- October 13, 2022
- Coordinated Capital Securities
Daniel Hajduk (CRD#: 830330) is a previously registered Broker.
He entered the securities industry in 1976 and previously worked for Coordinated Capital Securities, Inc.; Stephens Financial Group, Inc.; Blunt Ellis & Loewi, Inc.; Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc; Bacon, Whipple & Co., Inc.; John H. Altorfer & Co.; and T. Reilly, Inc.
Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in September 2022, FINRA sanctioned Daniel Hajduk, barring him from all capacities, indefinitely, beginning September 26, 2022. The FINRA sanction states, “Without admitting or denying the findings, Hajduk consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to appear and provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA during the course of an investigation that originated from a FINRA cycle examination of his member firm that included a review of certain trades that he effected for firm customers.”
For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here
In addition, Daniel Hajduk has been the subject of ten disclosures, including customer complaints, regulatory infractions and employment disclosures:
- September 2022 — “The applicant was permitted to resign after being notified by FINRA that formal action is being recommended regarding the applicants’ refusal to cooperate with an order for an on the records (OTR) interview pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210.” Daniel Hajduk was permitted to resign from Coordinated Capital Securities, Inc.
- September 2022 — “Applicant has been advised by staff that formal action is being recommended regarding the applicant’s refusal to cooperate with an order for an on the record (OTR) interview pursuant to FINRA rule 8210.” FINRA opened an investigation into Daniel Hajduk.
- December 1992 — Daniel Hajduk was sanctioned with a monetary penalty of $5,000, censure, and a suspension by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., after erring on the date upon which his fine was due.
- February 1992 — “CUSTOMER CLAIMS THAT THEIR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL RESOURCES MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS CORPORATION COMMON STOCK WAS UNSUITABLE FOR THEM. CUSTOMER SEEKS $22,000.00 IN DAMAGES. THIS WAS THE PURCHASE PRICE.” National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. sanctioned Daniel Hajduk with a fine of $15,000 and censure.
- March 1989 — “CUSTOMER COMPLAINT ALLEGING UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS.” The customer dispute was settled for $36,250.
- April 1987 — “CLIENT COMPLAINED OF SPECULATIVE AND UNSUITABLE TRADING.” The customer dispute was settled for $10,000.
- April 1987 — “U-5 NOTICE STATED THAT WHILE EMPLOYED WITH THE FIRM, HAJDUK DEPOSITED PERSONAL FUNDS INTO THE ACCOUNT OF DONALD AND CAROL RITTENHOUSE (THE ACCOUNT REFLECTED AN UNSECURED BALANCE).” Daniel Hajduk was permitted to resign from Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. after allegations were made.
- August 1979 — The Chicago Board of Option Exchange suspended Daniel Hajduk.
- August 1979 — “THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT HAJDUK WAS PERMITTED TO RECOMMEND SPREADING AND RATIO WRITING TRANSACTIONS FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A PUBLIC CUSTOMER WHICH WERE UNSUITABLE BASED ON THE CUSTOMER’S KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND FINANCIAL ABILITY TO BEAR THE RISKS OF THE MARKET.” The customer dispute was settled for $25,000.
For a copy of Daniel Hajduk’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses
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 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 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.