• August 20, 2024
• Cabin Securities

Billy James Aycock (CRD: 4069907) is a registered broker and investment advisor with Cabin Securities, Inc., in Overland Park, KS.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 2000 and previously worked with Quick & Reilly, Inc.; AXA Advisors, LLC; Park Avenue Securities LLC; Jackson National Life Distributors LLC; Brookstone Capital Management LLC; Arete Wealth Management, LLC; Arete Wealth Advisors, LLC; Center Street Advisors, Inc; and Center Street Securities, 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 2024, Billy Aycock became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “Regarding iCap Equity LLC notes – Unsuitability, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of FINRA conduct rules, negligence, failure to supervise, breach of contract and vicarious liability.” The damage amount requested is $300,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Billy Aycock has been the subject of fifteen other customer disputes:

• March 2024—“ Violation of federal securities law, violation of IN securities act, breach of contract, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence.” The damage amount requested is $412,371.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 22 2024—“ Violation of securities law, breach of contract, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence in reference to Spring Hills Holdings LLC, Tasty Brands LP, GWG L Bonds, Priority Income Fund, Spring Hills holdings and Archon Growth and Income Residential LP.” The damage amount requested is $815,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 5 2024—“ Claimants allege breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, fraud, breach of contract, violation of SEC rule 10b-5 and Act sections 10(b) and 20(a), violation of AZ securities act in reference to GWG L Bonds purchase 2/28/23 and NorthStar healthcare REIT purchased 1/2015.” The damage amount requested is $125,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 5 2024—“ Claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence, negligent supervision, Illinois securites law, fraudulent inducement to hold investment, control person aider and abettor, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty regarding Franklin Realty BSP and Hospitality Investment Trust. No dates were provided in Claim.” The damage amount requested is $100,001.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 5 2024—“ Claimants allege failure to conduct adequate due diligence, failure to act in best interest of Claimants, misrepresentation and omission of material fact and violation of industry standards of care in reference to GWG L Bonds. No dates were specified in the Claim.” The damage amount requested is $100,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 5 2024—“ Breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence, negligent supervision, violations of Ill securities law, fraudulent inducement to hold investment, control person aider and abettor liability, aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty specifically referencing Hospitality REIT and GWG L Bonds. No dates were provided in the Claim as per Claim, client did not have all statements at the time.” The damage amount requested is $200,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 30 2024—“ Claimant alleges that Respondents did not conduct reasonable due diligence on GPB Waste Management LP and that the investment was unsuitable, misrepresented and inconsistent with Claimant’s risk tolerance. Purchased on 10/27/2017.” The damage amount requested is $100,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 29 2024—“ Claimants allege that Respondents did not conduct proper due diligence and improperly recommended unsuitable investments in GWG L Bonds for purchases made on 09/01/2018 and 12/08/2017.” The damage amount requested is $140,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 29 2024—“ Claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence, negligent supervision, violation of IL securities law, fraudulent inducement to hold investment, control person aider and a better liability, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty regarding GWG L Bonds, Hospitality Trust REIT, American Finance REIT, American Realty Cap Global Net Lease, GK Investment Holdings, Cottonwood Communities and Priority Income Fund. No dates were specified.” The damage amount requested is $220,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 29 2024—“ Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract and Negligence, Negligent Supervision , Violation of IL Securities Law, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty regarding GWG L Bonds and non traded REITS – Hospitality Investors Trust REIT, Griffin American Healthcare REIT, Griffin Capital Net Least REIT and Griffin Cap Essential REIT.” The damage amount requested is $185,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 29 2024—“ Claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence, negligent supervision, fraudulent inducement to hold investment, control person aider and abettor, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in reference to purchases in American Realty Global Cap Trust/Global Net Lease Inc., GWG L Bonds, KBS Legacy Partners Apartment REIT, KBS Strategic Opp REIT, Lodging Opp Fund REIT and Priority Income Fund. No dates are specified in the Claim.” The damage amount requested is $110,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 29 2024—“ Claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence, negligent supervision, violation of IL securities law, fraudulent inducement to hold investment, control person aider and abettor, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties in regard to Hospitality Investors Trust REIT, Lodging Opportunity Fund REIT, Priority Income Fund and unspecified others per Claim. No dates were specified.” The damage amount requested is $105,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 26 2024—“ Claimants allege and Respondents did not conduct a reasonable due diligence, that the recommendations were unsuitable and inconsistent with their financial situation, investment objectives and risk tolerance in reference to purchases of GWG L Bonds made by [REDACTED] 09/04/2019 and 09/04/2019 and 09/04/2019 ; [REDACTED] 05/01/2019.” The damage amount requested is $141,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 25 2024—“ Claimant alleges Respondents did not conduct reasonable due diligence and made unsuitable recommendations in reference to GWH Holdings L Bond purchases made on 10/3/2019, 5/15/2020, 11/11/2020 and 11/13/2020.” The damage amount requested is $995,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 25 2024—“ Claimant alleges Respondents improperly recommended an unsuitable investment, falsely represented the investment as safe and failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in the purchase of GWG L Bonds made on 3/1/2018 and 12/1/2018.” The damage amount requested is $1,050,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.

For a copy of Billy Aycock’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.