Feltl and Company
The law offices of Gana LLP represents investors that have disputes with their financial advisors or brokerage firms, such as Feltl and Company (Feltl) . Many investors do not realize when their financial advisor engages in securities misconduct, but there are steps that can be taken to recover losses. There are many different types of securities related misconduct including breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, false representations, and churning. The attorneys at Gana LLP can analyze your investments to determine if there was actionable misconduct by the broker or brokerage firm. Feltl and Company is a broker-dealer that provides securities brokerage, equity research, and investment banking services to its clients. The firm is affiliated, or under common control of Feltl Advisors.
Feltl and Company - By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 6905
- SEC #: 18435
- Regulatory Events: 13
- Customer Complaints: 1
- Employees: 91
Feltl and Company- In the News:
FINRA v. Feltl and Company (Case #2010024882202) - Feltl firm was fined $150,000 by FINRA due to the findings that showed that the firm allegedly failed to establish and enforce proper written supervisory procedures. This alleged failure to properly supervise led to a conflict of interest with a registered representative within the firm. At least one registered representative within the firm recommended shares in penny stocks, that he owned, to his clients. This representative allegedly sold his shares through a firm account that was made in his name. The findings also concluded that Feltl allegedly lacked a supervision system to specifically monitor trading by people associated with it in their personal firm accounts.
FINRA v. Feltl and Company (Case #2013036524902) - Feltl was fined $250,000 by FINRA due to the findings that revealed that the firm allegedly failed to identify and apply sales charge discounts to certain customers' eligible purchases of unit investment trusts. This resulted in customers paying excessive sales charges. Feltl allegedly lacked the proper supervision rules and written procedures to ensure that customers would receive their entitled sales charge discounts on UITs. Instead, the firm used a system that utilized its branch managers to monitor transactions throughout the day.