• February 10, 2023
• Lifemark Securities Corp

Patrick Durst (CRD#: 6328382) is a registered Broker and Investment Adviser at Lifemark Securities Corp. in Centennial, OH.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 2014 and previously worked for Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in June 2022, a customer dispute was opened against Patrick Durst. The allegation states, “Allegation of unsuitable investment in alternative product, which was part of a larger, diversified portfolio. Client purchased the alternative product on or around September 2020. Durst (along with his partner) recommended this product for this client because of her interest in an investment that was not correlated to the market, among other things. When meeting with this client, she expressed investment objectives of capital appreciation, income, and preservation of capital. She expressed a risk tolerance of moderately aggressive and was 77 years old at the time. Durst offered other alternatives to the client, but the client ultimately chose the alternative product. The client invested $100,000 in the product. Unfortunately, has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Understanding that this was a risky investment, the broker/dealer intentionally limited this portion of the client’s overall investment portfolio to only 15% of her investable assets. Client believes this investment was unsuitable because of its risk level and illiquidity. Unfortunately, the company that sold the investment has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.” Damages of $300,000 are sought, and the customer dispute is pending.

In addition, Patrick Durst has been the subject of one customer complaints, including one that remains pending, including the following:

• April 2022 — “Allegation of unsuitable investment in alternative product, which was part of a larger, diversified portfolio. Client purchased an alternative product on or around April 2020. Durst (along with his partner) recommended this product for this client because of his interest in an investment not correlated to the market among other things. When meeting with this client, he expressed investment objectives of income and preservation of capital. He expressed also that his risk tolerance was conservative and was 56 years old at the time. Durst offered other alternatives to the client, but the client ultimately chose the alternative product. The client invested $60,000 in the product. Understanding that this was a risky investment, the broker/dealer intentionally limited this portion of the client’s overall investment portfolio to only 10% of his total investable assets. Client believes this investment was unsuitable because of its risk level and illiquidity. Unfortunately, the company that sold the investment has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.” The customer dispute is pending.

For a copy of Patrick Durst’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

Financial advisers have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the financial advisers’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.

Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an adviser to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.

Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial adviser with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.

Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial adviser must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s age, tax status, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance; a client’s other investments, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, and any other information disclosed by the customer should also be considered.

The Wolper Law Firm, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at (800) 931-8452 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.