Financial Advisor Matthew Koelliker Disclosed Three Customer Disputes

• November 6, 2025
• KKR Capital Markets

Matthew Brett Koelliker (CRD#: 5660722) is a registered broker with KKR Capital Markets, LLC, in San Francisco, CA.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 2011 and previously worked with Pimco Investments, LLC.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in September 2025, Matthew Koelliker became the subject of a customer dispute where the client alleged, “various claims related to a sudden decrease in value of Plaintiff’s limited partnership interest and failure to honor in full its 2021 notice to withdraw limited partnership interest in breach of limited partnership agreement.” The customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Matthew Koelliker has been the subject of two other customer disputes:

• October 2024—“ Plaintiff alleges various claims related to sudden decrease in value of Plaintiff’s limited partnership interest and failure to honor in full Plaintiff’s redemption request.” The damage amount requested is $15,032,924.63 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• February 2024—“ Investor alleges failure to honor in full its 2020 notice to withdraw limited partnership interest in breach of fund’s limited partnership agreement.” The damage amount requested is $2,888,581,83 and the customer dispute settled for $650,000.00.

For a copy of Matthew Koelliker’s FINRA BrokeCheck, click here.

Private Placement Offerings and Alternative Investments Aren’t Suitable for Everyone

Private placements have increased in popularity over the years as investment professionals attempt to capitalize on volatility experienced among publicly trades securities. Alternative investments are essentially any type of investment property that is not a stock, bond, or cash holding.  Private placements, such as DSTs, are often marketed and sold as safe and stable income producing vehicles that are not subject to the same market forces as publicly traded securities. While alternative investments open up the possibility of high returns, they are also high risk.  The reality is that both are speculative and do not have the same reporting requirements as publicly traded securities.  This means that they can often mask financial difficulties until it is too late.  Moreover, because they can be more illiquid, investors are often unable to sell their interests to third-parties before experiencing an investment loss.

FINRA Notice to Members 10-22 provides specific requirements that brokerages and financial professionals must undertake when conducting due diligence on privately held securities, including alternative investments, before recommending them to investors.  Moreover, the FINRA suitability rule requires that brokerages and financial professionals make both reasonable basis and customer specific suitability determinations prior to recommending securities to customers.

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.