IBN Financial Services Broker Peter Kalmus Has Four Customer Complait Disclosures, Including Two Pending Complaints
Peter Kalmus (CRD#: 1522531) is a registered Broker at IBN Financial Services, Inc. in Liverpool, NY. He entered the securities industry in 1986 and previously worked for Concorde Investment Services, LLC; DFPG Investments, Inc.; VFG Securities, Inc.; Omni Brokerage, Inc; Lion’s Group Trading, LLC; Andover Brokerage, LLC; Worldco, LLC; MML Investors Services, Inc.; Prime Capital Services, Inc.; D. Blech & Company, Inc.; Nathan & Lewis Securities, Inc.; and Integrated Resources Equity Corporation.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in June 2021, a customer dispute was filed against Peter Kalmus seeking $700,000 in damages. The allegation states, “Allegations of unsuitability, insufficient due diligence, and failure to supervise.” The complaint is pending.
In addition, Peter Kalmus has been the subject of four customer complaints, including one that remains pending, including the following:
- November 2020– “The registered rep was not named in the arbitration, the client alleges lack of due diligence.” Damages of roughly $1 million are requested. The complaint is pending.
- March 2012–”IN 2006, CLAIMANT HIRED RESPONDENT TO LOCATE A 1031 REPLACEMENT PROPERTY FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY HE WAS SELLING IN NYC. RESPONDENT DIVERSIFIED CLAIMANT’S PROCEEDS INTO FOUR PROPERTIES, ONE OF WHICH WAS ORCHARD PLAZA, A TEXAS SHOPPING CENTER. IN 2009, CITIBANK FORECLOSED ON ORCHARD PLAZA, AND CLAIMANT INCURRED THE LOSS OF HIS INVESTMENT. CLAIMANT ALLEGES THAT HIS INVESTMENT WAS UNSUITABLE AND THAT RESPONDENT AND BROKER DEALER FAILED TO APPROPRIATELY EXECUTE PROPER DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES.” The complaint was settled for $30,000.
- September 2010—”LATE 2003, REP WAS SOLICITED BY INVESTOR TO HELP FIND REPLACEMENT PROPERTIES TO COMPLETE A 1031 EXCHANGE. IN EARLY 2004, INVESTOR CLOSED ON TWO PROPERTIES, EDWARD’S THEATER & CHERRY ROAD, AFTER LOOKING AT SEVERAL OPTIONS. BOTH PROPERTIES PERFORMED WELL FOR YEARS UNTIL THE MORTGAGE ON CHERRY ROAD CAME DUE DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE PROPERTY WAS LOST IN FORECLOSURE. INVESTOR NOW ALLEGES VIOLATIONS FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF THE SAFETY OF TICS AS INVESTMENTS, INADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCE, TOO RISKY A PORTFOLIO, & BD’S FAILURE TO SUPERVISE. INVESTOR ALLEGES SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE LENDER COULD SELL THE MORTGAGE TO ANOTHER ENTITY.” The customer dispute was settled for $75,000.
- October 2009–A tax judgment/lien was filed against Peter Kalmus in the amount of $356.94.
For a copy of Peter Kalmus’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
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 agee, 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 email@example.com.