- October 25, 2022
- Landolt Securities
Jason Seurer (CRD#: 2541616) is a registered Broker and Investment Advisor at Landolt Securities, Inc. in Maple Plain, MN.
He entered the securities industry in 1994 and previously worked for The Wealth Protection Group,, LLC; Fetl & Company; and Edward Jones.
Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in May 2022, a customer dispute was filed against Jason Seurer. The FINRA sanction states, “Upon GWG Holdings Inc. recently filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the customer is now alleging that his L bond purchases from broker-dealer in February 2019 were unsuitable.” The customer dispute is pending, and damages of $200,000 are requested.
In addition, Jason Seurer has been the subject of 6 other customer complaints and various regulatory disclosures, including the following:
- April 2022 — “The South Dakota Division alleged that respondent failed to provide audit/exam material and the respondent failed to abide by the prior consent order and restricted registration agreement dated March 2017.” South Dakota Dept. of Labor and Regulation Division of Insurance imposed a monetary penalty of $5,000.
- January 2017 — “Selling away.” The State of South Dakota Division of Securities suspended Jason Seurer from his capacities as a securities agent in South Dakota for two years beginning April 20, 2011 and ending April 19, 2013.
- August 2012 — “FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULE 3040: SEURER PARTICIPATED IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS BY REFERRING CUSTOMERS TO AN INVESTMENT COMPANY THAT OFFERED PRIVATE PLACEMENT INVESTMENTS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF HIS MEMBER FIRM. SEURER SOLICITED THE CUSTOMERS AND MADE SPECIFIC INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS INVOLVING THE PURCHASE OF PROMISSORY NOTES OFFERED BY THE COMPANY, RECEIVING $25,000 IN COMMISSION FOR ONE ACCOUNT. AS PART OF HIS INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, SEURER ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD SUCCESSFULLY INVESTED HIS OWN MONEY WITH THE COMPANY. SEURER’S FIRM WAS NOT AWARE THAT HE REFERRED THESE CUSTOMERS TO THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTING IN PRIVATE PLACEMENTS AND THE FIRM’S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PROHIBIT ASSOCIATES FROM PARTICIPATING IN PRIVATE SECURITIES TRANSACTION WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE FIRM. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CUSTOMERS’ FIRM ACCOUNTS TO THE COMPANY, LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION WERE EXECUTED FROM SEURER’S FIRM OFFICE. SEURER NEVER INFORMED THE FIRM OF HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE CUSTOMERS’ INVESTMENTS. AS A RESULT OF SETTLEMENTS WITH THE FIRM, MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS WERE COMPENSATED FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THEIR INVESTMENTS, HOWEVER, ONE CUSTOMER SUSTAINED AN UNCOMPENSATED LOSS OF $25,000.” FINRA imposed a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $10,000, ordered restitution of $25,000; and suspended Jason Seurer from any capacity for 18 months beginning September 17, 2012 and ending March 16, 2014. For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.
- June 2011 — “6-3-11 clients claim they were presented with gibralter investment by the fa and on the fa’s suggestion invested on three diff. occasions. clients claim they questioned fa about the security of these notes on more than one occasion and fa continually assured them there was nothing to worry about as he had done his research on gibralter and continued to advise them to invest more.” The customer dispute was settled for $775,000.
- May 2011 — “CLIENT ALLEGES, IN LATE 2007, THE FA CALLED HIM ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS TO RECOMMEND A BANK STOCK (CBONQ). CLIENT STATES, AT THE FA’S RECOMMENDATION, HE PURCHASED 4,000 SHARES OF THE STOCK IN 1/2008 AND AN ADDITIONAL 4,000 SHARES IN 5/2008. CLIENT STATES THE FA CONTINUED TO CALL HIM ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS TO SUGGEST THAT HE PURCHASE ADDITIONAL SHARES OF THE STOCK. CLIENT ALLEGES THE FA CONTACTED HIM IN MAY 2008 TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL SHARES AND THE CLIENT EXPRESSED A CONCERNS THAT THE BANK MIGHT BE EXPOSED TO BAD LOANS; HOWEVER, THE FA ASSURED HIM THE BANK WOULD BE FINE BECAUSE THEIR EXPOSURE WAS IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. CLIENT STATES THE BANK HAS SINCE FILED BANKRUPTCY AND HE HAS LOST $94,221.96. CLIENT INDICATES THE BAD ADVICE HE RECEIVED FROM THE FA HAS HAD A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION.” The customer dispute was settled for $10,000.
- May 2011 — “ 5-11-11 client claims he was contacted by fa on 2-1-11 about an investment deal with gibralter partners inc., client claims he was informed the note would pay back on 11-1-11 along with 250,000 shares of ERFW. Client claims he later learned the fa was no longer with ed j and this was all related. client is asking for the assistance of ed j to get out of this ‘mess.’” The customer dispute was settled for $25,000.
- April 2011 — “Selling away.” The State of Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce imposed a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $5,000, and suspended Jason Seurer’s securities and insurance license for two years beginning April 20, 2011 and ending April 19, 2013.
- April 2011 — “4-19-11 clients claim the fa informed them there was nothing happening with their investments so they should look into this risk-free guaranteed interest investment. clients claim they trusted the fa but they have not had a return of their last 3 investments totaling 415,000 plus interest.” The customer dispute was settled for $415,000.
- April 2011 — “4-12-11 clients entered into a promissory note with gibralter partners inc. based on the recommendation of fa. they were informed they could get out early, however, the checks they received were not good. clients believe this was the worst thing they have ever been talked into by fa.” The customer dispute was settled for $475,000.
- March 2011 — “THE FIRM’S INVESTIGATION BEGAN AFTER SEURER’S CLIENT TRIED TO CASH A CHECK FROM THE OUTSIDE BUSINESS VENTURE, GIBRALTAR PARTNERS, AND IT DID NOT CLEAR. IN ADDITION TO THE CLIENT SOLICITED TO INVEST IN GILBRATAR PARTNERS, SEURER HAD AT LEAST TWO OTHER CLIENTS WHO INVESTED IN GIBRALTAR. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT SEURER HAD BORROWED FUNDS FROM A PURPORTED REPRESENTATIVE OF GIBRALTAR WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL OF THE FIRM.” Jason Seurer was discharged by Edward Jones. .
- November 2002 — “CLIENT STATES THAT HE HASN’T HEARD FROM IR SINCE 11/23/01. STATES THAT AFTER HE PURCHASED CONSECO (7/30/99)THE PRICE WAS DECLINING AND IR STATED HE SHOULDN’T WORRY AS LONG AS HE WAS GETTING A DIVIDEND. STATES THAT ON 11/18/02 IR TOLD HIM HE WOULD NOT BE GETTING A DIVIDEND. STATES THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HIS ACCOUNT IS GETTING THE ATTN IT DESERVES AND LOSING $75,000 ON TWO ACCTS IN THE PAST YEAR WHEN GETTING ADVICE NOT TO WORRY IS NOT VERY PRUDENT. CLAIMING LOSSES IN EXCESS OF $5,000.” The customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Jason Seurer’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 firstname.lastname@example.org.