• April 19, 2024
• BOK Financial Securities

Gihan Anil Fernando (CRD#: 4469669) is a registered broker with Cetera Investment Services, LLC in Houston, TX.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 2002 and previously worked with Morgan Stanley, and Bok Financial 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 March 2023, Gihan Fernando became the subject of a customer dispute, where complainant alleged, “that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2018 through August 2018.” The damage amount requested is $100,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Gihan Fernando has been the subject of 26 other customer disputes, which include the following:

• February 2024— “Alleged compensatory damage amount equals complainant’s original principal amount invested in the product.” The customer dispute settled for $153,990.90.
• January 30, 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2018.” The customer dispute settled for $61,596.37.
• January 23, 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2014 through June 2016.” The damage amount requested was $699,000 and the customer dispute settled for $311,260.45.
• January 22, 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2015 through March 2017.” The damage amount requested was $150,000 and the customer dispute settled for $88,660.16.
• January 10, 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2016.” The damage amount requested was $225,000 and the customer dispute settled for $124,509.20.
• January 9, 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The damage amount requested was $50,000 and the customer dispute settled for $49,283.75.
• December 21, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The damage amount requested was $60,000 and the customer dispute settled for $60,000.
• December 19, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around March 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $40,037.62.
• December 14, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $23,098.63.
• December 14, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $30,798.18.
• December 13, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2016 through September 2016.” The damage amount requested was $600,000 and the customer dispute settled for $340,368.55.
• December 13, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $30,798.18.
• December 12, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $30,798.18.
• December 12, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2016 through June 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $56,203.58.
• December 8, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $84,695.00.
• November 28, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2015 through December 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $138,271.99.
• November 22, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $120,112.90.
• November 16, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2015 – June 2016.” The damage amount requested was $40,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $28,862.24.
• November 16, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2017 through March 2018.” The customer dispute settled for $49,277.09.
• November 13, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around June 2014 through June 2015.” The damage amount requested was $500,000 and the customer dispute settled for $375,501.37.
• November 10, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The damage amount requested was $240,000 and the customer dispute settled for $236,154.25.
• November 9, 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2016 through September 2016.” The damage amount requested was $105,439.00 and the customer dispute settled for $68,868.11.
• October 2023— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2015 through May 2016.” The customer dispute settled for $147,460.26.
• July 2023— “Client alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process in September 2016.” The customer dispute settled for $81,901.85.
• September 2022— “Client alleges that product features were misrepresented at time of sale. March 2017-November 2022.” The damage amount requested was $16,018.77 and the customer dispute settled for $16,018.77.
• July 2020— “Claimants allege unsuitable product recommendations. A total of seven transactions are included in the claim and were executed between March 2014 and November 2017.” The customer dispute settled for $350,000.

For a copy of Gihan Fernando’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.