the firm.
Fined $100,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Verifying Client Funds And Securities (Docket/Case Number: 3-21759)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
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 Sagepoint Financial, Inc. (“Sagepoint” or “respondent”). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, respondent has submitted an offer of settlement (the “offer”) which the commission has determined to accept. The Commission finds that this matter arises out of the failure of Sagepoint, a registered investment adviser, to obtain verification by an independent public accountant of client funds and securities of which it had custody. From June 2017 to December 2022 (the “relevant period”), Sagepoint used a form agreement to govern certain aspects of the relationship among Sagepoint, its clients, and a particular clearing agent Sagepoint used (the “clearing agent”). Each of these agreements (“customer agreements”) included a margin account agreement that contained language, required by the clearing agent, that permitted the clearing agent to accept, without inquiry or investigation, any instructions given by Sagepoint concerning these clients’ accounts “the “affected accounts”). As a consequence of Sagepoint having this authority with respect to the client funds and securities in the affected accounts, Sagepoint had custody of these assets. Accordingly, because Sagepoint failed to obtain verification by actual examination of the client funds and securities in the affected accounts by an independent public accountant, Sagepoint violated Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder, commonly referred to as the “Custody Rule.”
Fined $6,000 for Alleged Insurance Transaction Related Issue (Docket/Case Number: OBS 4059-B)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
A review of history of regulatory disciplinary action alleged that it would be against public interest to permit the firm to continue transacting insurance in the State of California.
Fined $25,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Representative Who Converted and Used Customer’s Funds (Docket/Case Number: 16049)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The firm self-reported to the Division that one of its representatives was found to have converted customer’s funds and used them for his own benefit. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Sections 35-1-412(a) through (c), the diction alleged that the firm failed to reasonably supervise the registered representative.
Fined $7,500,000 for Alleged Multiple Compliance Failures (Docket/Case Number: 3-17169)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
SEC Admin release 34-77362, IA Release 40-4351 / March 14, 2016: The Securities and Exchange 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 and Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 against the firm (respondent). On the basis of this order and respondent’s offer, the Commission finds that this proceeding arises from breach of fiduciary duty and multiple compliance failures by respondent. From at least 2012 to 2014, respondent 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. The affected clients were advisory clients whom advisor group firms invested in a fee-based advisory service called the Advisor Managed Portfolio (“AMP”) in accounts that are not qualified retirement or Erisa Accounts, where 12B-1 fees are rebated. In its capacity as broker-dealers, respondent received 12B-1 fees paid by the funds in which AMP advisory clients invested. By investing these non-qualified advisory clients in the higher-fee share classes, respondent and two other firms received approximately $2 million in 12B-1 fees that they would not have collected from the lower-fee share classes. Respondent failed to disclose in its forms ADV or otherwise that it had a conflict of interest due to a financial incentive to place non-qualified advisory clients in higher-fee mutual fund share classes. As a result, respondent breached its fiduciary duties as an investment adviser to certain of its AMP advisory clients by investing them in higher-fee mutual fund share classes. In addition, respondent failed to adopt any compliance policy governing mutual fund share class selection. During 2013, respondent also failed to monitor advisory accounts quarterly for inactivity or “reverse churning” as required by under its compliance policies and procedures to ensure that fee-based advisory or “wrap” accounts that charged an inclusive fee for both advisory services trading costs remained in the best interest of clients that traded infrequently. Even though Commission Examination Staff previously had cited the firm for failing to conduct such monitoring several years earlier, respondent did not conduct its inactive account review on a timely basis for the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first and second quarters of 2013. By virtue of this conduct, respondent willfully violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.
Fined $700,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing a Representative to Engage In Dishonest Practices (Docket/Case Number: AP-13-22)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Sagepoint failed to reasonably supervise Guy F. Weber (“Weber”), a Missouri-registered agent who engaged in dishonest or unethical practices in violation of Missouri Law.
Fined $215,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Their Agent (Docket/Case Number: MISS: S-05-0354 – ALA: CO-2010-0015)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
It was alleged that American General Securities Inc. (“AGSI”) violated certain State securities regulations and failed to reasonably supervise actions of agent. The Assets of AGSI were subsequently acquired by applicant.
Fined $600,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Complying With the PA Securities Act of 1972 (Docket/Case Number: 2009-06-13)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
AIG Financial Advisors D/B/A Sagepoint Financial, Inc. failed to reasonably supervise its agent in violation of the PA Securities Act of 1972.
Fined $290,041.08 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Representative to Sell Unregistered Securities (Docket/Case Number: I08-077)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Respondent failed to properly supervise their representative when he conducted business in or from the State of Nevada and sold unregistered securities.
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
If you have questions about SagePoint Financial (now called Osaic Wealth), 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.
