fbpx

Financial advisor Neal Nakagiri customer complaints

Former NPB Financial Group Broker Neal Nakagiri Has Six Customer Complaints

Neal Nakagiri (CRD#: 722534) is a previously registered Broker and Investment Advisor.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1981 and previously worked for NPB Financial Group, LLC; Associated Securities Corp.; Associated Planners Securities Corporation of Nevada, Inc.; W & D Securities, Inc.; Morgan, Olmstead, Kennedy & Gardner, Inc.; and Jeffries & Co., 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 November 2021, a customer dispute against Neal Nakagiri was settled for $20,000. The allegation states, “Due Diligence failures, Breach of fiduciary duty, breach of expressed/implied contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and failure to supervise.”

In addition, Neal Nakagiri has been the subject of five customer complaints, including two that remain pending, including the following:

  • October 2021 — “Alleged due diligence failures, violation of 10(b) and 10(b)5 securities exchange act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of expressed implied contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, failure to supervise, violations of CA corporate securities law of 1968, and, control person liability.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $422,739 are requested.
  • May 2021 — “Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Written Contract and of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unauthorized Trading and/or Exercise of Discretion Without Written Authorization, Failure to Supervise and Control, Elder Financial Abuse, Violation of State and Federal Securities Laws and FINRA Rules of Fair Practice and Control Person Liability.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $300,000 are requested.
  • February 2021 — “Control Person liability and failure to supervise.” The customer dispute was settled for $199,000.
  • September 2002 — “CLAIMANT [CUSTOMER] FILED AN NASD ARBITRATION STATEMENT OF CLAIM AGAINST [THIRD PARTY], ASSOCIATED SECURITIES CORP. AND NEAL E. NAKAGIRI, ALLEGING LOSSES OF $200,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HANDLING OF HER ACCOUNT FROM NOVEMBER, 1999 TO AUGUST, 2002. HER ACCOUNT WAS HANDLED BY FORMER ASC REP, [THIRD PARTY]. THE CLAIM STATES THAT MS. [CUSTOMER]ACCOUNT WAS INAPPROPRIATELY INVESTED IN HIGH-RISK TECHNOLOGY STOCKS AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOT MONITORED PROPERLY WHEN THE VALUE OF THOSE STOCKS BEGAN TO FALL, IN ORDER TO PREVENT LOSSES. I WAS NAMED AS PRESIDENT & CEO OF ASC. MS. [CUSTOMER]ALLEGES THAT ASC AND I FAILED TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE MS. [THIRD PARTY].” The customer dispute was settled for $68,000.
  • September 1997 — “EXCESSIVE ACTIVITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD ELDER ABUSE AND FAILURE TO SUPERVISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF VARIOUS VARIABLE ANNUITIES BY THE FORMER REG. REP. JAMES E. LOUDERBACK, FROM 1990 TO 1995.” The customer dispute was settled for $191,000.

For a copy of Neal Nakagiri’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.

NPB Financial Advisor Neal Nakagiri Has Six Customer Complaints

Neal Nakagiri (CRD#: 722534) is a previously registered Broker and previously registered Investment Advisor.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1981 and previously worked for NPB Financial Group, LLC; Associated Securities Corp.; Associated Planners Securities Corporation of Nevada, Inc,; W & D Securities, Inc.; Morgan, Olmstead, Kennedy & Gardner, Inc.; and Jefferies & Company, 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 November 2021, a customer dispute filed against Neal Nakagiri was settled for $20,000. The allegation states, “Due Diligence failures, Breach of fiduciary duty, breach of expressed/implied contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and failure to supervise.”

In addition, Neal Nakagiri has been the subject of six customer complaints, including two that remain pending, including the following:

  • October 2021 — “Alleged due diligence failures, violation of 10(b) and 10(b)5 securities exchange act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of expressed implied contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, failure to supervise, violations of CA corporate securities law of 1968 and control person liability.” The customer dispute is pending.
  • May 2021 — “Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Written Contract and of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unauthorized Trading and/or Exercise of Discretion Without Written Authorization, Failure to Supervise and Control, Elder Financial Abuse, Violation of State and Federal Securities Laws and FINRA Rules of Fair Practice and Control Person Liability.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $300,000 are sought.
  • February 2021 — “Control Person liability and failure to supervise.” The customer dispute was settled for $199,000.
  • September 2002 — “CLAIMANT [CUSTOMER] FILED AN NASD ARBITRATION STATEMENT OF CLAIM AGAINST [THIRD PARTY], ASSOCIATED SECURITIES CORP. AND NEAL E. NAKAGIRI, ALLEGING LOSSES OF $200,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HANDLING OF HER ACCOUNT FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO AUGUST, 2002. HER ACCOUNT WAS HANDLED BY FORMER ASC REP, [THIRD PARTY]. THE CLAIM STATES THAT MS. [CUSTOMER]ACCOUNT WAS INAPPROPRIATELY INVESTED IN HIGH-RISK TECHNOLOGY STOCKS AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOT MONITORED PROPERLY WHEN THE VALUE OF THOSE STOCKS BEGAN TO FALL, IN ORDER TO PREVENT LOSSES. I WAS NAMED AS PRESIDENT & CEO OF ASC. MS. [CUSTOMER]ALLEGES THAT ASC AND I FAILED TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE MS. [THIRD PARTY].” The customer dispute was settled for $68,000.
  • September 1997 — “EXCESSIVE ACTIVITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD ELDER ABUSE AND FAILURE TO SUPERVISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF VARIOUS VARIABLE ANNUITIES BY THE FORMER REG. REP. JAMES E. LOUDERBACK, FROM 1990 TO 1995.” The customer dispute was settled for $191,000.

For a copy of Neal Nakagiri’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.

Attorney Matthew Wolper

Attorney Matthew WolperMatt Wolper is a trial lawyer who focuses exclusively on securities litigation and arbitration. Mr. Wolper has handled hundreds of securities matters nationwide before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), JAMS, and in state and federal court. Mr. Wolper has handled and tried cases involving complex financial products and strategies ranging from traditional stocks and bonds to options, margin and other securities-based lending products, closed/open-end mutual funds, structured products, hedge funds, and penny stocks. [Attorney Bio]