Robert Scott Copeland – and the firm that employs him or her – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
If you are like most people, before you go out to dinner at a new restaurant, you probably take a quick look at the reviews. This makes sense; you are going to pay for an expensive dinner, and you need to be sure that you are getting a good value.
Yet, when choosing a financial advisor, many people fail to conduct this same level of due diligence. Before turning over access to your money, you need to be sure that you have found a financial advisor that you can trust. Here, our audit report, including details of allegations, complaints, and sanctions will help you decide whether or not to invest with Robert Scott Copeland.
The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient… Warren Buffet
BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Robert Scott Copeland. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Robert Copeland
Robert Scott Copeland is an Investment Adviser. Robert Scott Copeland’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 1402841 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1402841.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Robert Scott Copeland.
Robert Scott Copeland has previously been reprimanded and has disclosures and/or client dispute(s) listed at FINRA BrokerCheck.
Accusations and Disclosures
You can find below, a quick snapshot of Robert Scott Copeland’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 5/11/2007
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: E9B2004057401
- DocketNumberAAO: 92004057401
- Initiated By: NASD
- Allegations: NASD RULES 2110, 2310, 2510(B), INTERPRETIVE MATERIAL 2310-2: COPELAND EFFECTED TRADES IN THE CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS PURSUANT TO DISCRETIONARY TRADING ARRANGEMENTS WITHOUT OBTAINING WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE ACCOUNTS AS DISCRETIONARY BY HIS MEMBER FIRM; HE RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS MEMBER FIRM FEE-BASED ACCOUNTS OF CUSTOMER AND ENGAGED IN IMPROPER SHORT-TERM TRADING IN CLASS B SHARES OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES OF NEW-ISSUE, CLOSED-END INVESTMENT COMPANIES. SHORTLY AFTER THE CUSTOMERS PURCHASED THOSE SHARES, OFTEN WITHIN TWO WEEKS OR LESS, COPELAND RECOMMENDED THEIR SALE IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF ANOTHER CLOSED-END INVESTMENT COMPANY OR OF CLASS B SHARES OF MUTUAL FUND. ALL OF THE INVESTMENTS HE RECOMMENDED, HOWEVER, EXPERIENCED IMMEDIATE PRICE DECLINES SHORTLY AFTER THEY BEGAN TRADING, AND COPELAND SOLD THOSE FUNDS BEFORE THE PRICE HAD A CHANCE TO RECOVER. HE ALSO ENGAGED IN UNSUITABLE SHORT-TERM TRADING OF CLASS B SHARES OF MUTUAL FUNDS RESULTED IN THE CUSTOMERS HAVING TO PAY CONTINGENT DEFERRED SALE CHARGES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CUSTOMER SUFFERED $88,242 LOSSES FROM THIS UNSUITABLE SHORT-TERM BUYING AND SELLING ACTIVITY, WHILE COPELAND RECEIVED NET COMMISSIONS OF $37,000.
- Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s) Sanctions: Disgorgement Sanctions: Suspension
- Regulator Statement: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, RESPONDENT CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS, THEREFORE HE IS FINED $7,500, ORDERED TO PAY $88,242 IN RESTITUTION TO THE CUSTOMERS AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR SIX MONTHS. SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE RESTITUTION OR OF REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO EFFECT RESTITUTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO NASD NO LATER THAN 180 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AWC. IF FOR ANY REASON RESPONDENT CANNOT LOCATE CUSTOMER, AFTER REASONABLE AND DOCUMENTED EFFORTS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, OR SUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD AGREED TO BY THE STAFF, RESPONDENT SHALL FORWARD ANY UNDISTRIBUTED RESTITUTION AND INTEREST TO THE APPROPRIATE ESCHEAT, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, OR ABANDONED PROPERTY FUND FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE CUSTOMER IS LAST KNOW TO HAVE RESIDED. THE SUSPENSION WILL BE IN EFFECT FROM JUNE 18, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2007. FINES PAID.
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 2/24/2005
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Denied
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNAUTHORIZED TRADES, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND MISREPRESENTED OF FACTS.
- Damage Amount Requested: $48,147.00
- Arbitration Docket Number:
- Broker Comment: REPRESENTATIVE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING; STATES THAT HE HAS NEVER RECEIVED A COPY OF ANY SUCH ALLEGED COMPLAINT; AND FURTHER AVERS THAT HE IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN AN ARBITRATION AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH, AND THAT, ALTHOUGH MERRILL LYNCH ALLEGES THIS COMPLAINT OCCURRED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, NOTES THAT MERRILL LYNCH PURPORTEDLY FILED SAME WITH THE NASD IN MARCH 2005, WHEN HIS HEARING AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BEGIN LESS THAN ONE MONTH AWAY, ON 4/4/2005.
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 1/20/2005
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: ACCORDING TO U5 FILED BY MERRILL LYNCH, CUSTOMER VERBALLY ALLEGED THAT UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS WERE RECOMMENDED AND MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
- Settlement Amount: $30,000.00
- Arbitration Docket Number:
- Broker Comment: REPRESENTATIVE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING; STATES THAT HE HAS NEVER RECEIVED A COPY OF ANY SUCH ALLEGED COMPLAINT; AND FURTHER AVERS THAT HE IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN AN ARBITRATION AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH, AND THAT, ALTHOUGH MERRILL LYNCH ALLEGES THIS COMPLAINT OCCURRED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, NOTES THAT MERRILL LYNCH PURPORTEDLY FILED SAME WITH THE NASD IN MARCH 2005, WHEN HIS HEARING AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BEGIN LESS THAN ONE MONTH AWAY, ON 4/4/2005.
DISCLOSURE 4 –
- Event Date: 9/14/2004
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: ACCORDING TO U5 FILED BY MERRILL, CUSTOMER VERBALLY ALLEGED THAT ML FOCUS TWENTY FUND WAS PURCHASED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
- Settlement Amount: $66,086.00
- Arbitration Docket Number:
- Broker Comment: REPRESENTATIVE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING; STATES THAT HE HAS NEVER RECEIVED A COPY OF ANY SUCH ALLEGED COMPLAINT; AND FURTHER AVERS THAT HE IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN AN ARBITRATION AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH, AND THAT, ALTHOUGH MERRILL LYNCH ALLEGES THIS COMPLAINT OCCURRED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, NOTES THAT MERRILL LYNCH PURPORTEDLY FILED SAME WITH THE NASD IN MARCH 2005, WHEN HIS HEARING AGAINST MERRILL LYNCH WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BEGIN LESS THAN ONE MONTH AWAY, ON 4/4/2005.
DISCLOSURE 5 –
- Event Date: 5/6/2004
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE FA MADE UNNECESSARY AND INAPPROPRIATE TRANSACTIONS IN A TRUST ACCOUNT GENERATING EXCESSIVE COMMISSION AND FEES. THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES.
- Settlement Amount: $40,219.00
- Arbitration Docket Number:
- Broker Comment: THE TRANSACTIONS IN DISPUTE WERE REVIEWED IN DETAIL WITH THE DONORS AND THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST, ALL OF WHOM APPROVED THE TRANSACTIONS, AND ALL OF WHOM HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND ACCOUNTANT. MERRILL LYNCH CORRECTED THE TRADES IN QUESTION AS AN ACCOMODATION TO THE CUSTOMER IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTIES’ LONGSTANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FIRM.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
- Event Date: 10/22/2001
- Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
- Disclosure Resolution: Settled
- Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENT ALLEGES THE MERRILL LYNCH FOCUS 20 FUND WAS UNSUITBALE.
- Damage Amount Requested: $8,800.00
- Settlement Amount: $8,000.00
- Arbitration Docket Number:
- Broker Comment: THE MATTER WAS SETTLED TO AVOID THE COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
DISCLOSURE 7 –
- Event Date: 5/6/1990
- Disclosure Type: Criminal
- Disclosure Resolution: Final Disposition
- Disclosure Detail :: Criminal Charges :: Charges: 1 BAD CHECK
- Charge Type: MISDEMEANOR
- Disposition: DISMISSED
- Broker Comment: PURCHASED A CELLUALER PHONE FROM MIDSTAE FOR $38-10. WAS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE. WIFE TOOK ALL FUNDS OUT OF ACCOUNT. I MOVED OUT OF OUR HOME TO A TEMP APT. AND WIFE DID NOT FORWARD THE MAIL TO ME. I NEVER KNEW THIS HAPPENED AND MIDSTATE BROUGHT CHARGES. WHEN I WENT TO COURT AND TOLD MY STO. THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CHARGES AND SAID RECORDS WOULD BE SEALED.
According to a study prepared for the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, 80 percent of American investors report that they have been solicited to participate in a fraud scheme, while 11 percent of American investors report that they personally lost money as a result of fraud.
FINRA notes that the rate of investment fraud is most likely much higher than it is reported. This is because many victims of financial advisor scams are too ashamed to come forward. Further, the study also found that a significant number of investors do not know how to spot common red flags of investment fraud. The least you should do is share your experience with other potential victims of investment scams.
Previous Associations
Under federal securities law and securities industry regulations, registered investment firms have a legal duty to supervise their financial advisors. Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 makes a securities firm liable for the conduct of representatives.
- CADARET, GRANT & CO., INC. (CRD#: 10641) :: 8/27/2004 – 4/1/2019 :: CLINTON, NY
- MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED (CRD#: 7691) :: 6/28/1999 – 8/31/2004 :: NEW YORK, NY
- DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC. (CRD#: 7556) :: 4/20/1995 – 6/14/1999 :: PURCHASE, NY
- SMITH BARNEY INC. (CRD#: 7059) :: 7/31/1993 – 4/21/1995 :: NEW YORK, NY
- LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. (CRD#: 7506) :: 9/25/1985 – 7/31/1993 :: NEW YORK, NY
The duty to supervise securities representatives is a strong legal requirement. Registered investment firms must take many different steps to ensure that they are protecting their customers from irresponsible and criminal financial advisors.
Legit or Not?
Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including Robert Scott Copeland, but not limited to) can (and do) steal money from their clients. While it’s rare that a broker will literally steal his client’s money (though that does happen), typically the “theft” of investment funds comes in the form of other fraudulent violations of securities law and FINRA rules which leads to significant investment losses.
Sometimes investment losses occur because advisors, stockbrokers, and even brokerage firms, commit fraud. Massimo Vignelli
Investors generally understand that there are risks associated with buying and selling securities. The market can go up, and the market can go down. No matter how skilled of an investor you are, there are always risks. With that being said, sometimes investment losses cannot be blamed on simple back luck.
There are 10 major types of complaints we receive against Investment Brokers –
- Outright Theft (Conversion of Funds)
- Unauthorized Trading
- Misrepresentation or Omission of Material Facts
- Excessive Trading (Churning)
- Lack of Diversification
- Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
- Failure to Disclose a Personal Conflict of Interest
- Front Running of Transactions
- Breakpoint Sale Violations
- Negligent Portfolio Management
Do your due diligence before investing. Public records are available for everybody to review and decide on the safest bet.
How to Protect Yourself
We, as citizens, place a great deal of trust in the financial advisors who are tasked with helping us achieve and maintain financial security. Most of the time financial advisors and stockbrokers are honest folks who work diligently in their client’s best interests. However, on occasion financial advisors and the brokerage firms who employ them mess up and cause serious financial harm to their clients. Sometimes these losses are caused by simple negligence. Other times fraud or other serious misconduct is to blame.
Here are 5 signs that your broker needs to be reported –
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, certain investment professionals, known as registered investment advisors (RIAs), owe fiduciary obligations to their customers. Your investment broker must always look out for your best interests. If you lost money because of your broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, you may be entitled to compensation for the full value of your damages.
- Unsuitable Investments: Many financial advisors are not fiduciaries. Instead, they are held to the suitability standard. These stockbrokers and financial advisors can only sell and recommend financial products that are appropriate for a customer’s unique investment profile. If you lost money in unsuitable investments, you should consider reporting them.
- Material Misrepresentations or Omissions: Brokers have a duty to make fair and honest representations to their clients. If they fail to do so, and an investor loses money due to a misrepresentation or a material omission, the broker may be liable for the investor’s losses.
- Lack of Diversification: Brokers must also act with the appropriate level of professional skill. Pushing a customer into over-concentrated investments is highly risky. Brokers can be held liable for losses sustained because of an investor’s inappropriate lack of diversification.
- Excessive Trading (Churning): Stockbrokers and financial advisors must have a well-grounded, reasonable basis to execute all trades. Unfortunately, there are cases in which brokers will frequently trade on a customer’s account, simply to increase their own fees. This unlawful practice is known as churning.
- Unauthorized Trading: Brokers must have the proper legal authority to make transactions on behalf of a client. If you lost money because your broker made trades that you never approved of, you may have been the victim of unauthorized trading. You should consult with an experienced attorney.
Report Robert Copeland
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Robert Scott Copeland – and the firm that employs this broker – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA provides an online form to allow investors to file a formal complaint against their financial advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm.
Click here to go to FINRA’s Online Complaint Form →
This form will ask you for specific information related to your complaint. Be prepared by gathering the following:
- Name and symbol for the investment product in question.
- The CRD number (1402841) for the broker – Robert Scott Copeland
- Your complete contact information.
Remember, it is advised to report your broker to FINRA, only after you have exhausted all of your other remedies and carefully prepared a compelling complaint. Once you file a complaint against your broker at FINRA, your case will be bound by FINRA’s rules and the arbitration panel’s eventual decision. The time clock will start, and your complaint will be served on your broker or broker-dealer.
The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source BrokerComplaints.com and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘The Skeptic Files,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.
This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from BrokerComplaints.com.
To view the original article at BrokerComplaints.com, you can visit https://brokercomplaints.com/report/robert-scott-copeland/.
