MML Investors Services Financial Advisor Sudesh Jain the Subject of More Than A Half-Dozen Customer Disputes
Sudesh Jain (CRD#: 1325905) is a Financial Advisor with MML Investors Services, LLC and has worked in the securities industry since 1985. Sudesh Jain previously worked for NYLife Securities, LLC.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in November 2020, Sudesh Jain was the subject of a customer dispute alleging “Customer alleges that he was not informed of a premium waiver rider when he purchased his variable universal life policy in September 1999.” The dispute was denied by FINRA.
Sudesh Jain has been the subject of several previous customer disputes, including the following:
• November 2020 – “Customer alleges that he was not informed of a premium waiver rider when he purchased his variable universal life policy in September 1999.” The complaint was denied.
• November 2018 – “Customer alleges that the product is inappropriate for her situation, that in order to initial transfer her account, she was impersonated over the phone and she was promised a specific return on the investment.” The complaint refers to activity from June 2015 through November 2018. It was settled for $11,487.91.
• March 2018 – “Customers allege that they were misled with respect to one VUL and two VA policies purchased in March and August 2012. They also allege that loans were taken from two Fixed annuities without their permission.” The complaint was settled for $28,244.93.”
• April 2016 – “Customer alleges that the RR misled him by stating that it was recommending a whole life policy instead of a variable life policy with no guarantees. Customer requests cancellation of the VUL and restoration of the whole life policy.” The complaint includes activity ranging from July 2011 through April 20, 2016. It was settled for $19,606.80.
• April 2016 – “Customer alleges that the recommended VUL is unsuitable and that funding its premiums with a mutual fund account was misrepresented. The customer has requested a refund of the premiums paid. The complaint refers to activity from June 2011 through April 2016. It was settled for $23,429.23.
• August 2013 – “THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE PREMIUM PAYMENT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN HIS TWO VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE POLICIES HE PURCHASED BETWEEN MARCH 1999 AND MAY 2000 WERE MISREPRESENTED AND WERE NOT SUITABLE FOR HIS NEEDS.” The complaint was denied.
• January 2011 – “CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE RR DID NOT EXPLAIN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE POLICIES HE PURCHASED IN DECEMBER 1999.” The complaint was settled for $3,384.38.
• February 2006 – One count of felony theft was resolved. “THEFT CHARGE WAS AMENDED TO CRIMINAL CONVERSION, INDIANA CRIMINAL CODE 35-43-4-3, A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR AND CHARGES WERE WITHHELD MAY 18, 2006 PURSUANT TO A PRETRIAL DIVERSION AGREEMENT – STATE AGREED TO WITHHOLD PROSECUTION OF THE CHARGE AND THE DEFENDANT AGREES TO COMMIT NO CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR – END DATE IS MAY 17, 2007.”
For a copy of Sudesh Jain’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
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
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.
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.