- October 25, 2024
- Cetera Advisors LLC
Gihan Anil Fernando (CRD#: 4469669) is a registered broker and investment advisor with Cetera Investment Services, LLC in Houston, TX.
Broker’s History
He entered the securities industry in 2002 and has worked with Morgan Staney DW Inc.; Morgan Stanley; Bok Financial Securities; and Bok Financial Advisors.
Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in August 2024, Gihan Fernando became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “ that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2013 – May 2016.” The damage amount requested is $591,037.10 and the customer dispute is still pending. This complaint, among others on Gihan Fernando’s FINRA Brokercheck relate to the sale of Non-Traded REIT Investments.
In addition, Gihan Fernando has been the subject of one regulatory disclosure and sixty-one other customer disputes, some of which include:
- August 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2016 through December 2016.” The damage amount requested was $103,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $64,575.99.
- July 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2015 through February 2016.” The damage amount requested was $594,985.69 and the customer dispute settled for $307,240.55.
- July 2024—“ For the sole purpose of resolving an investigation by the Texas State Securities Board, Gihan Fernando consented to the entry of this order. The TSSB found that Fernando recommended clients purchase REITs without fully understanding the product. This constituted an inequitable practice in the sale of securities in rendering services as an investment adviser. Pursuant to 4007.105(a)(a)(A) of the Texas Securities Act, the aforementioned inequitable practice constitutes a basis for the issuance of an Order reprimanding Fernando.”
- June 2024—“ Alleged compensatory damage amount equals complainant’s original principal amount invested in the products.” The damage amount requested was $830,000 and the customer dispute settled for $475,248.36.
- June 2024—“ Complainant alleges dissatisfaction with variable annuity exchanges on or around May 2021.” The damage amount requested was $47,000 and the customer dispute settled for $42,435.04.
- April 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2016.” The damage amount requested was $90,000 and the customer dispute settled for $72,374.50.
- April 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2016.” The damage amount requested was $50,000 and the customer dispute settled for $40,252.47.
- April 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around November 2015.” The damage amount requested was $200,000 and the customer dispute settled for $153,406.28.
- April 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2014 through February 2016.” The damage amount requested was $495,766.04 and the customer dispute settled for $323,429.33.
- March 2024— “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around April 2016.” The damage amount requested was $66,500 and the customer dispute settled for $53,190.27.
- February 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2016.” The damage amount requested was $97,854.48 and the customer dispute settled for $78,334.13.
- February 2024—“ Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around October 2015.” The damage amount requested was $130,000 and the customer dispute settled for $103,548.40.
- January 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.
For a copy of Gihan Fernando’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses
The Wolper Law Firm is currently investigating claims for those clients who have experienced investment loss in Non-Traded Real Estate Investment Trust. Non-Traded Real Estate Investment Trusts (“Non-traded REITs”) do not trade a public securities exchange. For this reason, non-traded REITs can be illiquid, meaning investors may be unable to sell their investments on demand. Typically, the commissions generated on non-traded REITs are higher than industry norm and the investments themselves may be subject to extreme volatility due to associated risk factors. Non-traded REITs are only suitable for investors with a long-term investment horizon who are willing to accept higher levels of risk in their investments.
Financial Advisors often sell non-traded REITs because the commission available is higher than traditional investment products like stocks and bonds. Many Financial Advisors do not adequately explain the risk factors of non-traded REITs and the investor’s inability to sell the investment upon demand.
REITs have traditionally been sold to customers for their high dividend yield. However, many factors impact the ability of the REIT to maintain dividend and share price stability, including the fluctuation in interest rates, the amount and cost of leverage used by the REIT and collectability of the rents or mortgage payments that comprise the underlying assets within the REIT.
Investors may be able to recover investment losses against the brokerage firms that sold this product because of failed due diligence prior to recommending that their retail clients invest. 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.
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.