Allegations Against Bradley Carrier

According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, Synergy Investment Management fired Bradley Carrier in November 2025.  BrokerCheck discloses that he allegedly “directed non-clients to an outside investment opportunity, in violation of Firm policy”.

The report does not further disclose details about the outside investment.  However, generally licensed advisors are required to disclose all outside business activities to their firms.

History on Bradley Carrier

Bradley Carrier was licensed with Synergy Investment Management from April 2025 to November 2025 in Altamonte Springs, Florida.  He was also licensed with LPL Financial from April 2025 to December 2025. 

Can Synergy Investment Management or LPL Financial Be Responsible for Customer Losses?

FINRA Rule 3110 requires securities brokerage firms like LPL Financial to adequately supervise the activity of its advisors.  LPL Financial and Synergy Investment Management could be responsible for investor losses if it failed to reasonably supervise him.

Israels & Neuman Law Firm Represents Investors in Florida

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Florida, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  We have represented investors in Florida in the past  and Attorney David Neuman is licensed to practice law in Florida.  If you were a client of Bradley Carrier and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Carrier’s BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call Israels & Neuman today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights.

Claims Regarding Brian Cantel

FINRA BrokerCheck contains information about whether customers have made complaints against financial advisors like Brian Cantel.  According to BrokerCheck, he has been the subject of three customer complaints since 2021. This includes a 2025 customer complaint alleging $1.5 million in losses in real estate investments and private placements. 

Also, it has been disclosed on a Form D filed with the SEC that Brian Cantel received compensation for selling investments in Inspired Healthcare Capital Fund LP.  Inspired Healthcare filed for bankruptcy, and investors are likely to suffer significant losses in this investment. They may be able to recover losses with the help of Israels & Neuman PLC.

Background on Brian Cantel

Brian Cantel has been licensed with Berthel Fisher since 2006 at a Southfield, Georgia office, as well as a Flowery Branch office.  Cantel has been in the securities industry since 1987. 

Can Berthel Fisher Be Liable for the Conduct of Brian Cantel?

FINRA Rule 3110 provides that brokerage firms have obligations to sufficiently supervise the activity of its advisors.  Berthel Fisher could be liable if it failed to reasonably supervise him, considering factors such as the numerous customer complaints made against him.

We Help Investors in Georgia

We represent investors throughout Georgia, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.   If you were a client of Brian Cantel and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through Israels & Neuman law firm with a FINRA arbitration claim.

• View BrokerCheck Report

Contact Israels & Neuman for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights. We are standing by to help you recover what you deserve.

Allegations Against John Davenport

Connecticut revoked John Davenport’s securities license for seven years regarding allegations that he violated duties to customers.  In particular, Connecticut alleged that he misrepresented advisory fees charged to clients.  Connecticut also alleged that he failed to maintain a written investment advisory agreement with a client, and that he made a false or misleading statement to the Securities Commissioner.

Davenport’s Background

John Davenport was affiliated with Liberty Partners Financial Services from October 2016 to March 2023.  He worked in Norwalk, Connecticut and is also the subject of four customer complaints, including a 2023 complaint alleging unsuitable alternative investments.  He also operated J. Davenport Advisors LLC, which also had its investment advisory license yanked.

Who is Responsible for Investor Losses?

Liberty Partners Financial Services must reasonably supervise the activities of its representatives.  Liberty Partners Financial Services could be liable for Davenport’s conduct if it failed to reasonably supervise him and if he sold unsuitable investments to customers.

Israels & Neuman PLC is an investment fraud and Securities Arbitration law firm that represents investors all over the country.  We have represented numerous investors in Connecticut in the past.

View Connecticut Order here.

View BrokerCheck report here.

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors Recover Money

If you lost money with John Davenport or Liberty Partners Financial Services, Contact Us at 720-599-3505 or 206-795-5798 for a free and confidential evaluation of your case.

Allegations by FINRA

FINRA initiated an investigation into Anthony Sica.  According to FINRA’s AWC,
he “refused to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA, as part of its targeted examination of Sica’s member firm’s practices regarding public and private offerings of small-capitalized exchange-listed issuers”.  Pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, he was barred from the securities industry.

Anthony Sica History

Anthony Sica was affiliated with Joseph Gunnar & Co. from 2003 to May 2024.  He worked in a New York City office and has also been the subject of four customer complaints.  He was previously suspended by FINRA for three months in 2017 and was also fired by Joseph Gunnar & Co. in May 2024.

Joseph Gunnar & Co Potential Responsibility

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, broker-dealers like Joseph Gunnar & Co. must reasonably supervise the activities of their representatives.  If a firm does not adequately supervise their advisors, it could be liable for any investor harm.

Our firm represents investors throughout the country as well as New York, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. 

If you were a client of Anthony Sica and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Anthony Sica FINRA AWC
• View his BrokerCheck Report

Contact Israels & Neuman for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our inquiry form online.

Allegations Regarding Roger Roemmich

In May 2025, Roemmich was allowed to voluntarily resign by Alexander Capital. He allegedly was “was the subject of a written customer complaint alleging that he had made unsuitable recommendations and the subject of a customer initiated civil suit alleging, among other things, that he had committed fraud, securities fraud, and had breached his fiduciary duties.”

FINRA then started its own investigation into Roemmich.  He did not cooperate with FINRA’s investigation, and as such, he was barred under FINRA Rule 8210.  Roemmich has now faced three customer complaints alleging misrepresentations about private placements.

Background on Roger Roemmich

Roger Roemmich was licensed with Alexander Capital from October 2020 to May 2025.  He was also with Dempsey Lord Smith from October 2016 to October 2020 and worked in Alpharetta, Georgia.

Is Alexander Capital Potentially Liable for Customer Losses?

FINRA standards provide that brokerage firms like Alexander Capital must reasonably supervise the activities of their financial advisors.   Firms that fail to do so could be responsible for investor losses. 

We Help Investors in Georgia

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Georgia, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. If you were a client of Roger Roemmich and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Roemmich’s BrokerCheck Report
• View Roemmich’s FINRA AWC

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights. Israels & Neuman can help you recover the money you deserve.

FINRA’s Allegations

FINRA alleged that it initiated an investigation into Danish Rauf regarding allegations that he engaged in undisclosed outside business activities.  In November 2025, he was terminated by U.S. Bancorp Investments regarding allegations of “soliciting investments into an undisclosed Outside Business Activity in violation of FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280 and Firm policy”.  Generally, under FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280, brokers must disclose all business activities that they are involved in, and they must disclose all securities that they are selling.

In response, Rauf refused to appear for an on-the-record interview.  That led to him being barred from the securities industry.

Danish Rauf’s Industry History

Danish Rauf was affiliated with U.S. Bancorp Investments from August 2016 to November 2025.  He worked in Des Plaines, Illinois. 

U.S. Bancorp Potential Liability to its Customers

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, broker-dealers like U.S. Bancorp Investments must reasonably supervise the activities of their representatives.  If a firm does not adequately supervise advisors like Danish Rauf, it could be liable for any investor harm.

Our firm represents investors throughout the country as well as Illinois, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  Attorney David Neuman is licensed to practice law in Illinois and grew up in the western suburbs of Chicago.  Israels & Neuman has an office in downtown Chicago.

If you were a client of Danish Rauf and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Danish Rauf FINRA AWC
• View his BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

(720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights. We have experience representing Illinois investors and are ready to help you recover what you deserve.

Allegations Against Danny Pelton

According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, Arvest Wealth Management fired Danny Pelton in December 2025.  Regarding the reasons for his termination, the firm simply disclosed “Please see the 7B DRP”.  This refers to a line on a Form U-5, which is a document that a brokerage firm files with a regulator when a broker’s registration is terminated with the firm.  Line 7B of the Form U-5 asks whether the representative “Currently is, or at termination was, the individual under internal review for fraud or wrongful taking of property, or violating investment-related statutes, regulations, rules or industry standards of conduct?”.

Pelton’s BrokerCheck report does not disclose what was the alleged conduct at issue.

Background on James Pelton

James Pelton was licensed with Arvest Wealth Management from 2013 to December 2025 at a West Fork, Arkansas office.  He was also previously licensed with several other firms since 1988.

Can Arvest Wealth Management Be Liable for Customer Losses?

FINRA Rule 3110 requires securities brokerage firms like Arvest Wealth Management to adequately supervise the activity of its advisors.  Arvest Wealth Management could be responsible for investor losses if it failed to reasonably supervise him.

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors in Arkansas

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Arkansas, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  We have represented investors in Arkansas in the past.  If you were a client of James Pelton and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Pelton’s BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call Israels & Neuman today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798

We are here to help you recover what you deserve.

Allegations Regarding David Cohen

In December 2025, David Cohen was fired by Cetera Investment Services in Yonkers, New York. Cohen allegedly was “transacting business while under suspension by the Firm and for failing to cooperate with the Firm’s internal review of allegations that client funds were paid directly to the representative, and the representative used the funds to support his business.” 

FINRA then opened its own investigation into Cohen.  He failed to cooperate with FINRA’s investigation, and as such, he was barred under FINRA Rule 8210.  Cohen has now faced two customer complaints alleging misappropriation of funds or fraud.

Background on David Cohen

David Cohen was licensed with Cetera Investment Services from June 2019 to December 2025.   He worked in a Yonkers, New York office. He also had several tax liens filed against him, including a $232,000 tax lien made in 2023.

Could Cetera Investment Services be Liable for Customer Losses?

FINRA standards provide that brokerage firms like Cetera Investment Services must reasonably supervise the activities of their financial advisors.   Firms that fail to do so could be responsible for investor losses. 

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors Recover Money in New York

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as New York, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. If you were a client of David Cohen and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Cohen’s BrokerCheck Report
• View Cohen’s FINRA AWC

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798

Allegations Against Gregory Matthews

In May 2025, Gregory Matthews was fired by Morgan Stanley in New York.  BrokerCheck discloses “Allegations related to exercise of discretion without prior written authorization in four customer accounts, frequency of trading, and accuracy of order tickets marked unsolicited”.

That led FINRA to open its own investigation into Gregory Matthews’ conduct.  Matthews refused to cooperate with FINRA, and he was barred under FINRA Rule 8210.

Background on Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews was licensed with Morgan Stanley from May 2016 to May 2025.   He worked in a New York, New York office. He was also censured by the NASD (FINRA’s predecessor) in 2004 and fined $7,500. 

Is Morgan Stanley Liable for its Advisors’ Conduct?

FINRA standards provide that brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley must reasonably supervise the activities of their financial advisors.   Firms that fail to do so could be responsible for investor losses. 

We Help Investors Recover Money in New York

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as New York, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. If you were a client of Gregory Matthews and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Matthews’s BrokerCheck Report
• View Matthews’s FINRA AWC

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights.

According to reporting by The Denver Post, a federal jury found that Denver developer Brian Watson, founder of Northstar Commercial Partners, defrauded investors in multiple real estate investment offerings after allegedly misrepresenting his firm’s financial participation in real estate projects. The Denver-based securities and investment fraud law firm of Israels & Neuman is looking into options for investors to recover their money and encourage investors to call (720) 599-3505 if they feel they suffered losses.

An SEC press release on the case does not mince words and states:

Today, after a five-day trial, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado found defendants R. Brian Watson and his company, Northstar Commercial Partners, liable for intentional securities fraud.

As shown by the evidence at trial, Watson and Northstar defrauded investors in 11 different offerings over the course of about 36 months. Defendants told investors that Watson “co-invested” in every real estate offering by investing his personal funds in Northstar-sponsored real estate projects alongside investors who were also investing in common equity. The statements were false and misleading because Watson did not co-invest his personal funds as promised. These repeated misstatements over time facilitated a scheme and course of business that defrauded investors.

See https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/statement-jurys-verdict-trial-r-brian-watson-northstar-commercial-partners-statement-jurys-verdict-trial-r-brian-watson-northstar-commercial-partners

For investors throughout Colorado and nationwide, the case highlights how private real estate investments — often marketed as safe or sophisticated opportunities — can expose investors to significant risk when disclosures are inaccurate or misleading.

The Allegations Against the Developer

As reported by The Denver Post, jurors concluded that Watson and his company misled investors in 11 separate real estate projects by promising that the developer would contribute approximately 5% of its own equity into the investments but allegedly failed to do so.

In many private investment offerings, sponsor equity contributions are critically important because they signal that:

• The developer’s interests are aligned with investors,
• The sponsor shares financial risk,
• Management has confidence in the project.

When those representations are inaccurate, investors may unknowingly assume risks they never agreed to take.

Civil Fraud — Not Criminal Charges

Importantly, the case involved civil securities fraud allegations, not criminal prosecution.

That distinction matters.

A civil SEC enforcement action can still result in serious consequences, including:

• Monetary penalties
• Investor restitution or disgorgement
• Industry bars prohibiting future securities offerings
• Injunctions restricting future conduct

However, unlike criminal cases, defendants generally do not face incarceration.

The jury’s role was limited to determining liability. According to the article, the ultimate financial penalties will now be determined through a multi-step regulatory process involving the Securities and Exchange Commission and the federal court.

Why This Case Is Legally Significant

The Watson trial also reflects a major procedural shift in SEC enforcement actions.

In 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that defendants in certain SEC civil enforcement proceedings have a constitutional right to a jury trial rather than having liability decided solely by administrative law judges.

As a result, cases like this are increasingly being tried before juries in federal court — changing how investment fraud disputes unfold nationwide.

For investors, this development may increase transparency and public scrutiny in enforcement cases involving private investment offerings. 

Real Estate Investments Are Securities Too

Many investors are surprised to learn that real estate syndications and private development deals frequently qualify as securities under federal law.

Examples include:

• Real estate funds
• Limited partnership interests
• Tenant-in-common investments
• Private placement offerings
• Commercial development syndications

When capital is raised from passive investors who rely on a promoter or manager, federal securities laws typically apply.

That means sponsors must avoid:

• Material misrepresentations
• Omissions of key financial facts
• False statements regarding risk or capital contributions
• Misleading performance projections

Common Warning Signs in Private Real Estate Investments

Cases like this often share recurring red flags, including:

-Promised sponsor “skin in the game” that cannot be verified
– Complex deal structures difficult for investors to understand
– Limited transparency regarding capital flows
– Pressure to invest quickly
– Reliance on reputation rather than documentation

Investors should always request offering documents, verify disclosures, and seek independent advice before committing funds.

What Happens Next in the Watson Case?

Following the jury’s finding of liability, the next phase will occur largely through written proceedings.

As explained in The Denver Post report:

• SEC commissioners will vote on recommended penalties,
• The federal judge will ultimately determine sanctions,
• The defendant may pursue appellate review afterward.

Potential outcomes could include financial penalties, restitution orders, or restrictions on future investment activities.

What Investors Should Take Away

This case reinforces several important lessons:

1. Fraud allegations are not limited to brokers or financial advisers.
2. Private real estate investments carry securities-law obligations.
3. Sponsor representations about equity participation matter.
4. Regulatory enforcement often occurs years after investments are sold.

Unfortunately, investors frequently discover problems only after projects fail or distributions stop.

Have You Lost Money in a Real Estate Investment?

The highly specialized investment fraud attorneys at Israels & Neuman, PLC represent investors in Colorado and nationwide who have suffered losses involving:

• Private real estate offerings
• Real estate syndications
• Private placements
• Ponzi-type investment schemes
• Misrepresentation or omission claims

All of our arbitration cases are taken on a contingency fee basis, meaning no upfront costs to you.  If you believe you were misled in connection with an investment opportunity, you may have legal options to recover losses through arbitration or litigation.

A Colorado Case With Direct Impact on Denver-Area Investors

The verdict against a Denver-based developer is particularly significant for investors throughout the Front Range, where private real estate investment offerings have become increasingly common in recent years.

Denver’s rapid population growth and commercial development boom have created substantial demand for private capital investment opportunities. Many Colorado investors — including retirees, business owners, and professionals — have participated in local real estate syndications marketed as stable, income-producing alternatives to traditional market investments.

When alleged misrepresentations occur in locally sponsored projects, the financial consequences are often felt close to home.

Israels & Neuman, PLC maintains offices in Denver and Fort Collins, allowing the firm to work directly with investors across the Denver metropolitan area and Northern Colorado who may have invested in regional real estate or private placement opportunities.

Because many investment offerings are marketed locally through professional networks, private investor groups, or regional business relationships, Colorado investors frequently assume familiarity equals safety. Unfortunately, SEC enforcement actions like this one demonstrate that even well-known local sponsors remain subject to federal securities laws and disclosure requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can real estate investments qualify as securities?

Yes. Many syndicated or pooled real estate investments are regulated securities under federal and state law.

Does a civil fraud finding mean investors automatically recover money?

Not necessarily. Courts must still determine restitution or disgorgement amounts.

Can investors file their own claims separate from the SEC?

Yes. SEC enforcement actions do not prevent private investor recovery claims.

Serving Investors Throughout Denver and Northern Colorado

Investment fraud cases often require attorneys who are familiar not only with federal securities regulations, but also with the local investment environment and business community. Our attorneys at Israels & Neuman are highly specialized in the securities and investment fraud field.

From the firm’s Denver office on Fillmore Street and its Fort Collins location, Israels & Neuman represents investors throughout:

• Denver
• Cherry Creek
• Glendale
• Aurora
• Lakewood
• Westminster
• Thornton
• Boulder
• Longmont
• Fort Collins
• Loveland
• Greeley
• and surrounding Front Range communities

The firm regularly assists investors who suffer losses involving private real estate offerings, developer-sponsored investments, and other alternative investment vehicles marketed throughout Colorado.

Contact Israels & Neuman, PLC

If you suffered losses in a private investment or real estate offering, contact Israels & Neuman at (720) 599-3505 for a Free and confidential consultation.

No recovery, no fees. Period.

Allegations Regarding Dustin Smith

According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck, in December 2025, a customer filed a FINRA arbitration matter against RBC Capital Markets related to advisor Dustin Smith in Naples, Florida.  The Claimant alleged that RBC Capital Markets and Dustin Smith “invested the entirety of the Claimant’s retirement assets in illiquid structured notes”.  The complaint alleged $2 million in losses from these structured notes.

Background on Dustin Smith

Dustin Smith was registered with RBC Capital Markets at a Naples, Florida office between 2015 and January 2025.  Since then, he has been licensed with Citizens Securities. 

Can RBC Capital Markets Be Responsible for Customer Losses?

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, brokerage firms must adequately supervise the activity of their advisors.  RBC Capital Markets could be responsible for investor losses if it failed to reasonably supervise their advisors.

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors Recover Losses in Florida

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Florida, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  We have represented numerous investors in Florida in the past, and attorney David Neuman is licensed to practice law in Florida.  If you were a client of Dustin Smith and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Smith’s BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Our highly specialized attorneys are ready to help you recover what you deserve.

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights.

Allegations Regarding Firing Mahmoud Elawadi

According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Wells Fargo fired Mood Elawadi regarding allegations that he “solicited and facilitated client investment in his outside business activity”.  Generally, advisors must disclose all outside businesses that they operate, and they must have permission from their brokerage firm for every investment product that they sell.

Mood Elawadi has been the subject of a customer complaint, alleging $1.5 million in losses.  The customer alleged that he “falsely induced their client to invest funds into a business owned by” Mr. Elawadi.

Background on Mahmoud Elawadi

Mahmoud Elawadi was licensed with Wells Fargo from February 2019 to December 2025 at an Orlando, Florida office.  Elawadi was also previously licensed with a handful of other firms since 2007.  He also ran two businesses called Mount Sinai Wealth Management and MMMH Trading.

Can Wells Fargo Be Responsible for Advisor Conduct?

FINRA Rule 3110 pertaining to supervision, requires securities brokerage firms like Wells Fargo to adequately supervise the activity of its advisors.  Wells Fargo could be responsible for investor losses if it failed to reasonably supervise him.

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors in Florida

We represent investors throughout the United States including Florida, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  Attorney David Neuman is licensed to practice law in Florida.  We have represented numerous investors in Florida in the past.  If you were a client of Mahmoud Elawadi and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Elawadi’s BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights. We have experience representing Florida investors and are ready to help you recover what you deserve.

Customer Allegations Regarding Gary Harlap

In December 2025, a customer filed a FINRA arbitration matter against UBS Financial Services.  According to BrokerCheck, the Claimants alleged that their advisor (Harlap) improperly recommended a concentrated position in structured notes and alternative investments.  The customer alleged losses between $100,000 and $500,000.

Background on Igor Harlap

Igor or “Gary” Harlap has been licensed with UBS Financial Services since 1998 at a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office.  He was also the subject of another customer complaint in 2008 which resulted in a settlement of $1.75 million.

Can UBS Financial Services Be Responsible for Harlap’s Conduct?

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, brokerage firms must adequately supervise the activity of its advisors.  UBS Financial Services could be responsible for investor losses if it failed to reasonably supervise him.

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors in Pennsylvania

We represent investors throughout the United States, including Pennsylvania, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  We have represented numerous investors in Pennsylvania in the past.  If you were a client of Gary Harlap and believe your financial advisor acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Harlap’s BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights.

Allegations Against Tony Cheng

FINRA alleged that it initiated an investigation into Anthony Cheng regarding allegations that he engaged in undisclosed outside business activities.  In May 2025, he was terminated by Ameritas Investment Company regarding allegations that he engaged in private securities transactions, meaning that he sold investments that were not approved by Ameritas.  Generally, under FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280, brokers must disclose all business activities that they are involved in, and they must disclose all securities that they are selling.

In response, Tony Cheng refused to appear for an on-the-record interview, which led to him being barred from the securities industry.

Tony Cheng Industry History

Anthony Cheng was affiliated with Ameritas Investment Company from 2015 to May 2025.  He worked in an office in San Jose, California.  In addition, Cheng operated a company called Thrive Wealth Solutions.

Ameritas Investment Company Potential Responsibility

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, broker-dealers like Ameritas Investment Company must reasonably supervise the activities of their representatives.  If a firm does not adequately supervise its advisors or brokers, it could be liable for any investor harm.

Israels & Neuman Represents Investors in California

Our firm represents investors throughout the US including California, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  If you were a client of Anthony Cheng and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Anthony Cheng FINRA AWC
• View his BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights. We have experience representing California investors and are ready to help you recover what you deserve.

Allegations Regarding the Expulsion

In January 2026, Fiallo agreed to the expulsion from FINRA, after it was alleged that she refused to cooperate fully with a FINRA investigation.  FINRA was looking into allegations that she borrowed money from a customer.  Generally, brokers cannot borrow money from customers, with limited exceptions.  It was further alleged that she has not repaid the money.

Background on Lyhen Fiallo

Lyhen Fiallo was licensed with PFS Investments from April 2020 to December 2024.   She worked in a Hialeah, Florida office.  She was also licensed to sell insurance through Primerica Financial Services.

Is PFS Investments Potentially Liable for Fiallo’s Conduct?

FINRA standards provide that brokerage firms like PFS Investments must reasonably supervise the activities of their financial advisors.   Firms that fail to do so could be responsible for investor losses. 

We Help Investors in Florida

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Florida, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. If you were a client of Lyhen Fiallo and believe she acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Fiallo’s BrokerCheck Report
• View Fiallo’s FINRA AWC

Contact Israels & Neuman for a Free Case Evaluation

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798

FINRA alleged that it initiated an investigation into Hugo Hernandez of El Paso, Texas, regarding allegations that he “failed to return investment funds, engaged in undisclosed private securities transactions and outside business activities, or borrowed money from customers in violation of FINRA rules”.  He previously worked with MML Investor Services.  Generally, under FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280, brokers must disclose all business activities that they are involved in, and they must disclose all securities that they are selling.

In response, Hernandez refused to appear for an on-the-record interview, which led to him being barred from the securities industry.

Hugo Hernandez Industry History

Hugo Hernandez was affiliated with MML Investors Services from May 2017 to July 2024.  He was also previously licensed with NYLife Securities.  He worked in an El Paso, Texas office.  In addition, Hernandez also was licensed to sell insurance through Mass Mutual Life Insurance, an affiliate of MML Investors Services.

Potential Responsibility MML Investors Services

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, broker-dealers like MML Investor Services must reasonably supervise the activities of their representatives.  If a firm does not adequately supervise Hernandez, it could be liable for any investor harm.

Israels & Neuman represents investors throughout the country including Texas, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  If you were a client of Hugo Hernandez and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Hugo Hernandez FINRA AWC
• View his BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

All of our FINRA Arbitration cases are taken on a contingency basis, meaning no recovery, no fees and no up-front costs.

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798

The final arbitration award was issued on January 28, 2026.

View the Arbitration Award Here

Claims Brought on Behalf of Multiple Investors

The investors, represented by Israels & Neuman, PLC, asserted claims including breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, negligence, breach of contract, and violations of FINRA rules arising from multiple securities investments.

Nearly $9.5 Million Awarded, Plus Ongoing Interest

The arbitration award holds Camarda and A.G. Morgan jointly and severally liable for the majority of the damages, with McArthur and A.G. Morgan jointly liable for a smaller portion.

Individual investor awards ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $2.5 million, with interest accruing daily until the amounts are fully paid. In total, the panel awarded $9,494,007 in compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. All but one of the investors represented recovered damages in the case.

Media Coverage Highlights Pattern of Misconduct

The arbitration decision was reported by Financial Advisor IQ, which noted that A.G. Morgan and its principals have lost multiple arbitration cases in recent months, resulting in millions of dollars in awards to investors.

The report further noted that Camarda has failed to pay multiple prior arbitration awards or settlements, and that the respondents are defendants in an ongoing SEC enforcement action alleging the sale of unregistered securities to hundreds of investors.

View the Financial Advisor IQ Article Here

Frequently Asked Questions

What is FINRA arbitration?
FINRA arbitration is a dispute resolution process used to resolve disputes between investors and brokerage firms or investment advisers. Arbitration decisions are final and binding.

What does “joint and several liability” mean?
Joint and several liability means each responsible party can be held liable for the full amount of the damages awarded, regardless of how responsibility is divided among them.

Why did the panel enter a default judgment?
The panel entered a default judgment after the respondents failed to comply with discovery obligations and failed to appear at scheduled hearings.

Does winning a FINRA arbitration guarantee recovery?
No. While an arbitration award establishes liability, investors may still face challenges collecting the awarded amounts, particularly when respondents have a history of unpaid awards.

How can investors determine whether they have a claim?
Investors who suffered losses due to unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, or supervision failures should consult with an experienced securities attorney to evaluate potential claims.

Israels & Neuman Represents Investors Nationwide

Aaron Israels, who is the managing partner of Israels & Neuman PLC, represents investors nationwide in FINRA arbitrations and securities fraud matters involving unsuitable investments, private placements, promissory notes, and supervision failures.

Call today for a Free and Confidential Case Review

All of our arbitration cases are taken on a contingency fee basis, meaning no up-front costs!  Call us to discuss your potential case and let us help you recover the money you deserve.

(720) 599-3505

The case centers on allegations that Brian Watson and Northstar raised tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of investors by misrepresenting how much of their own money they were personally investing in each deal, a concept commonly referred to as having “skin in the game.”

Brian Watson denies the SEC’s allegations and has testified emotionally at trial, arguing that he never intended to mislead investors and that the SEC’s case has destroyed his business.

Background: The SEC’s Enforcement Action

According to the SEC’s civil complaint, filed in August 2022, the agency alleges that between 2017 and 2019, Watson and Northstar raised approximately $49.5 million from at least 350 investors across 11 commercial real estate projects.

The SEC claims that offering documents, investor presentations, and marketing materials repeatedly told investors that Watson and Northstar would personally contribute 4% to 5% of total equity in each project — a representation the SEC says was material to investors’ decision-making.

In total, those alleged representations suggested Watson would invest roughly $2.8 million of his own capital across the projects. The SEC alleges that, in reality, only a small fraction of that amount was ever contributed.

Why “Skin in the Game” Matters in Private Placements

In private real estate offerings — especially those exempt from registration — investors often rely heavily on disclosures about the sponsor’s personal investment.

A meaningful personal equity contribution can signal:

• alignment of interests between sponsor and investors,
• confidence in the project’s economics, and
• reduced risk of reckless decision-making.

The SEC alleges that Watson’s claimed personal investment was used as a selling point, even though the contributions were not made as represented.

The Legal Claims

The SEC asserts three core federal securities law violations:

• Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
• Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
• SEC Rule 10b-5

Together, these provisions prohibit material misstatements or omissions in connection with the offer or sale of securities — including private placements.

Importantly, investor sophistication is not a defense to fraud under these statutes, a point that has already played out in evidentiary rulings at trial.

Inside the Denver, Colorado Jury Trial

Watson’s Defense

As reported by the Denver Post, at trial, Watson testified that he never intended to deceive investors and characterized the SEC’s case as an unfair attempt to “hang” him over a handful of deals. He described cooperating with the SEC’s investigation and expressed shock when the lawsuit was ultimately filed.

Watson emphasized:

• his desire to protect investor money,
• the collapse of his once-large firm following the SEC action,
• and the personal toll the litigation has taken on his life and business.

Northstar, which once employed approximately 40 people, now reportedly has only one remaining employee.

Conflicting Testimony from Former Employees

The trial has featured sharply conflicting testimony:

• Former senior executives, including Northstar’s CFO and CIO, testified that Watson was repeatedly reminded to make the promised personal investments and did not always do so.
• Other employees, including long-time staff members, testified that they believed Watson always invested and acted ethically with investor funds.

This divergence in testimony highlights a recurring issue in securities fraud cases: whether misrepresentations were intentional, negligent, or the result of internal breakdowns in compliance and accounting controls.

The Judge’s Ruling on Investor Sophistication

One of the trial’s key legal moments occurred when the court ruled that the wealth or sophistication of Northstar’s investors was irrelevant to the SEC’s claims.

The judge agreed with the SEC that:

“The purchasers’ sophistication is immaterial to the claims.”

This ruling reinforces a critical principle in securities law: even wealthy or experienced investors are entitled to truthful disclosures.

Potential Consequences if the SEC Prevails

If the SEC succeeds at trial, it is seeking:

• Permanent injunctions against future securities law violations
• Disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains plus interest
• Civil monetary penalties
• A possible officer-and-director bar preventing Watson from serving in leadership roles at other companies

These remedies are common in SEC enforcement actions involving private offerings.

Lessons for Real Estate and Private Placement Investors in Colorado

Regardless of the jury’s ultimate verdict, the case underscores several important investor takeaways:

1. Verify sponsor contributions — do not rely solely on marketing language
2. Demand documentation showing when and how sponsor capital is contributed
3. Understand exemptions — private offerings lack many protections of public markets
4. Ask who controls the money — and when sponsor funds actually enter the deal

Conclusion

The SEC’s case against Brian Watson and Northstar Commercial Partners illustrates how representations about sponsor participation can become the focal point of federal securities fraud litigation — even years after investments are made.

For investors in commercial real estate syndications and other private placements, the trial serves as a reminder that alignment of interests must be real, documented, and verifiable, not just promised.

Concerned You Were Misled in a Private Investment?

How Israels & Neuman Can Help You

If you invested in a private placement, real estate fund, or syndication and later discovered that key disclosures were inaccurate or misleading, you may have legal options.

Israels & Neuman, PLC represents investors nationwide in securities fraud and investment-related disputes, including matters involving private offerings and real estate investments.  Aaron Israels is licensed to practice law in Colorado and has offices in Denver and Fort Collins.  He offers a free phone consultation to aggrieved Colorado investors.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Investors.

What does “skin in the game” mean in real estate investments?

“Skin in the game” refers to how much of their own money a sponsor invests alongside outside investors.

Is it illegal for a sponsor to invest less than promised?

It can be securities fraud if the discrepancy is material and investors were misled.

Does investor sophistication matter in SEC fraud cases?

We always argue that sophisticated investors are entitled to truthful disclosures, as provided for by law.  Courts tend to agree.

What laws apply to private real estate offerings?

Federal securities laws including the Securities Act of 1933 and Exchange Act of 1934, along with the Colorado Securities Act and Securities Rules.

What remedies can the SEC seek?

Injunctions, disgorgement, civil penalties, and officer-and-director bars.

What should investors do if they suspect misrepresentation?

They should consult an experienced securities fraud attorney promptly.  Israels & Neuman is a securities and arbitration law firm with highly specialized and experienced attorneys that can help you recover the money you deserve. 

Call Israels & Neuman today at 720-599-3505 for a Free Confidential Case Review

Allegations Against Eduardo Leon Jr.

Eduardo Leon of Houston, Texas was recently suspended for two months from the securities industry regarding allegations that he borrowed money from a customer. In January 2026, he agreed to the suspension by FINRA, as well as a fine of $5,000.  FINRA alleged that Leon borrowed $750,000 from a wealthy customer but did not tell Global Financial Services about it.  Generally, brokers cannot borrow money from customers, with very limited exceptions.  It was further alleged that he has not repaid the money.

Financial Background

Eduardo Leon Jr. was licensed with Global Financial Services from 1994 to the present.  He works in a Houston, Texas branch office.  He was also previously suspended by FINRA for four months in 2025 regarding allegations that he sold volatility-linked exchange-traded notes to  customers without reasonably understanding its risks or features.  Eduardo Leon has also been the subject of four customer complaints, three of which have been made since 2022.

Is Global Financial Services Liable for Leon’s Conduct?

FINRA standards provide that brokerage firms like Global Financial Services must reasonably supervise the activities of their financial advisors.   Firms that fail to do so could be held responsible for investor losses. 

Israels & Neuman Helps Investors in Texas

We represent investors throughout the United States as well as Texas, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud. If you were a client of Eduardo Leon Jr. and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Leon’s BrokerCheck Report
• View Leon’s FINRA AWC

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

All of our Arbitration cases are taken on a contingency fee basis, meaning you don’t have to pay us unless we successfully recover money for you!

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798 or fill out our contact form to learn more about your rights.

FINRA has initiated an investigation into Richard Routie of Orlando, Florida, regarding allegations that he “borrowed” money from customers.  In response, he refused to appear for an on-the-record interview, which led to him being barred from the securities industry.

Richard Routie Industry History

Richard S. Routie was affiliated with Cetera Financial Specialists from June 2023 to June 2025.  He was also previously licensed with Ameriprise Financial Services from 2011 to June 2023 and worked in an Orlando, Florida office.  Routie also ran a company called Seasons of Rhema, LLC. 

Cetera Financial Specialists’ Potential Responsibility

Under FINRA Rule 3110, broker-dealers like Cetera Financial Specialists must reasonably supervise the activities of their representatives.  If a firm does not adequately supervise their brokers or advisors, it could be liable for any investor harm.

Israels & Neuman Represents Clients in Florida

Our investment fraud law firm represents investors throughout the country as well as Florida, who have been victims of broker misconduct, unsuitable investment recommendations, and fraud.  If you were a client of Richard Routie and believe he acted improperly, you may be entitled to recover losses through FINRA arbitration.

• View Richard Routie FINRA AWC
• View his BrokerCheck Report

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

Our Arbitration cases are taken on a contingency fee basis, meaning you don’t have to pay us unless we successfully recover money for you!

Call us today at (720) 599-3505 or (206) 795-5798