Laidlaw & Company LTD Broker, Joseph Fedorko Jr, Has Had Eighteen Customer Complaint Disclosures Throughout His Career
Joseph Fedorko (CRD # 2007317) is a Financial Advisor at Laidlaw & Company LTD in Greenwich, CT. Joseph Fedorko has been in the securities industry since 1989 and previously worked at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Josephthal & Co. Inc., Gruntal & CO., L.L.C., Rickel & Associates, Inc., and FINRA expelled firm South Richmond Securities, Inc.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Joseph Fedorko has been the subject of eighteen (18) customer complaints, alleging sales practice misconduct:
• May 2020—”Client alleges churning, unauthorized and unsuitable trading from 2012-2020.” Alleged damages are $1,700,000 and the matter remains pending.
• May 2018—”Client alleges churning, unauthorized and unsuitable trading from 2012-2017.” The matter settled for $125,000.
• August 2016—”The client alleges losses from bond purchases from 2010 to 2012 all while the account value almost tripled in value.” The matter settled for $23,000.
• March 2014—”CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY FROM 2011 TO 2013.” The matter settled for $120,000.
• November 2012—”CLIENT ALLEGES NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT REGARDING HIS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BEGINNING IN DECEMBER 2011.” The matter settled for $120,000.
• June 2012—”BREACH OF CONTRACT, FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE.” The matter settled for $120,000.
• May 2011—”CLIENT ALLEGES EXCESSIVE AND UNSUITABLE TRADING.” The matter settled for $490,000.
• October 2010—”FROM LATE 2006 THROUGH MID 2008, CLAIMANT ALLEGED THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR MISREPRESENTED THE NATURE OF HER INVESTMENTS AND THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE UNSUITABLE.” Alleged damages were $230,000. The matter was withdrawn.
• September 2010—”CLIENT ALLEGED THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS THE SUBJECT OF “HEFTY” COMMISSIONS, MARGIN, AND TURNOVER FROM 11/2001 – 6/2010.”
• August 2010—”CLAIM ALLEGES EXCESSIVE AND UNSUITABLE TRADING AND USE OF MARGIN FROM 2003 TO 2008.” The matter settled for $400,000.
• April 2009—”CLIENT ALLEGES THAT UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE IN HIS ACCOUNT DURING MARCH 2008 AND MAY 2008.” The matter was denied.
• April 2009—” CLIENT ALLEGES THAT UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE IN HIS ACCOUNT BETWEEN JULY 2007 AND JANUARY 2009.” The matter was denied.
• February 2009—”CLAIM ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SEPTEMBER 2003 TO MARCH 2008. LOSSES CLAIMED ARE $315,975.00.” The matter settled for $150,000.
• September 2000—”CLIENT’S COUNSEL ALLEGES THAT MR. FEDORKO EMPLOYED HIGH PRESSURE SALES TACTICS, MISREPRESENTED FACTS RELATED TO MARGIN AT THE INCEPTION OF THE ACCOUNT, AND THROUGHOUT ITS DURATION AND TRADED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.” The claim was denied.
• December 1999—”CLIENTS ALLEGED THROUGH COUNSEL THAT ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE SECURITIES, MADE EXCESSIVE TRANSACTIONS AND MISREPRESENTED OR FAILED TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS CONCERNING SECURITIES SOLD.” The claim was denied.
• November 1998—”CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT MR. FEDORKO MISREPRESENTED THEIR ACCOUNT.” The matter settled for $30,000.
• December 1996—”ALLEGATIONS ARE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND OMISSION OF FACTS.” The matter settled for $10,000.
• September 1995—”FAILURE TO SUPERVISE.” The matter settled for $3,128.76.
For a copy of Joseph Fedorko Jr.’s CRD, 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:
• Other investments
• Financial situation and needs
• Tax status
• Investment objectives
• Time horizon
• Liquidity needs
• Risk tolerance
• Any other information disclosed by the customer
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.