Financial Advisor Benjamin Schick Subject of $900k Customer Dispute Involving iCap Investments

• August 12, 2025
• Cobalt Securities

Benjamin Melvin Schick (CRD#: 4897234) is a registered broker at Cobalt Capital, Inc. in Lake Mary, FL.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 2005 and has been registered with Cobalt Capital, Inc. since then.

Allegations of Misconduct

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in March 2025, Benjamin Schick became the subject of a customer dispute where, “Based on Respondent records, the Claimants’ investment in iCap investments through the Respondent totaled $210,000, making three purchases between December 2019 and January 2021-the last of which occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the Statement of Claim. However, Claimant claimed that from 2019 to 2022, Respondents recommended private iCap investment products totaling approximately $900,000. Claimant, nearing 70 years of age, claimed that she had made it clear at that time that she wanted a portion of her assets to be invested in safe, income-producing investments. Instead, Respondents allegedly recommended unsuitable, high-risk, alternative investments in complex securities products and in the process, ignored the concentration issues, misrepresented the material risks, and ignored the Claimant’s instructions. Claimant asserts that the iCap investments were presented with optimistic and baseless performance projections, while proper due diligence would have revealed significant losses, negative cash flows, and other issues. Respondents allegedly failed to disclose these risks or the concentration dangers of recommending multiple investments. By Fall 2023, material risks-such as lawsuits, halted payments to shareholders, payroll tax issues, and the resignation of the CEO-became public knowledge. Rather than disclosing these risks, Respondents allegedly assured Claimant that they had conducted due diligence and that iCap was a reliable investment. Claimant believes Respondents were negligent, breached fiduciary duties, and violated Regulation Best Interest (Rule 15l-1(a)) by recommending unsuitable non-traditional investments. Respondents are accused of failing to exercise the required care, skill, and diligence in understanding the risks and costs of these investments or comparing them to safer alternatives better suited to Claimant’s needs. They also allegedly failed in their ongoing responsibilities to monitor and assist Claimant and instead persuaded her to invest further in these high-risk products without proper disclosures or due diligence.” The damage amount being requested is $900,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.

For a copy of Benjamin Schick’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

About iCap Investments

The iCap securities are in distress.  In March 2023, the CEO of iCap, informed investors that “it appears that interest rates are on track to continue rising which means things will likely worsen in the near term.”  The CEO further advised that “the current situation has impacted the real estate portfolio that iCap manages and therefore our ability to return capital to investors under the time frame originally proscribed in our disclosure documents.  We are writing to inform you that at this time we are not able to continue making monthly interest payments.”  Several months later, on September 29, 2023, iCap filed for bankruptcy.  According to the bankruptcy filing, iCap Enterprises, through its various funds, has less than $100 million in assets and up to $500 million in liabilities.  It is also reported that iCap has up to 5,000 individual creditors.  iCap has since been deemed a Ponzi Scheme.

Investors who invested in the iCap family of funds through brokerage firms or financial professionals have the ability to bring a FINRA arbitration claim to recover their losses.  FINRA Notice to Members 10-22 provides specific requirements that brokerages and financial professionals must undertake when conducting due diligence on privately held securities, before recommending them to investors.  Moreover, the FINRA suitability rule requires that brokerages and financial professionals make both reasonable basis and customer specific suitability determinations prior to recommending securities to customers.  These due diligence obligations are absolute but are often overlooked by brokerage firms because they don’t have the resources or infrastructure to effectively conduct due diligence.  It is often passed along to third-parties, who fail to meet the exacting standards of FINRA Notice to Members 10-22.

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.