Former LPL Financial LLC Broker David Taddeo Suspended by FINRA

• January 24, 2026
• LPL Financial

Broker’s Background

 

David Taddeo (CRD #: 1163829) was formerly registered both as a broker and as an investment adviser.  He was previously located in La Mesa, CA.  Taddeo was most recently employed by LPL Financial 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 December 2025 Taddeo consented to sanctions, which stated the following:

“Without admitting or denying the findings, Taddeo consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he participated in private securities transactions with three customers who invested a total of $255,000, without providing prior written notice to his member firm. The findings stated that Taddeo participated in the private securities transactions by introducing customers to the investment opportunity, providing information regarding the company to the customers, and, assisting two customers with liquidating investments in their brokerage accounts at the firm to generate the funds for the investment. Taddeo did not receive any commission or other remuneration in exchange for his customers’ investments. Taddeo falsely attested on his annual compliance questionnaire for 2020, 2021, and 2022, that he had not offered, issued, or participated in private securities transactions or promissory notes, outside of his firm and that he understood he could not direct customers and non-customers to investments not approved by his firm. The findings also stated that Taddeo settled the complaints of two customers who invested in the private securities transactions, without the knowledge or consent of his firm. Taddeo personally repaid the two customers the amount of their original investment in the promissory notes. Taddeo falsely attested on annual compliance questionnaires for 2021, 2022, and 2023 that he had not settled customer complaints away from the firm. Taddeo’s firm learned of the customer complaints and Taddeo’s settlements when the third customer to whom Taddeo sold the promissory note complained in writing.”

Taddeo also has disclosed customer complaints, including the following:

• July 2025–The clients allege misrepresentation and suitability issues concerning the advisor's advice to purchase an illiquid variable annuity in 2010. Alleged damages are $202,000.
• December 2023–Complaint alleges unsuitability and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to a private securities transaction that was done without firm approval. (9/2020-12/29/23).  The matter was settled for $124,167.
• July 202–CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT TERMS OF VARIABLE ANNUITY INCOME BENEFIT WERE PRESENTED IN ERROR IN OCTOBER 2003, THAT INCOME WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN BASED ON THAT ERROR, AND REQUESTS THAT A SOLUTION BE PROVIDED. ACTIVITY PERIOD: 10/1/03 TO 7/29/20.  The matter was settled for $249,624.
• April 2020–CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT TERMS OF VARIABLE ANNUITY WERE MISREPREENTED AND SOUGHT DAMAGES OF APPROXIMATELY $800,000. ACTIVITY DATES – 6/1/07 TO 1/29/20.  The matter was settled for $325,000.
• January 2020–CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT TERMS OF VARIABLE ANNUITY’S INCOME GUARANTEE WERE MISREPRESENTED AND SOUGHT UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES OF OVER $5,000. ACTIVITY PERIOD – 4/17/03 TO 2/1/19.  The matter was settled for $289,625

For a copy of Taddeo’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.  FINRA Rule 3280 prohibits Financial Advisors from engaging in Private Securities Transactions, which are securities transactions that take place away from the employing brokerage firm.  The purpose of these rules is 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 (855) 289-7868 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.