• April 6, 2022
• Integrity Brokerage LLC

Jan Earl Haynes (CRD#: 833875) is a previously registered Broker.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1977 and previously worked for Integrity Brokerage Services, Inc.; Centaurs Financial, Inc.; National Securities Corporation; The Concord Equity Group, LLC; First Montauk Securities Corp.; J. Robbins Securities, LLC; RAS Securities Corp.; Cohig & Associates, Inc.; Dickinson & Co.; Advest, Inc.; Newhard, Cook & Co., Inc.; Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc.; E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc.; Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc.; Detwiler, Ryan & Co., Inc.; Sutro & Co., Inc.; San Diego Securities, Inc.; Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.; and Shearson Loeb Rhodes, 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 December 2021, FINRA sanctioned Jan E. Haynes with an indefinite suspension. The FINRA sanction resulted from Jan Haynes’ failure to response to a FINRA inquiry regarding her permanent bar from the State of California. The California sanction states: “Haynes, while a registered broker-dealer, offered and sold securities to a client without disclosing material facts. Haynes took client money in violation of the rules prohibiting manipulative, deceptive, or fraudulent schemes, or devices.”

In addition, Jan E. Haynes has been the subject of 13 customer complaints, including one that remains pending, including the following:

• July 2021 — “The customers allege that the Registered Representative intentionally misrepresented unsuitable investments, engaged in potentially fraudulent activity with respect to certain investments and breached his fiduciary duty. The dates relevant to the allegations are 2015 through April 2020. During this time period, Mr. Haynes was a registered with Centaurus Financial, Inc. until October 31, 2016. He then became registered with Integrity Brokerage Services, Inc. through April 2020.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $589,862.00 are requested.
• March 2021 — “The customer alleges that the Registered Representative recommended illiquid and complex investments. No dates of alleged activity were disclosed in the Statement of Claim.” The customer dispute was settled for $45,000.
• July 2014 — “MISREPRESENTATION.” The customer dispute was settled for $22,500.
• July 2014 — “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT.” The customer dispute was settled for $13,000.
• November 2012 — “CLIENT CLAIMS UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS, MISREPRESENTATION OF RISKS, UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, CHURNING, FRAUD AND ELDER ABUSE FOR EQUITY TRANSACTIONS THAT OCCURRED IN HER ACCOUNT BETWEEN JANUARY 2011 AND JULY 2012.” The customer dispute was settled for $10,000.
• September 2011 — “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT OMISSIONS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT, FRAUD IN THE SALE OF SECURITIES, SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES, AND ELDER ABUSE.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
• November 2006 — “NEGLIGENCE, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, SUITABILITY AND CHURNING.” The customer dispute was settled for $195,000.
• March 2006 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRADING IN HIS ACCOUNT.” The customer dispute was settled for $15,000.
• March 2004 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGES A FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS INT HAT THE LOSSES IN HIS ACCOUNT WERE ALLOWED TO EXCEED 15% OF HIS PORTFOLIO.” The customer dispute was denied.
• December 2003 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGES A FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS IN THAT THE LOSSES IN HIS ACCOUNT WERE ALLOWED TO EXCEED 10% OF HIS PORTFOLIO.” The customer dispute was denied.
• November 1997 — “ON NOVEMBER 13, 1997 THE INDIANA SECURITIES COMMISSIONER ORDERED HAYNES TO SUBMIT A DETAILED WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY AND/OR LEGAL MATTERS THAT APPEAR ON HIS DISCIPLINARY HISTORY. HE HAD 90 DAYS IN WHICH TO RESPOND. HAYNES FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE ORDER.” Jan Earl Hayes’ registration was denied.
• October 1996 — “COMPLAINT WAS INITIALLY AGAINST RAS. I WAS NOT NAMED & WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR SETTLEMENT. CUSTOMER CLAIMED UNAUTHORIZED MARGIN TRADING & TRADING INCONSISTENT WITH HER INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE-UNAUTHORIZED TRADING-DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,332.00.” The customer dispute was settled for $11,000.
• December 1994 — “CUSTOMERS ALLEGED UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND IN ONE INSTANCE PURCHASED SHARES WITHOUT AUTHORITY.” The customer was awarded damages of $3,200.
• December 1989 — “MISHANDLING OF ACCOUNT-499,000.00.” Damages of $29,755 were awarded to the customer.

For a copy of Jan Earl Haynes’ 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.