- August 11, 2020
- Concorde Investment Services
William Morrow (CRD # 836500) is a Financial Advisor at Concorde Ivestment Services, LLC in San Diego, CA. William Morrow has been in the securities industry since 1977 and previously worked at thirteen different brokerage firms, including Independent Financial Group, LLC, Financial Designs LTD, and QA3 Financial Corp.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), William Morrow has been the subject of thirteen (13) customer complaints, alleging sales practice misconduct. Among the complaints include the following:
• May 2020—”Statement of claim alleges that investments were high risk and not in line with their stated objectives and risk tolerance.” Alleged damages are $150,000 and the matter remains pending.
• February 2015—”STATEMENT OF CLAIM ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; COMMON LAW FRAUD; BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA SECURITIES ACT; NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH TENANT IN COMMON (TIC) INVESTMENTS PURCHASED IN 2006.” The matter settled for $100,000.
• November 2012—”UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS; OMISSIONS; MISREPRESENTATION; BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES.” The matter settled for $380,000.
• April 2012—”STATEMENT OF CLAIM ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FEDERAL & STATE SECURITIES LAWS; NEGLIGENCE; UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATION; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH 2 TENANT IN COMMON INVESTMENTS PURCHASED IN 2008.” The matter settled for $75,000.
• December 2011—”BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; MISPREPRESENTATION; NEGLIGENCE; VIOLATIONS OF CA CORPORATE CODE IN CONNECTION WITH 2 TENANT IN COMMON INVESTMENTS PURCHASED IN 2007.” The matter settled for $250,000.
• October 2011—”ALLEGATIONS INCLUDED MISREPRESENTATION; OMMISSIONS; UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS; SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH 2 TIC INVESTMENTS IN 2007.” The matter settled for $233,00.
• January 2011—”ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE & VIOLATION OF SUITABLITY RULES IN CONNECTION WITH A TENANT IN COMMON INVESTMENT PURCHASED IN 2006.” The matter settled for $145,000.
• November 2010—”ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY RELATED TO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS IN 2004.” The matter settled for $150,000.
• August 2010—”CLAIM ALLEGES UNSUITIBILITY; NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FAILURE TO SUPERVISE IN CONNECTION WITH 1031 EXCHANGE/TIC INVESTMENTS MADE IN 2007 & 2008.” The matter settled for $450,000.
• March 2005—”CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT HER INVESTMENT IN AN UNSECURED NOTE OF DOCUVISION ON OR ABOUT MARCH 2, 1998 WAS UNSUITABLE.” The matter settled for $6,500.
• May 2003—”BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS, OMISSIONS, AND UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATION.” The matter settled for $206,875.01.
• October 1994—”CLAIMANT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, UNSUITABILITY, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY WITH RESPECT TO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ROYALTY MORTGAGE INCOMME FUND II. CLAIMANT REQUESTED FULL RECISSION OF $25,000 INVESTMENTS, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INTEREST COST, COST OF ARBITRATION AND AFTER FEE.” The matter settled for $7,000.
• September 1988—”VIOLATION CALIF CORP CODE: SEC ACT OF’34; FRAUD, ETC.” The matter settled for $33,537.
For a copy of William Morrow’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/836500#disclosuresSection
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.
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:
• Other investments
• Financial situation and needs
• Tax status
• Investment objectives
• Time horizon
• Liquidity needs
• Risk tolerance
• Any other information disclosed by the customer
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.