• March 2, 2024
• Maloney Securities

Glennon James Cole (CRD#: 1999588) is a previously registered broker.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1989. He previously worked with Edward Jones; UBS PaineWebber, Inc.; Summit Brokerage Services, Inc.; Huntleigh Securities Corporation; First Brokerage America, LLC; and most recently Moloney Securities 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 July 2023, Glennon Cole became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “Suitability/negligence. 2018-2020.” The damage amount requested is $150,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Glennon Cole has been the subject of 13 other disclosures, which include the following:

• Oct 2022—“ Suitability/Negligence.” The customer dispute settled for $15,000.
• Sept 2022—“ Suitability/Negligence.” The customer dispute settled for $25,000.
• June 2022—“ Suitability/Negligence.” The customer dispute settled for $55,000.
• May 2022—“ Client alleges unsuitable recommendations were made. Sept 2012 to Feb 2021.
• April 2021—“Suitability.” The customer dispute settled for $122,500.
• Feb 2021—“ FINRA disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” As a result, Glennon was discharged from Moloney Securities Co., Inc.
• June 2019—“Harassment; Threatening Dissemination of Images.” Suspended imposition of sentence; personal, non-securities and non-customer related domestic matter.
• Dec 2012—“ $30,000 Tax Lien.”
• April 2009—“ CLIENT SAID WE ADVISED HER TO SELL A FIXED ANNUITY WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE PENALTY AND TAX ISSUES.” The damage amount requested was $5,778 and the customer dispute was denied.
• Jan 2003—“ CLIENT ALLEGES THAT THE BROKER FAILED TO FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO SELL STOCK. TIME PERIOD: APRIL 2002.” The damage amount requested was $6,800 and the customer dispute was denied.
• May 2002—“ CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT HIS BROKER MADE UNAUTHORIZED TRADES. CUSTOMER ALSO CLAIMS THAT HE ADVISED THE BROKER NOT TO USE MARGIN BUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TRADES WERE MADE ON MARGIN. TIME PERIOD: 2001- 2002. The customer dispute settled for $4,500.
• June 2001—“ CLIENT ALLEGES FA PURCHASED SEVERAL STOCKS IN CLIENT’S ACCOUNT WITHOUT CLIENT’S PERMISSION. DAMAGES ESTIMATES TO EXCEED $5,000. TIME PERIOD: JANUARY 2001- MAY 2001. The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2000—“ THE SON OF THE CLIENT STATES IT IS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES WITH THE ESTATE FEATURE WERE TO BE PURCHASED BY THE CLIENT. THE SON STATES 7 OF THE 20 SECURITIES PURCHASED DO NOT HAVE THE ESTATE FEATURE. THE SON REQUEST THAT ALL OF THE SECURITIES BE REDEEMED AT FACE VALUE. The customer dispute is still pending.

 

For a copy of Glennon Cole’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.