• September 8, 2023
• Morgan Stanley

Jimmy Driggers (CRD#: 1359593) is a previously Registered Broker and Investment Advisor.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1985 and previously worked for Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated; UBS Financial Services Inc.; Prudential Securities Incorporated; Everen Securities, Inc.; Cozad Investment Services, Inc; Escalator Securities, Inc.(FINRA expelled the firm on 12/31/1997); Investacorp, Inc.; J.W Gant & Associates, 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 2022, Jimmy was the subject of a customer dispute. The allegations state, “Claimants, who are grantors and beneficiaries of trust, alleged, inter alia, that FA, in concert with the Trustee, used funds from Liquidity Asset Lines set up without their knowledge to invest in an outside real estate investment owned by FA and his family- April 2008 to April 2022.” The damage amount requested is $4,000,000 and the dispute is still pending.

In addition, Jimmy Driggers has been the subject of three other customer disputes, which include the following:

• August 2020—“Claimant alleges, inter alia, unsuitability with respect to alternate investments – Aug, 2016 – Jul, 2020.” The damage amount requested is $200,000 and the dispute is still pending.
• November 2016—“CLIENT ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT CORPORATE BOND PURCHASES WERE UNSUITABLE. 2014-2016.” The damage amount requested was $64,000 and the dispute was denied.
• September 2010—“JANUARY 28, 2008- SEPTEMBER 14, 2009. CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT HIS FINANCIAL ADVISORS ASSURED HIM THAT HIS INVESTMENT IN LEHMAN BROTHERS STRUCTURED NOTES WOULD BE SAFE AND SECURE, AND FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE LEHMAN BROTHERS STRUCTURED NOTES HE PURCHASED WERE MISREPRESENTED AND UNSUITABLE, AND THAT THE RISK OF LOSS OF PRINCIPAL WAS NOT PROPERLY DISCLOSED TO HIM.” The damage amount requested was $399,633.40 and the dispute was settled for $207,000.

For a copy of Jimmy Drigger’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3270, outside business activities in which Financial Advisors become involved must be disclosed.  This is in order to ensure that Financial Advisors do not engage in selling away.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) strictly prohibits financial advisors from “selling away” or selling securities and investments to clients that are not offered by the brokerage firm with which they are employed. For example, it is illegal and a violation of industry rules for a financial advisor to recommend or even suggest that a client invest in the financial advisor’s own business or a business operated by his or her friends or family. It is not necessary that the financial advisor earn any compensation for recommending an outside investment.

The purpose behind this prohibition is to ensure that a financial advisor only offers to sell securities that have been vetted by his or her employer brokerage firm through a rigorous due diligence process. Most brokerage firms have an approved list of investments, products, and research that can be provided or made available to clients. Any deviation by the financial advisor from the approved product list may constitute selling away.

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.