Alan David Seidel – 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 Alan David Seidel.
BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Alan David Seidel. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Alan Seidel
Alan David Seidel is an Investment Adviser. Alan David Seidel’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 872696 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/872696.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Alan David Seidel.
Alan David Seidel 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 Alan David Seidel’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 10/30/2020
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) against Alan D. Seidel (Seidel or espondent). The Commission finds that Seidel was a founder and part-owner of Seidel & Co., LLC (Seidel & Co.), who also served as its chief executive officer until 2017. Seidel currently holds Series 7, 24, and 63 licenses and was a registered representative continuously from 1988 until March 2019. He was associated with Seidel & Co. from 1997 until 2017. Subsequently, and most recently, he was associated with another broker-dealer from June 2018 to March 2019. On September 24, 2020, a judgment was entered by consent against Seidel, permanently enjoining him from aiding and abetting any violation of Section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15c3-1 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Benjamin Mekawy, et al., Civil Action Number 19 Civ. 11731 (VM), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Commission’s complaint alleged that Seidel lied to Commission staff in the Office of Compliance Examinations and Inspections (OCIE). Specifically, the complaint alleged that Seidel deliberately mischaracterized the proceeds of a loan to Seidel & Co. as a capital investment in the firm in order to conceal the firm’s net capital deficiencies. This conduct aided and abetted the firm’s violations of Section 15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15c3-1 thereunder. On March 12, 2020, Seidel pled guilty to one count of making false statements about a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1002 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in United States v. Alan D. Seidel, Crim. Information No. 1:20-cr-00205-GBD. On March 12, 2020, a judgment in the criminal case was entered against Seidel. The count of the criminal complaint to which Seidel pled guilty alleged, inter alia, that Seidel, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, willfully and knowingly did falsely, conceal, and cover up by trick, scheme, and device material facts, and did make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, to wit, Seidel represented to a member of a Commission exam team that Seidel & Co. had fallen below the SEC’s net capital requirements because an investor had withdrawn $1 million in capital when, in truth and in fact, Seidel knew that no such investment had been made and that the funds in question were loan proceeds.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: Association with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO.
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 10/30/2020 Registration Capacities Affected: Participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or issuer.
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 10/30/2020
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 12/23/2019
- Disclosure Type: Civil
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: On December 23, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued this Complaint against Defendants Benjamin Mekawy (Mekawy) and Alan D. Seidel (Seidel). Plaintiff SEC, for its Complaint against Defendants Mekawy and Seidel, alleges as follows: This case is about lying, forgery, and other deceptive conduct by Seidel and Mekawy, while they were employed by broker-dealer Seidel & Co., LLC, to mislead its third-party financial operations professional, FINRA, and the Commission staff about a key indicator of the Firm’s financial health: its net capital position. Registered broker-dealers like Seidel LLC are required by statute and Commission rules to meet certain minimum net-capital requirements to protect counterparties and customers in the event of problems such as failed trades. Broker-dealers are required to calculate and report their net capital to FINRA on a monthly basis. Commission rules require that a broker-dealer that is not in compliance with the net-capital rules must cease operations. Seidel LLC delegated the preparation of its net-capital calculations, along with other financial functions of the Firm, to its third-party FINOP. From at least in or about October 2016 through November 2016, Defendants understood that the Firm was operating without the required net capital or, at least, at risk of operating without sufficient net capital. Knowing that the firm would need to cease operations if regulators learned it did not have sufficient net capital, both Seidel and Mekawy engaged in deliberate, deceptive acts to artificially inflate the Firm’s net capital that was reported to FINRA. First, Mekawy concealed a six-figure liability for back-rent by deliberately eliminating it from the Firm’s general ledger when he knew that the liability had not been satisfied. In addition, Mekawy falsely represented to the Firm’s FINOP, who calculated the Firm’s net capital and prepared the reports to FINRA, that the liability had been satisfied. Second, on a separate occasion, Mekawy prepared and submitted to the FINOP a forged account statement showing that the Firm had more funds on deposit with its clearing firm than it actually did. Third, Seidel lied to the Firm’s FINOP about a $1 million deposit into one of the Firm’s accounts. Seidel falsely represented that the $1 million represented a capital infusion in the Firm, when in fact he knew that it was a loan. Later, in an attempt to cover up his lie to the FINOP, Seidel also lied to Commission examination staff about the nature of the $1 million deposit. As a result of Mekawy’s deceptions, the Firm’s FINOP did not take into account the liability for back rent or the accurate amount of funds the Firm had on deposit with its clearing broker. In addition, as a result of Seidel’s mischaracterization of the nature of the $1 million transaction, the FINOP counted the $1 million as an asset of the Firm, but did not offset it with a corresponding liability to repay the loan. Consequently, as Mekawy and Seidel intended, certain of the calculations performed by the Firm’s FINOP were wrong and the net capital amounts reported to FINRA for October and November 2016 were falsely and substantially overstated. As a result, the Firm continued operations, presenting risk to counterparties who did not have an accurate picture of the Firm’s capitalization. As a result, Defendants aided and abetted Seidel LLC’s violations of Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 15c3-1 and 17a-3(a)(19) thereunder. Unless Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined, they will again engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint and in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object.
- Resolution: Judgment Rendered
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Injunction
- Sanctions: Undertakings and agreements
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 7/20/1995
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: C10950046
- DocketNumberAAO: 10950046
- Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
- Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $3,250.00 Sanctions: Censure
- Broker Comment: I MAINTAIN I HAVE DONE NOTHING IMPROPE. I WAS NOT IN POSITION OF AUTHORITY AT SFI WHEN ACTIONS ALLAGED TOOK PLACE. I HAVE AGREED TO THE
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.
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.
- WILMINGTON CAPITAL SECURITIES, LLC (CRD#: 133839) :: 6/22/2018 – 3/22/2019 :: GARDEN CITY, NY
- SEIDEL & CO., LLC (CRD#: 42821) :: 11/6/1997 – 1/3/2017 :: NEW YORK, N. Y., NY
- KIRLIN SECURITIES INC. (CRD#: 21210) :: 1/30/1996 – 9/17/1997 :: SYOSSET, NY
- GOLDIS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (CRD#: 16444) :: 12/23/1993 – 1/23/1996 :: GARDEN CITY, NY
- GOLDIS – PITTSBURG INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, INC. (CRD#: 36754) :: 4/10/1995 – 1/3/1996 :: GREAT NECK, NY
- EMANUEL AND COMPANY (CRD#: 7309) :: 9/11/1992 – 1/1/1994 :: NEW YORK, NY
- SEIDEL & FASANO, INC. (CRD#: 21663) :: 5/13/1988 – 9/25/1992 :: NEW YORK, NY
- FIRST INTERREGIONAL EQUITY CORP. (CRD#: 7486) :: 4/23/1987 – 12/12/1987
- MCLAUGHLIN, PIVEN, VOGEL INC. (CRD#: 7404) :: 8/24/1982 – 4/9/1987
- L. F. ROTHSCHILD, UNTERBERG, TOWBIN (CRD#: 501) :: 8/3/1982 – 8/30/1982
- EMANUEL AND COMPANY (CRD#: 7309) :: 10/24/1979 – 7/8/1982
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 Alan David Seidel, 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.
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 Alan Seidel
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Alan David Seidel – 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 (872696) for the broker – Alan David Seidel
- 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 ‘Ripoff Repairs LLC,’ 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/alan-david-seidel/.