• May 31, 2023
• Stifel Nicolaus & Company

Chuck A. Roberts (CRD#: 2064602) is a registered Broker and Investment adviser at Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. in New York, NY.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1990 and previously worked for Morgan Stanley; Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.; CIBC World Markets Corp.; M.J. Whitman, Inc.; Painewebber, Inc.; and Lehman Brothers, 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 April 2023, a customer dispute was filed against Chuck A. Roberts. The allegation states, “Customer alleges that he was misled about the risks and characteristics of certain investments.” The customer dispute was denied.

In addition, Chuck A. Roberts has been the subject of four other disclosures, including customer complaints and regulatory infractions:

• October 2022 — “Claimant alleges negligence (breach of FINRA Rules), negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with an outside investment in a hedge fund and with investments purchased at Stifel.” The customer dispute remains pending, and damages of $1M are requested.
• September 2010 — “CLAIMANTS ALLEGE, INTER ALIA, THAT BEGINNING IN 2008 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR MADE UNSUITABLE AND UNAUTHORIZED TRADES. CLAIMANTS ALSO ALLEGE THAT FA MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING INVESTMENTS IN THE CLAIMANTS’ ACCOUNTS.” The customer was awarded damages of $202,228.
• April 2010 — “RESPONDENT’S REGISTRATION AS A SALESPERSON IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 8.E (1)(J)OF THE ACT.” The State of Illinois ordered Chuck A. Roberts to pay a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $1,000 plus the costs of the investigation.
• February 2010 — “NASD RULES 2110, 2790 – CHUCK A. ROBERTS HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT A SALES ASSISTANT AND POSSIBLE OTHERS REPLACED CUSTOMER EMAIL ADDRESSES WITH THE SALES ASSISTANT’S FIRM EMAIL ADDRESS TO FACILITATE THE OPENING OF ONLINE ACCOUNTS AND TO LESSEN THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE CUSTOMERS; THEREFORE, TRADE CONFIRMATIONS WERE SENT TO THE SALES ASSISTANT RATHER THAN THE CUSTOMERS ALTHOUGH THE CUSTOMERS CONTINUED TO RECEIVE THEIR MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, PROSPECTUSES AND 1099 FEDERAL TAX FORMS BY MAIL. ROBERTS CAUSED HIS FIRM’S VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 17A-3 AND NASD RULE 3110. ROBERTS’ RELATIVE OPENED SEVERAL ACCOUNTS AT HIS MEMBER FIRM WHICH ROBERTS SERVICED BUT FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE FIRM THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNED THE ACCOUNTS WAS A RELATIVE. HAD ROBERTS MADE SUCH DISCLOSURE, THE ACCOUNT NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO THE ACCOUNTS WOULD CONTAIN A PREFIX IDENTIFYING THEM AS BEING EMPLOYEE RELATED.” FINRA sanctioned Chuck A. Roberts with censure, a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $40,000, and a suspension from any capacity for four weeks beginning May 15, 2010 and ending April 11, 2010. For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.

For a copy of Chuck A. Roberts’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, 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.