• December 10, 2023
• Newbridge Securities

Ivan Gefen (CRD#: 1229418) is a registered broker and investment advisor at NewBridge Securities Corporation in Boca Raton, FL.

Broker’s Background

Ivan Gefen entered the securities industry in 1984, and previously worked for First Miami Securities, Inc; Prudential Securities Incorporated; VFinance Investments, Inc; National Securities Corporation; National Asset Management, Inc.; and Morgan Stanley.

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 2023, Ivan Gefen became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Fraud, Breach of Contract, and Violation of Regulation BI.” The damage amount requested is $1,200,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Ivan Gefen has been the subject of several other disclosures, including the following:

• March 2019—“ Bankruptcy.” The financial disclosure was discharged.
• July 2017—“ Claimant alleged unsuitability, inter alia, with respect to investments- February 2013 to February 2016.” The customer dispute settled for $295,000.
• March 2015—“ UNAUTHORIZED TRADE.” The customer dispute was settled for $10,000.
• March 2009—“ UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.” The customer dispute was denied.
• March 2008 – “ CUSTOMER ALLEGED FRAUD AND BROKER MATERIALLY OVERSTATED PERFORMANCE RETURNS. FROM 05/06/2004-02/27/2008.” The customer dispute was denied.
• February 2008—“ UNAUTHORIZED TRADING; CHURNING.” The customer dispute was denied.
• April 2000—“ THE CLIENT IS ALLEGING THAT AN INVESTMENT IN THE PUTNAM HIGH INCOME GOVERNMENT TRUST MADE 15 YEARS AGO WAS UNSUITABLE. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. IT APPEARS THAT THE ISSUE IS REALLY ONE OF THE CLIENT’S UNHAPPINESS WITH THE MARKET PERFORMANCE OF HER INVESTMENT. I DID NOT SERVICE ANY BROKERAGE ACCOUNT WITH THIS CLIENT SINCE 1986.” The customer dispute was closed-no action.
• September 1998—“ PSE RECEIVED A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN WHICH CLIENTS ALLEGED EXCESSIVE AND UNSUITABLE TRADING. ALLEGED “STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $835,000 AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES OF $601,983.” The customer dispute settled for $400,100.
• April 1991—“ ALLEGED LOSSES OF $270,000.00 ARISING FROM ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXECUTE TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRM DENIED THAT THE CLIENT EVER ATTEMPTED TO PLACE THE ALLEGED ORDERS.” The customer dispute was settled for $28,750.
• April 1991—“ Allegations not provided.” The customer dispute settled for $14,250.
• November 1990—“ CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION UNSUITABLE EQUITIES BONDS AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS PURCHASED WITH ALLEGED DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF 280,000.” The damage amount requested was $200,000, and the dispute was settled for $158,000.

 

For a copy of Ivan Gefen’s 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 mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.