- December 21, 2022
- Spire Securities LLC
Scott Aabel (CRD#: 1493667) is a dually registered Broker and Investment Adviser at Spire Securities, LLC in Osprey, FL.
He entered the securities industry in 1991 and previously worked for Investors Capital Advisory; Investors Capital Corp.; Sagepoint Financial, Inc.; Asset & Financial Planning, LTD; Prime Capital Services, Inc.; and Lutheran Brotherhood Securities Corp.
Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in June 2022, a tax judgment/lien in the amount of $365,405.75 was levied against Scott Aabel.
In addition, Scott Aabel has been the subject of 25 disclosures, including financial disclosures and customer complaints, including the following:
- June 2022 — “Unsuitable investment recommendation. Client invested a total of 300000 during 2020 and 2021 in GWG L-Bonds.” The customer dispute is pending, and damages of $500,000 are requested.
- February 2022 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $41,256.99 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- June 2021 — “Claimant alleges that he was given poor advice regarding withdrawals from an annuity and that alternative investments were recommended that did not meet the client’s needs and objectives.” The customer dispute is pending. Damages of $300,000 are requested.
- November 2019 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $69,213.65 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- July 2018 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $98,076.54 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- September 2016 — “Without admitting or denying the findings, Aabel consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he failed to timely amend his Form U4 to reflect reportable events. The findings stated that while associated with a member firm, Aabel entered into separate arrangements pursuant to which he settled the amounts due and owed on credit cards by entering into compromises with the credit card companies. Aabel did not disclose the compromises with the credit card companies to the firm, and he also did not update his Form U4 to reflect the compromises.” Scott Aabel was sanctioned with a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $5,000 and suspended from any capacity for 30 days beginning September 19, 2016 and ending October 28, 2016. For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.
- August 2016 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $131,643.66 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- June 2015 — A compromise financial disposition was satisfied/released.
- July 2013 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $45,287.37 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- February 2013 — A compromise financial disposition was satisfied/released.
- February 2013 — A compromise financial disposition was satisfied/released.
- September 2012 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $88,850.31 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- September 2012 — A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $203,045.95 was levied against Scott Aabel.
- April 2012 — “FILED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SECTION 517.161(1)(H), FLORIDA STATUTES, RULE 69W-600.013(1)(H)1.,(2)(H), FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, AND NASD CONDUCT RULE 2110 AND FINRA CONDUCT RULE 2010.” The Florida Office of Financial Regulation, Division of Securities sanctioned Scott Aabel with a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $70,000.00 and ordered him to pay restitution of $100,000.
- June 2009 — “INVESTMENT ADVISORY FEES CAUSED A PARTIAL LOSS OF LIVING BENEFIT RIDER.” The customer dispute was settled for $6,447.68.
- September 2007 — “THE CLIENT IS ALLEGING A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE, SURRENDER CHARGES AND FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASE OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY IN 2004.” The customer dispute was denied.
- May 2005 — “THE CLIENT IS UPSET WITH A DISTRIBUTION THEY RECEIVED FROM TEXTAINER V THAT WAS PURCHASED IN 1998.” The customer dispute was denied.
- February 2005 — “UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATION OF PROMISSORY NOTES WHICH IS AN UNREGISTERED SECURITY.” The customer dispute was settled for $117,000.
- November 2004 — “UNSUITABILITY AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASE OF TWO VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACTS PURCHASED IN 4/03.” The customer dispute was denied.
- October 2004 — “VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED IN 1999. INITIAL COMPLAINT TO NASD IN 2001 DUE TO MARKET LOSS. CUSTOMER’S CURRENT COMPLAINT LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO THE ISSUING INSURANCE COMPANY CLAIMING INVESTMENT LOSS AND HIGH FEES.” The customer dispute was denied.
- September 2004 — “SALE OF PROMISSORY NOTES, UNREGISTERED SECURITIES WERE UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.” The customer dispute was settled for $130,000.
- July 2004 — “CLIENTS CLAIM THAT THEY SUFFERED LOSSES DUE TO UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN THEIR VARIABLE ANNUITY ACCOUNTS.” Damages of $60,000 were sought, and the customer dispute was withdrawn.
- August 2003 — “CLIENT CLAIMS WRONG S/C DISCLOSED.” Damages of
- $6,100 were requested. The customer dispute was closed with no action.
- July 2002 — “CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HIS VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED IN NOVEMBER 2001.” Damages of $65,517 were sought. The customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Scott Aabel’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses
Financial advisers 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 advisers’ 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 adviser 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 adviser 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 adviser 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.