• April 13, 2022
• Pruco Securities

Jeffrey Weiner (CRD#: 2476604) is a previously registered Broker.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1994 and previously worked for Pruco Securities, LLC; MML Investors Services, LLC; MSI Financial Services, Inc.; and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in March 2022, FINRA sanctioned Jeffrey Weiner, levying a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $5,000, and suspending him from all capacities for 30 days beginning April 4, 2022, and ending May 3, 2022. The FINRA sanction states, “Without admitting or denying the findings, Weiner consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he impersonated nine customers of his former member firm employer, during 19 telephone calls to the former firm’s insurance affiliate (the Carrier) to obtain information about the customers’ existing variable life insurance policies. The findings stated that Weiner impersonated the customers to facilitate the transfer of their policies from his former firm to his new firm, and ultimately four of them became Weiner’s customers at the new firm. Although the nine customers gave Weiner permission to obtain their information from the Carrier, the customers did not authorize Weiner to impersonate them.”

For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.

In addition, Jeffrey Weiner has been the subject of 11 customer complaints, including the following:

• February 2021 — “The complainant alleges that in 2003, the variable life insurance policy that he purchased was misrepresented by the rep.” The customer dispute was settled for $79,585.03.
• January 2021 — “Registered Representative impersonated clients in calls to an external company’s Customer Service Center, in violation of industry and company standards of conduct.” Jeffrey Weiner was discharged by Pruco Securities, LLC.
• August 2020 — “The complainant alleges that his former representative misrepresented his variable universal life policy issued on November 06, 2012. The complainant would like his policy restored to its original standards.” The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2020 — “The complainant alleges that his representative misrepresented the Variable Universal Life policy that was issued on March 03, 2017, which was funded by a 1035 exchanged of two Universal Life Policies. The complainant states this resulted in a $5000 surrender charge that he was never told about. The complainant would like the transaction reversed, and put back into his old policies, with the surrender charge re-credited to the policies.” The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2020 — “The complainant alleges that his representative misrepresented the VUL policy issued on 09/09/2015. The complainant states the representative never told him that he would be surrendering his Whole Policy by doing a 1035 exchange into the new VUL. The complainant is looking for a return of his cash value and all of the premiums paid since 2015.” The customer dispute was denied.
• January 2020 — “The customer alleged that the representative misled her with regards to the future premium costs of her VUL policy, in order to earn a commission, when the solicitation occurred in and around October of 2013.” The customer dispute was denied.
• February 2018 — “Customer alleged the advisor did not fully disclose the premium payment requirements when a variable life insurance policy was purchased in January 2015. No specific compensatory damages were alleged.” The customer dispute was denied.
• July 2014 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGED THE REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE FEATURES OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED IN APRIL 2013. CUSTOMER HAS ALLEGED DAMAGES FOR A WAIVER OF THE SURRENDER PENALTY.” The customer dispute was denied.
• May 2012 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGED THEN WHEN A VARIABLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PURCHASED FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE IN MARCH 2012, THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT EXPLAIN PREMIUMS MAY NEED TO BE INCREASED IN THE FUTURE. NO SPECIFIC COMPENSATORY DAMAGES WERE ALLEGED.” The customer dispute was denied.
• April 2009 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGED THE REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE VARIABLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY SHE PURCHASED IN FEBRUARY 2009. NO SPECIFIC COMPENSATORY DAMAGES WERE ALLEGED.” The customer dispute was settled.
• October 2000 — “CLIENT ALLEGES THE SALE OF HER VARIABLE ANNUITY WAS MISREPRESENTED AS SHE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE SURRENDER CHARGES. CLIENT WANTS A WAIVER OF THE $7,291.42 SURRENDER CHARGES.” The customer dispute was denied.

For a copy of Jeffrey Weiner’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, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., 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.