- March 21, 2021
- Concorde Investment Services
Barry Lemay (CRD#: 306332) is a dually registered Investment Advisor and Broker at Concorde Investment Services, LLC and Concorde Asset Management, LLC in San Jose, CA. He entered the securities industry in 1973 and previously worked for Pacific West Financial Consultants, Inc.; Pacific West Securities, Inc.; VSR Advisory Services; The Masters, Inc.; VSR Financial Services, Inc.; Soares Financial Group, Inc.; Ell-Cap Securities, Inc.; Integrated Resources Equity Corporation; Christopher Weil & Company, Inc.; Quox, Inc.; Ganson & Associates, Inc.; Dave Fries and Associates; Belmont Reid Securities, Inc.; Belmont Reid and Co., Inc.; Investors Diversified Services, Inc.; IDS Marketing Corp.; and IDS Life Insurance Co.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in December 2020, a customer dispute is pending against Barry Lemay: “Client is alleging suitability relating to various investments made from August 2012 to February 2018.” Damages of more than $230,000 are requested.
In addition, Barry Lemay has been the subject of more than a half-dozen customer complaints, including the following:
● July 2015—“CLIENT IS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND SUITABILITY IN RELATION TO TIC INVESTMENTS MADE FROM 2003 TO 2008.” The dispute was settled for $40,000.
● March 2015— “CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO SELL THE $100,000 HE INVESTED IN RIDGEWOOD ENERGY. CLAIMS IT IS A NON-PERFORMING INVESTMENT.” The dispute was closed with no action.
● February 2015—“ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND NEGLIGENCE RELATING TO INVESTMENTS DATED 12/2005 TO 4/2007.” The dispute was settled for $255,000.
● July 2014—”CLIENT ALLEGES THAT RISK ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTMENT WASN’T DISCLOSED.” The dispute was closed with no action.
● August 2012–”CUSTOMER EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING REDUCTION OF DIVIDEND PAYMENTS FOR REIT’S PURCHASED IN DECEMBER OF 2007 AND APRIL OF 2009.” The dispute was closed with no action.
● June 2012—”WRITTEN COMPLAINT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS. ACTIVITIES DATED 9/30/2002-12/15/2006.” The dispute was denied.
● June 2012—”WRITTEN COMPLAINT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND MISREPRESENTATION. ACTIVITIES DATED DECEMBER 2002 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2006.” The dispute was denied.
● December 2010—“CLIENT ALLEGES THAT STOCK SALES REPRESENTATIVE PLACED IN HER ACCOUNT ON 11/1/10 WERE UNAUTHORIZED. The dispute was settled for $10,977.55.
● July 2010—”CLIENTS ALLEGE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE AND MISREPRESENTATION. ACTIVITIES DATED 2/2006-12/9/2009.” The dispute was settled for $299,000.
● May 2009—”CLAIMANTS ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATE SECURITIES LAW OF 1968, AND NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF A PRIVATE PLACEMENT IN MAY OF 2007.” The complaint was settled for $150,000.00.
For a copy of Barry Lemay’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
Financial advisors 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 Advisors’ 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.
FINRA has defined the standards in which investment recommendations made by brokerage firms and registered financial advisors are evaluated. The FINRA suitability rule focuses on three fundamental concepts: (1) reasonable basis suitability, (2) quantitative suitability, and (3) customer-specific suitability.
● 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 advisor 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 advisor 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 advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, and investment objectives. Other considerations include the customer’s time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information disclosed by the customer.
Failure by a financial advisor to adhere to these requirements is evidence of negligence or, worse, investment fraud. If you as the investor can establish, at a minimum, negligent misconduct, you may be entitled to recover your investment losses.
The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.