fbpx

Union Capital Co. Broker Gerald O’Halloran Has Ten Customer Complaints

Gerald O’Halloran (CRD#: 1056697) is a registered Broker at Union Capital Company in Punta Gorda, FL.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 1982 and previously worked for Kovack Securities, Inc.; Financial Investment Analysts, Inc.; A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.; Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.; and United Services Planning Association, 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 December 2021, a customer dispute was filed against Gerald O’Halloran. The allegation states, “Claimant alleges that Representative recommended unsuitable investments and conducted unauthorized activity.” Damages of $100,000 are requested. The customer dispute is pending.

In addition, Gerald O’Halloran has been the subject of nine other customer complaints, including two that remain pending, including the following:

  • January 2020 — “CLIENT’S DAUGHTER ALLEGES THAT REPRESENTATIVE SOLD UNSUITABLE HIGH-RISK INVESTMENTS.” The customer dispute was settled for $24,000.
  • August 2016 — “Client alleges negligence, misrepresentation, omission of a material fact, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty & breach of contract.” The customer dispute was settled for $60,000.
  • October 2011 — “CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNAUTHORIZED TRADES IN THE ACCOUNT DURING FEBRUARY 2011. CLIENT DISCOVERED THE TRADES IN MARCH 2011.” The customer dispute was settled for $14,000.
  • October 2006 — “UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS.” The customer dispute was resolved with an award/judgment to the customer of $76,565.08.
  • May 2000 — “ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS. CUSTOMER WAS SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF TRANSACTION LOSSES IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FROM ONE TRADE. FINAL SETTLEMENT AMOUNTED TO $8,646.30.”
  • November 1998 — “CUSTOMER CLAIMS SHE DID NOT AUTHORIZE IR TO REINVEST THE PROCEEDS OF A $35,000 BOND THAT WAS CALLED WHILE SHE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. CUSTOMER ALSO CLAIMS SHE ADVISED IR THAT SHE WOULD NEED $75,000 SHE DEPOSITED INTO HER ACCOUNT TO BUILD A HOME. IR RECOMMENDED SHE INVEST THE $75,000 INTO AN ANNUITY. CUSTOMER NOW HAS BEEN ADVISED THERE WILL BE A $4300 WITHDRAWAL FEE AND TAX BILL IF SHE WITHDRAWS THE MONEY. WANTS TO BE MADE WHOLE.” The customer dispute is pending.
  • October 1998 — “CUSTOMER CLAIMS HE DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE EX-IR TO LIQUIDATE $250,000 TOTAL FROM TWO OF HIS MUTUAL FUNDS HOLDINGS AND INVEST THE PROCEEDS IN A VARIABLE ANNUITY. CUSTOMER WANTS TO EXERCISE HIS FREE LOOK PRIVILEGE, AND PLACE THE PROCEEDS BACK INTO THE MUTUAL FUNDS WITHOUT ANY LOSS TO HIM.” The customer dispute was settled for $9,609.82.
  • September 1998 — “CUSTOMER CLAIMS THAT IR ENTERED ORDERS TO PURCHASE MUTUAL FUNDS IN HER ACCOUNT WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION. ALSO CLAIMS IR ADVISED HER THERE WOULD BE NO FRONT CHARGES OR COMMISSION FEES WHEN SHE REINVESTER HER PORTFOLIO. UPSET WITH OVER $20,000 UNREALIZED LOSSES DOWN TO $150,000 ON AUGUST 1998 STATEMENT.” The customer dispute is pending.
  • September 1998 — “CUSTOMER CLAIMED HE ADVISED EX-IR TO TRANSFER HIS SECURITIES TO JONES IN MARCH OF 1998. CUSTOMER THEN STATES HE WAS ADVISED BY EX-IR IN MAY THAT FUNDS COULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED AND NEEDED TO BE SOLD TO COMPLETE TRANSFER. HE CLAIMED HE INSTRUCTED IR TO LIQUIDATE THE INVESTMENT AND COMPLETE THE TRANSFER. FUNDS WERE NOT LIQUIDATED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AND CUSTOMER CLAIMED DELAY RESULTED IN A $25,000 LOSS AND REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT.” The customer dispute was closed with no action.
  • September 1956 — “UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE USE.” Felony charges were dismissed.

In addition to the foregoing, Gerald O’Halloran was sanctioned by FINRA in 2018 for failing to maintain a trade blotter in accordance with his supervisory functions within his branch office. The regulatory disclosure states:

  • June 2018 — “Failing to observe high standards of commercial honor and equitable principles of trade, failure to report an outside business activity, and failure to update Form U-4.” The Florida Office of Financial Regulation sanctioned Gerald O’Halloran with cease and desist orders plus a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $4,000.

Gerald O’Halloran has also been the subject of two employment disclosures during his career, including the following:

  • May 2000 — “IMPROPER HANDLING OF CUSTOMER COMMUNICATION.” Gerald O’Halloran was permitted to resign from A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. after allegations were made.
  • September 1998 — “UNAPPROVED USE OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS.” Gerald O’Halloran was discharged by Edward Jones & Co., L.P.

For a copy of Gerald O’Halloran’s FINRA 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.

Attorney Matthew Wolper

Attorney Matthew WolperMatt Wolper is a trial lawyer who focuses exclusively on securities litigation and arbitration. Mr. Wolper has handled hundreds of securities matters nationwide before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), JAMS, and in state and federal court. Mr. Wolper has handled and tried cases involving complex financial products and strategies ranging from traditional stocks and bonds to options, margin and other securities-based lending products, closed/open-end mutual funds, structured products, hedge funds, and penny stocks. [Attorney Bio]