- August 28, 2023
- Newbridge Securities
John Forrester, Jr. (CRD#: 728188) is a registered broker at Newbridge Securities Corporation in Boca Raton, FL.
He entered the securities industry in 1981 and currently works for Newbridge Securities Corporation. He previously worked for Wasserman & Associates, Inc.; Thos. K. Wasserman & Associates, Inc.; Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.; Prudential Securities Incorporated; Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc.; Richardson Greenshields Securities Inc.; Arch W. Roberts & Co.; Cralin & Co., Inc.; Fittin, Cunningham & Lauzon, Inc.; and Herzfeld & Stern.
Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in May 2023, a customer dispute was filed against John Forrester alleging “breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, and breach of contract.” The damage amount requested is $200,000 and the dispute is still pending.
In addition, John Forrester has been the subject of six other disclosure, which include the following:
- April 2019— Customer dispute, “CLAIMANT ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE.” The dispute was settled for $7,500.
- June 2017— Financial disclosure for “Bankruptcy” which was dismissed.
- October 2010— FINRA regulatory disclosure, “PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3 OF FINRA BY-LAWS, AND FINRA RULE 9554, RESPONDENT’S FINRA REGISTRATION IS SUSPENDED OCTOBER 15, 2010, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR TO SATISFACTORILY RESPOND TO FINRA REQUESTS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE. ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, RESPONDENT FILED A REQUEST FOR HEARING WITH FINRA; HOWEVER, HE DID NOT SET FORTH A VALID DEFENSE TO THIS EXPEDITED PROCEEDING SPECIFIED BY PROCEDURAL RULE 9554(E). ACCORDINGLY ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2010, FINRA ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO FILE A COGNIZABLE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 27, 2010, AND THE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO FILED A STATEMENT OF DEFENSE AS DIRECTED. HERE, THE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURAL RULE 9554 BY STATING A COGNIZABLE DEFENSE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPONDENT’S HEARING REQUEST IS DISMISSED. PURSUANT TO RULE 9559(M), THE SUSPENSION NOTICE IS DEEMED TO BE THE FINAL FINRA ACTION, THE INSTANT PROCEEDING IS HEREBY TERMINATED, AND THE RESPONDENT’S REGISTRATION IS SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. SUSPENSION LIFTED OCTOBER 29, 2010”
- August 2008— Customer dispute, “CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT SECURITIES IN ACCOUNT THAT WAS OPPENED AT THE END OF JUNE 2007, HAD DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY IN VALUE. CUSTOMER FURTHER STATES THAT THE AIM OF THE INVESTMENT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPAL INTACT. THE CUSTOMER SEEKS COMPENSATION FROM THE FIRM.” The damages awarded were $108,315.02.
- September 1996—Customer dispute, “UNSUITABILITY CONCENTRATION CHURNING.” Damages awarded were $50,000.
- April 1993—Customer dispute, “CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1991 PURCHSSES OF AG SPANOS, MFS, MITF, GOV’T SECURITY EQUITY TRUST, AIRCORA, PB TAX CREDIT & PUTNAME OTION TRUST. ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $96,700 ARE BEING CLAIMED.” The dispute was settled for $30,000.
For a copy of John Forrester’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 firstname.lastname@example.org.