Did You Lose Money Because of Woodbury Financial and Osaic Wealth? Are You Aware of Complaints and Fines Against Woodbury Financial and Osaic Wealth?
Updated on: December 14, 2023
Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. now called Osaic Wealth (“Woodbury Financial”) (CRD # 421) is a broker-dealer and has been the subject of at least twenty-four (24) complaints filed by regulatory organizations like FINRA and many more by investors like yourself. At Patil Law, we have investigated Woodbury Financial, its regulatory complaints and fines, and its customer complaints. If you’ve invested your hard-earned money with Woodbury 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 Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
Who is Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
How To File a Claim Against Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) To Get Your Money Back
Client Complaints – Is Your Financial Advisor on This List?
Did Misconduct By a Woodbury Financial Advisor Impact Your Investments? What Can You Do?
Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
A Closer Look Into Woodbury Financial’s (now called Osaic Wealth) Regulatory Issues
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
Do I Have an Investment Fraud Case Against Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
✅ YES, if you’ve experienced financial losses due to the actions or misconduct of Woodbury Financial or its staff, you have the right to pursue legal action against them. You can sue Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial in FINRA arbitration proceedings, but WIN that arbitration. The easiest way to know if you have a case against Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth)?
Woodbury Financial (CRD # 421) 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, Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) To Get Your Money Back
If you have questions about Woodbury 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 Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial advisors:
- Steven Gessner currently unaffiliated (previously with Woodbury Financial Services and United Planners’ Financial Services of America)
- Joseph Tonyan with Woodbury Financial Services (previously with Sagepoint Financial and LPL Financial)
- Thomas Munker with Creativeone Securities (previously with LPL Financial and Woodbury Financial Services)
- Patrick Boland with LPL Financial (previously with Woodbury Financial Services and Proequities)
Did Misconduct By a Woodbury Financial Advisor Impact Your Investments?
If you have lost money investing with any of these Woodbury 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.
Woodbury Financial (now called Osaic Wealth) Has Many Regulatory Complaints and Fines
There have been approximately twenty-four (24) state and self-regulatory body disclosure events against Woodbury 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 Woodbury 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 Woodbury Financial’s (now called Osaic Wealth) Regulatory Issues
Woodbury Financial has been repeatedly censured, warned, and fined for its own misconduct and failure to supervise its army of financial advisors. Details of [twenty-four (24) regulatory issues are listed below:
Fined $55,000 for Allegedly Failing to Inform Investors About Failure to File Necessary Documents With the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 $225,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures in Complying with Applicable Securities Laws and FINRA Rules on Suitability (AWC No. 2017053596502)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From June 2013 until June 2015, Woodbury’s system for supervising additions to existing variable annuities was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and FINRA rules, including those governing suitability—a problem that affected more than 3,800 transactions during this period. As a result, Woodbury violated NASD Rule 3010 (for conduct before December 1, 2014) and FINRA Rules 3110 (for conduct on and after December 1, 2014) and 2010.
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Supervision and Training on the Sale 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 of Class A Shares Purchase Without Front-End Charge (AWC No. 2016049976501)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2017 (the “Relevant Period”), Woodbury 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, Woodbury 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, Woodbury violated NASD Conduct Rule 3010 (for misconduct before December 1, 2014), F1NRA Rule 3110 (for misconduct on or after December 1, 2014), and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $65,000 for Allegedly Applying 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 $100,000 for Alleged Failures in Applying Sales Charge Discounts to Certain Customers’ Unit Investment Trusts Purchases (AWC No. 2014041842001)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From May 1,2009 to April 30,2014 (the ”Relevant Period’), the Firm failed to apply sales charge discounts to certain customers’ eligible purchases of unit investment trusts (“UITs”) in violation of FINRA Rule 2010. ln addition, the Firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that customers received sales charge discounts on all eligible UIT purchases in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 3010 and FINRA Rule 2010.
Fined $60,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Retaining Business-Related Electronic Communications (AWC No. 2011025484001)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
From at least July 2007 through at least December 20 I 1, WFS failed to retain certain business-related electronic communications for a small subset ol its associated persons. This conduct violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Acl”) and Rule 17a-4(b)(4) thereunder, NASD Conduct Rules 31 IO (for conduct before December 5,201 1) and 21 10 (for conduct before December I 5,2008), and FINRA Rules 45 I I (for conduct after December 4,201 1 and 2010 (for conduct after December 14,2008).
Fined $45,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Reviewing Equity Trades for Excessive and Unsuitable Trading (AWC No. 2009018045802)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between January 2008 and May 2009, Woodbury failed to establish, maintain and enforce an adequate system to review equity trades for excessive and therefore unsuitable trading and consequently did not detect a registered representative who entered excessive and discretionary trades in two customer accounts.
Fined $75,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Reviewing and Monitoring All Transmittals of Funds (AWC No. 2010024996801)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
During the period from November 1, 2008 (the relevant period), Woodbury failed to supervisory system that was reasonably designed monitor all transmittals of funds from the party accounts and outside entities, in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3010, 3012{a)(2)(B)(i) and 2110, and FINRA Rule 2010. Specifically, Woodbury did not create or maintain policies or procedures requiring a review to detect or prevent multiple wires going to the same third-party account, or reports that would identify that multiple customer wires were going to the same third-party account. Woodbury failed to detect a scheme perpetrated by one of its representatives who was able to convert approximately $990,000 from Woodbury customers by having funds wired from the customers’ Woodbury accounts controlled. to a bank account that he controlled.
Fined $50,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Overseeing Proper Procedures for Their Variable Life Insurance Operations (AWC No. 2006006901101)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Between December 2002 and May 2005, Woodbury Sailed to establish, maintain and enforce a supervisory system and written procedures relating to the firm’s variable life insurance business that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with federal securities laws and regulations and NASD Conduct Rules. As a result, Woodbury violated NASD Conduct Rule 3010(a) and (b) and Rule 2110.
Fined $100,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Obtaining Independent Verification For Funds And Securities (Docket/Case Number: 3-21760)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (“Woodbury” 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 Woodbury, 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”), Woodbury used a form agreement to govern certain aspects of the relationship among Woodbury, its clients, and a particular clearing agent Woodbury 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 Woodbury concerning these clients accounts (the “affected accounts”). As a consequence of Woodbury having this authority with respect to the client funds and securities in the affected accounts, Woodbury had custody of these assets. Accordingly, because Woodbury failed to obtain verification by actual examination of the client funds and securities in the affected accounts by an independent public accountant, Woodbury violated Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder, commonly referred to as the “Custody Rule.”
Fined $1,500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Providing Notice to the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (Docket/Case Number: 21-0129)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. did not provide notice to the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner and did not cancel financial professional Mr. Hannes’ affiliation to its business entity insurance producer license within 30 days of his termination for cause due to an administrative error.
Fined $4,500 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Notifying Superintendent On Time (Docket/Case Number: 2019-0193-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. failed to report to the superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services within 30 days of the final disposition of an administrative action taken by the California Department of Insurance on or about December 19, 2018 and Woodbury provided incorrect and untrue information in its application for a life brokers licenses received by the New York Department of Financial Services on May 29, 2019 in that Woodbury failed to disclosure certain matters that had been reported to the National Insurance Producers Registry in the application.
Fined for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Meeting Its Fiduciary Duty And Providing Sufficient Information Regarding Its Practices And Fees For Mutual Fund Share Class Selection (Docket/Case Number: 3-19077)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
IA Release 40-5174, March 11, 2019: The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be instituted against Woodbury financial services, Inc. (“respondent”). On the basis of this order and respondent’s offer, the Commission finds that these proceedings arise out of breaches of fiduciary duty and inadequate disclosures by the respondent in connection with its mutual fund share class selection practices and the fees it received. At times during the relevant period, respondent purchased, recommended, or held for advisory clients mutual fund share classes that charged 12B-1 fees instead of lower-cost share classes of the same funds for which the clients were eligible. Respondent received 12B-1 fees in connection with these investments. Respondent failed to disclose in its form ADV or otherwise the conflicts of interest related to (a) and its receipt of 12B-1 fees, and/or (b) its selection of mutual fund share classes that pay such fees. During the relevant period, respondent received 12B-1 fees for advising clients to invest in or hold such mutual fund share classes. As a result of the conduct, respondent willfully violated Sections 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act.
Fined $5,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures in Disclose its Regulatory Actions On Time And Misrepresented Them On Its License Renewal Applications (Docket/Case Number: 2015-0055-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
For regulatory actions that occurred between December 2008 and October 2012, the Department alleged that the firm failed to disclose its regulatory actions within 30 days of final disposition and that the firm failed to accurately reflect those matters on its license renewal applications.
Fined $150,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Properly Overseeing an Agent and Their Activities (Docket/Case Number: AP-14-08)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Violations of Section 409.4-412, RSMO. (Cum. Supp. 2012) by failing to supervise registered agent Gould’s activities in violation of Section 409.4-412(D)(13), RSMO. (Cum. Supp. 2012).
Fined $12,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Representatives to Recommend Unsuitable Allocations (Docket/Case Number: 09-068-S)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Failure to Adequately Supervise. Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (Woodbury) is responsible for supervising two registered representatives that engaged in certain sales activity wherein they recommended identical subaccount allocations to numerous clients in connection with the sale of variable annuity products. Those allocations may have been unsuitable for one or more of those customers based on the customers’ circumstances. Woodbury’s compliance procedures were not sufficient to adequately review variable annuity subaccount allocations. As a result Woodbury failed to adequately supervise the registered representatives.
Fined $250,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Representatives to Engage in Fraudulent Activities (Docket/Case Number: S-20671A-09-0191)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The Commission claims that Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (“Woodbury”), failed to reasonably supervise Mayra Angulo and Mark Islas pursuant to A.R.S. §44-1961 (a) (12). Woodbury had compliance rules prohibiting registered representatives from changing customer brokerage accounts to post office boxes without proper documentation, but Woodbury did not discover the fraudulent conduct of Anglo/Islas until after a customer contacted Woodbury seeking a new registered representative. Woodbury promptly initiated an investigation and discovered the use of PO boxes to defraud customers. Woodbury did not discover unauthorized and fraudulent use of PO boxes so as to prevent losses to customers. Although Woodbury conducted annual office audits, they failed to discover that customers were paying funds directly to IFS, the DBA used by Angulo/Islas, and that they were misappropriating funds intended for premium payments to hartford and money market funds.
Fined $65,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures Allowing Representatives, and On Certain Occasions, Assist in Sharing Customer Information And Breaking Rules About Transferring Data (Docket/Case Number: 3-13437)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
SEC Administrative Release 34-59740, April 9, 2009: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate to and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be , and hereby are, instituted pursuant to sections 15(b) and 21c of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. for willfully violating Regulation S-P Rule 10 by allowing, and on certain occasions, assisting newly-recruited registered representatives in providing customer nonpublic personal information to Woodbury prior to recruited representative leaving their current broker-dealer in order for Woodbury to prepopulated account transfer and new account forms with certain customer information, and for willfully violating regulation S-P Rules 4 and 6 by not informing its customers that it would allow departing registered representatives to take nonpublic customer information when leaving Woodvbury for a nonaffiliated broker-dealer.
Fined $6,000 for Alleged Supervisory Failures In Informing Clients of Unregistered Representatives (Docket/Case Number: AP-08-25)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
While transacting business in the State of Missouri as a Federal-covered investment adviser, Woodbury engaged in activity in violation of the Missouri Securities Act of 2003 by failing to disclose to its clients that two of its investment adviser representatives were not properly registered with the State of Missouri.
Fined $12,500 for Allegedly Conducting Securities Sales Related Activity At Ninety-Five (95) Unregistered Offices (Docket/Case Number: IC04-FIN-05)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Respondent is conducting securities sales-related activity at ninety-five (95) locations (“Unregistered offices” not registered as branch offices with the Securities Commissioner. Respondent’s failure to register each branch office constitutes a violation of Section 115. 1 (B) (1) of the board rules. Respondent’s securities sales related activity at unregistered branch offices constitutes a violation of section 115.2(c) of the board rules. Respondent, by and through an authorized signatory, acknowledged on the Form U-4S filed with the Securities Commissioner that the authorized signatory had taken appropriate steps to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in and with agents’ form U-4 filings. However, the authorized signatory failed to take appropriate steps to verify the accuracy and completeness of the agent’s form U-4 filings because the office of employment address was not properly completed on the agents’ Form U-4S.n Respondent’s representation that respondent’s authorized signatory had taken appropriate steps to verify accuracy and completeness of the agents’ Form U-4S constitutes a material misrepresentation to the Securities Commissioner in connection with information deemed necessary by the Securities Commissioner to determine a dealer’s business repute of qualifications.
Fined for Allegedly Violating The Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Imperial Financial Services, Inc. (“IFS”) [Now named Fortis investors, Inc. formerly Amev Investors, Inc.] charged with violating Section 17(a) of Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules thereunder.
Fined $2,500 for Allegedly Operating With Insufficient Net Capital (Docket/Case Number: C04950052)
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
The applicant and its financial operation’s principal were both censured and assessed a joint and several fines of $2,500 for permitting the firm to operate with insufficient net capital.
Fined $3,000 for Allegedly Employing An Unlicensed Agent (Docket/Case Number: X-92096(L))
Overview from FINRA’s Disciplinary Office:
Employing an unlicensed agent.
Next Steps and Free Consultation with Our Legal Team
If you have questions about Woodbury 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.
