J.P. Morgan Discharged Edward Turley For Alleged “Loss of Confidence”
Edward Turley (CRD#: 1872294) is a previously registered Broker and previously registered Investment Adviser.
He entered the securities industry in 1988 and previously worked for J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC; Lehman Brothers, Inc.; CS First Boston Corporation; and Morgan Stanley & Co., 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 August 2021, Edward Turley was discharged by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. The allegation states, “Loss of confidence concerning adherence to firm policies and brokerage order handling requirements.”
In addition, Edward Turley has been the subject of six customer complaints, including 4 that remain pending, including the following:
- July 2021 – “Claimant alleges exercise of discretion and unsuitable trading. Activity dates 2018 – 2020.” Damages of $18M are requested, and the customer dispute is pending.
- September 2020 – “Claimants alleges exercise of discretion and unsuitable investments. Activity dates August 2016 – July 2020.” Damages of $11.3M are requested, and the customer dispute is pending.
- September 2020 – “Claimants allege unsuitable investment recommendations, exercise of discretion, and recommending an unapproved, outside investment. Activity dates July 2013 – July 2020.” Damages of $5M are requested, and the customer dispute is pending.
- June 2020 – “Claimant alleges exercise of discretion, unsuitable trading and solicitation of an unauthorized private securities transaction. Activity dates 2012-2020.” Damages of $23M are requested, and the customer dispute is pending.
- May 2020 – “Turley was a subject of the customer’s complaint against his member firm that asserted the following causes of action: breach of contract and warranties; promissory estoppel; violation of Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violation of state securities laws; statutory fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; misrepresentation/omission and negligent misrepresentation/omission; unjust enrichment; failure to supervise; common law and statutory claims; and vicarious and control person liability.” The customer dispute was resolved through arbitration with a $4M judgment against Edward Turley.
- February 1999 – “CUSTOMER, A FORMER CUSTOMER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS’ SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH, ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION,BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND BREACH OF CONTRACT. CUSTOMER ALLEGES DAMAGES OF $49,000. PRODUCTS: EQUITIES, MUTUAL FUNDS.” Damages of $49,000 were requested, and the customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Edward Turley’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
In addition, in November 2021, a former customer of Edward Turley prevailed in an arbitration claim against JP Morgan and was awarded $4 million in damages. Many of the pending claims involve the same or similar subject matter that gave rise to this damages award.
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 email@example.com.