Christopher A Cokinis at CALTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. – View Complaints, Disclosures, Scams and Audit Report (Updated 2023)

Disclosure #1 for Christopher Cokinis

• • eventDate: 12/29/1987
  • Disclosure Type: Regulatory
  • Disclosure Resolution: Final
  • Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
  • DocketNumberAAO:
  • Initiated By: MASSACHUSETTS SECURITIES DIVISION
  • Allegations: COKINIS SUBMITTED FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE DIVISION
  • Resolution: Order
  • SanctionDetails ::
  • Sanctions: THERE IS A FINDING THAT MR. COKINIS SUBMITTED FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE DIVISION. BASED IN PART ON MR. COKINIS FALSE STATEMENTS, THE REGISTRATION OF ENGLER-BUDD WAS DENIED.
  • Sanction Details: APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS DENIED TO ENGLER-BUDD & COMPANY, INC., BASED ON A FINDING OF FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS MADE IN THE APPLICATION, FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, DEFICIENCIES IN THE APPLICATION. DOCKET/CASE NO. E-87-175, DATED DECEMBER 29, 1987.
  • Broker Comment: The new amended disclosures to 14D(1)(b), 14D(1)(d) and 14D(2)(b) pertain to a matter already disclosed for 34 years dating back to December 29, 1987. A matter that I was assured by FINRA staff had been closed and no further disclosures were required. I am now being instructed by FINRA staff to check additional questions on my U4 yes that I have never checked for 34 years, based on their new reading of an Order from MA. The Order has been reviewed at least 18 times over the years by FINRA. I have never been required to answer YES to any other questions except 14D(1)(a). FINRA staff’s new position is that in addition to Engler-Budd & Company, Inc. (EB) violating sections of the MA General Laws and the MA Uniform Securities Act that I personally violated those sections as well. The Final Order was to deny the Broker/Dealer registration of EB in MA. There has never been any finding or action taken against me personally by MA for violating any of its laws, statutes or acts. MA instructed FINRA in 1988 that I only needed to disclose the making of a misleading statement on my U4, which to this day, I strongly deny that I ever made any misleading statement. This was reviewed again by FINRA staff in 2016. I was specifically told and assured that the matter was closed, I didn’t have to answer any additional questions YES except 14D(1)(a), and I wouldn’t have to address this matter ever again with FINRA. I requested the decision in writing and was told by Bernard Howard, it was not necessary as it was in my permanent CRD record. Mr. Howard now states he does not recall that conversation. However, his statement is not true, as there were compliance staff from LPL Financial on two of the three calls who can confirm that it was him. As further evidence, FINRA didn’t require me to answer these questions YES after the calls with Mr. Howard. I intend to pursue this matter legally against Mr. Howard and FINRA. FINRA has literally held my registrations in hostage until I answered these additional questions that l have NEVER answered YES in 34 years. For the record, per 14D(1)(b), MA has never taken any disciplinary action against me personally or found me to be in violation of its laws, investment-related regulation(s) or statute(s) or ever alleged that I personally violated any of its investment-related regulations or statutes. Per 14D(1)(d) MA has not entered an Order against me personally in connection with an investment-related activity, and has never alleged that I personally engaged in and/or violated any of its investment-related activities. Per 14D(2)(b), I have never violated any laws or regulations that prohibit fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct or been found by MA or any other jurisdiction to have personally committed or engaged in any fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct. The Order was to deny the Broker/Dealer registration with MA. I was named as a Respondent only after a Notice to Show Cause to Deny the Broker/Dealer Application was sent to EB’s counsel and the original Order had already been drafted by MA. The original Order did not contain my name as a Respondent on it. A heated discussion occurred between me and an attorney in MA and then my name was then added to the revised Order. I am in the process of having MA review the Order and FINRA’s interpretation of it. This disclosure is being made solely to activate my FINRA registration. I disagree with FINRA staff’s new interpretation of the MA Order, as did numerous other FINRA staff over 34 years. I unequivocally deny that these additional questions are applicable. The fact that no disciplinary action, censure or fine has ever been taken by MA against me personally for violating its laws, statutes or regulations and MA has never made an allegation or finding that I personally violated or engaged in fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct is evidence of that fact.