• October 20, 2023
• VCS Venture Securities

Andrew Scott Pesner (CRD#: 1971579) is a registered broker at VCS Venture Securities, in Hauppauge, NY.

Broker’s Background

Andrew Pesner entered the securities industry in 1990. He previously worked for Joseph Stone Capital LLC; First Midwest Securities, Inc.; American Capital Partners, LLC; Milestone Financial Services, Inc.; First Asset Management, Inc.; Chatfield Dean & Co., Inc; and Lew Lieberbaum & Co., Inc.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Regulatory Authority (FINRA), In September 2023, Andrew Pesner was the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “SUITABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, LOST OPPORTUNITY.” The damage amount requested is $295,531.50. The customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Pesner has been the subject of several other FINRA disclosures, including the following:

• May 2003—“ ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED AND UNSUITABLE TRADING.” The damage amount requested was $49,739.71. The customer dispute settled for $23,500.
• February 1998—“ UNAUTHORIZED TRADING.” The damage amount requested was $12,000. The customer dispute was denied.
• February 1998—“ ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY, UNNAUTHORIZED TRADING, CHURNING.” The damage amount requested was $50,000. The customer dispute settled for $50,000.
• July 1996— “ABOVE RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF INDIANA WHEREBY, WITHOUT ADMITTING TO VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIANA SECURITIES ACT, THEY SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS: RESPONDENTS SHALL PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO AN INDIANA INVESTOR; RESPONDENT LEW LIEBERBAUM SHALL PAY TO THE DIVISION A CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000; RESPONDENT DABAL SHALL PAY TO THE DIVISION A CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 AND SHALL BE SUSPENDED FROM EFFECTING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IN THE STATE OF INDIANA FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, COMMENCING ON JULY 22, 1996; RESPONDENT PESNER SHALL PAY TO THE DIVISION A CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 AND SHALL BE SUSPENDED FROM EFFECTING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IN THE STATE OF INDIANA FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS, COMMENCING ON JULY 22, 1996; AND RESPONDENTS DABAL AND PESNER SHALL, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WITH SAID ONE YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING ON JULY 22, 1996, BE SUBJECTED TO CERTAIN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIVE MEASURES WHEN CONDUCTING SECURITIES RELATED BUSINESS WITH INDIANA RESIDENTS.”
• January 1996—“ SUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATION, CUSTOMER ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $176,000. “ The damage amount requested was $352,000. The customer dispute settled for $125,000.
• October 1995—“ FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, MISREPRESENTATION, OMMISSION OF FACTS, UNSUITABILITY, DAMAGES 40,000.” The damages granted were $17,455.55.
• August 1995— “ALLEGED: UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, CHURNING, MISREPRESENTATION, OMISSION OF FACTS ALLEGED DAMAGES: $390,000 ($90,000 COMPENSATORY; $300,000 PUNITIVES).” The damage amount requested was $90,000. The customer dispute settled for $50,000.

 

For copy of Andrew Pesner’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 mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.