Financial Adviser Scott Kemps Has Eight Disclosed Customer Complaints

Scott Kemps (CRD#: 1849069) is a registered Broker and Investment Adviser at Great Point Capital, LLC in Melbourne, FL.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1988 and previously worked for Meyers Associates, LP; International Assets Advisory, LLC; Ariston Wealth Management, LP; Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.; Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.; Empire Investment Advisors, Inc.; Empire Financial Group, Inc.; Centennial Capital Management, Inc.; Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.; Securities Service Network, Inc.; and Anchor National Financial Services, 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 Scott Kemps. The allegation states, “unsuitable, speculative, illiquid – 2014-2015.” Damages of $400,000 are requested, and the customer dispute is pending.

In addition, Scott Kemps has been the subject of eight other disclosures, including customer complaints:

  • December 2021 — “Alleged omissions and misrepresentations for the investment in an early-stage cancer drug private offering.” The customer dispute was settled for $18,500.
  • October 2021 — “Unsuitable investment recommendations.” The customer dispute was settled for $206,000.
  • May 2021 — “The customer alleges that Mr. Kemp misrepresented the potential upside of the purchase of the stock Oncolix and continuing optimism of the stock’s potential performance, and therefore causing the Customer to purchase more of the stock, holding the security for too long and lost money.” The customer dispute was denied.
  • March 2021 — “Claim alleges lack of due diligence, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, lack of suitability, statutory fraud and breach of contract re sale of GPB Funds. Broker dealer named, registered rep not named but said to make unsuitable recommendations as part of claim.” The customer dispute was settled for $400,000.
  • February 2021 — “Client is claiming that three DPP investments recommended to her between 2015 and 2020 were unsuitable.” The customer dispute was settled for $110,000.
  • October 2014 — “CONDUCTED INVESTMENT ADVISORY BUSINESS FROM OFFICES WITHIN THIS STATE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF LAWFUL REGISTRATION.” The Florida Office of Financial Regulation sanctioned Scott Kemps with a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $5,000.
  • June 2013 — “UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
  • February 1999 — “UNSUITABILITY.” The customer dispute was settled for $200,000.

For a copy of Scott Kemps’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.

Attorney Matthew Wolper

Attorney Matthew WolperMatt Wolper is a trial lawyer who focuses exclusively on securities litigation and arbitration. Mr. Wolper has handled hundreds of securities matters nationwide before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), JAMS, and in state and federal court. Mr. Wolper has handled and tried cases involving complex financial products and strategies ranging from traditional stocks and bonds to options, margin and other securities-based lending products, closed/open-end mutual funds, structured products, hedge funds, and penny stocks. [Attorney Bio]