Jason Michael Cope Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

Jason Michael Cope  – 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 Jason Michael Cope.

BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Jason Michael Cope. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.

About Jason Cope

Jason Michael Cope is an Investment Adviser. Jason Michael Cope’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 2623967 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2623967.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Jason Michael Cope.

Jason Michael Cope 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 Jason Michael Cope’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.

DISCLOSURE 1 – 

• Event Date: 9/29/2016
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
• Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Allegations: SEC Admin Release 34-78999, September 29, 2016: The SEC 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 against Jason Cope. In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, Respondent admits the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings, and the findings contained herein, and consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions. On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that on December 17, 2015, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in Civil Action Number 14 Civ. 7575, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 23, 2015, Respondent pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. u00a7 1349; one count of securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. u00a7 1348; one count of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. u00a7 78j(b), 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. u00a7 240.10b-5; and four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. u00a7 1343 before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Crim. Information No. 1:15-cr-329.
• Resolution: Order
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 9/29/2016

DISCLOSURE 2 – 

• Event Date: 9/9/2015
• Disclosure Type: Criminal
• Disclosure Resolution: Final Disposition
• Disclosure Detail :: Criminal Charges :: Charges: Securities Fraud
• Disposition: Pled guilty Charges: Securities law violations
• Disposition: Pled guilty Charges: Wire fraud
• Disposition: Pled guilty Charges: Conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud
• Disposition: Pled guilty

DISCLOSURE 3 – 

• Event Date: 9/18/2014
• Disclosure Type: Civil
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Allegations: SEC Litigation Release No. 23087, September 18, 2014: The SEC charged a ring of eight individuals for their roles in an alleged pump-and-dump scheme involving a penny stock company based in California that has repeatedly changed its name and purported line of business over the past several years. The SEC alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by an individual (the Individual) and his wife. They are both charged by the SEC in the case along with others enlisted to buy, sell, or promote stock in the company (the Company). The Individual installed some of these associates as officers and directors of the Company while he secretly ran the company behind the scenes. Collectively, they amassed large blocks of shares of Company common stock while the Individual and his wife manipulated the market to create the appearance of genuine investor demand, allowing an associate to sell his stock at inflated prices to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits. The SEC has obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of the Individual and his wife and others who profited illegally through the alleged scheme. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Individual has secretly controlled the shell Company since its incorporation in 2008 under a different name. During the next five years, he caused the Company to enter into a number of reverse mergers and its reported business evolved from equipment leasing to prepaid stored value cards related to electronic devices until the Company eventually became known by another name and claimed to own and operate a social media website. The Company name changed again in 2013, and after a failed attempt to merge it into a private mixed martial arts company, the Individual created his own private company purportedly in the high-end diamond business and merged the Company into it. The SEC alleges that the Individual and his wife brought at least six others into the fold to coordinate various components of the scheme. One of the others, Jason Cope, is a longtime associate of the Individual and has a past record of securities fraud with a court judgment against him in a previous SEC enforcement action. On Cope’s behalf, another person allegedly dumped more than 2.5 million shares of Company stock through a nominee into the public market for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit profits that were kicked back to Cope. According to the SEC’s complaint, the Individual exchanged e-mails and text messages with many of his co-conspirators as they openly discussed coordinating their promotional activities and manipulative trading in Company stock in order to create a false impression of market activity. They stood to earn exponentially more illicit profits given that they continue to beneficially own tens of millions of shares of Company stock, so the SEC suspended trading in its securities in order to prevent any further manipulation or dumping of the stock.
• Resolution: Judgment Rendered
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Injunction
• Sanctions: undertakings; penny stock bar

DISCLOSURE 4 – 

• Event Date: 11/19/2002
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 8210-10020020
• DocketNumberAAO: 8210-10020020
• Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
• Allegations: FAILURE TO RESPOND TO NASD REQUESTS TO APPEAR FOR AN ON-THE-RECORD INTERVIEW WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF PRE-SUSPENSION NOTICE DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2002.
• Resolution: Other
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar
• Sanction Details: BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY EFFECTIVE MAY 27, 2003 PURSUANT TO NASD RULE 9544 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER PURSUANT TO NASD RULE 9541(B).

DISCLOSURE 5 – 

• Event Date: 3/12/2001
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: SD-1503 MCH
• DocketNumberAAO: 1503
• Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS
• Allegations: JASON COPE IS SUBJECT TO STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION DUE TO A DECEMBER 29, 2000 FINAL JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WHICH ENJOINS COPE FROM VIOLATING THE ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. IAR SECURITIES CORPORATION IS SEEKING THE PROPOSED ASSOCIATION OF JASON COPE AS A GENERAL SECURITIES REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE FIRM THROUGH ELIGIBILITY PROCEEDINGS.
• Resolution: Decision
• Sanction Details ::
• Sanctions: JASON COPE IS SUBJECT TO STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION DUE TO A DECEMBER 29, 2000 FINAL JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WHICH ENJOINS COPE FROM VIOLATING THE ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE COMMISSION ALLEGED THAT COPE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN AN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SCHEME IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF 1999, WHEN HE WAS THE MANAGER OF THE PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF AC FINANCIAL, INC. THE SCHEME PURPORTED TO OFFER SECURITIES TO INVESTORS IN SEVERAL STATES. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT COPE AND HIS SALES TEAM CONVINCED APPROXIMATELY 200 CUSTOMERS TO PAY ALMOST 9 MILLION DOLLARS FOR IPO SHARES IN FOUR HOT COMPANIES. THE CUSTOMERS WERE TOLD THAT THE IPO SHARES WERE ACCESSIBLE TO AC FINANCIAL, WHEN, IN FACT, AC FINANCIAL HAD NO ACCESS TO THE IPO SHARES, AND NO IPO SHARES WERE PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS. CUSTOMERS RECEIVED FALSE SALES CONFIRMATIONS. INVESTOR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COURT SHOWED THAT COPE MADE FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO CUSTOMERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALES OF THE IPO SHARES. BY ORDER ON NOVEMBER 8, 2000, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION SET FORTH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT COPE EITHER KNEW OF THE FRAUD, OR THAT THE FRAUD HAD BEEN SO OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS REECKLESS IN FAILING TO MAKE SUFFICIENT INQUIRY TO UNCOVER IT. ADDITIONALLY, COPE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INITIATED IN OCTOBER 1998 ALLEGING UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, RESULTING IN LOSSES TO THE CUSTOMEROF OVER $14,000. THE CUSTOMER WAS AWARDED $31,421 IN AN ARBITRATION CLAIM AGAINST COPE AND THE FIRM WITH WHICH HE WAS ASSOCIATED AT THE TIME. THE PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES COMMISSION HAS INSTITUTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AGAINST COPE TO DETERMINE IF HE HAS VIOLATED THE PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES LAWS. THAT INVESTIGATION AROSE FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS THAT LED TO COPE’S PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE STATE MATTER REMAINS PENDING.
• Sanction Details: MEMBER REGULATION RECOMMENDED THAT IAR’S APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY COPE BE DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED CHIEFLY ON COPE’S RECENT AND SERIOUS MISCONDUCT WHICH LED TO THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL, AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, DENIED IAR’S APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY COPE AS A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE. THE NAC BASED ITS DECISION CHIEFLY ON THE DISQUALIFYING EVENT ITSELF. COPE WAS RECENTLY FOUND TO HAVE PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN A VERY SERIOUS, SECURITIES-RELATED FRAUD.THE COURT FOUND THAT COPE EITHER KNEW OF THE FRAUD, OR THAT THE FRAUD WAS SO OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS RECKLESS IN FAILING TO MAKE SUFFICIENT INQUIRY TO UNCOVER IT. AT THE TIME OF HIS MISCONDUCT, COPE WAS A BRANCH MANAGER AT AC FINANCIAL. IT WAS HIS JOB TO ENSURE THAT HE, AND THOSE HE SUPERVISED, WERE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES WITHIN THE RULES OF THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AT ALL TIMES. INSTEAD, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT COPE EITHER DELIBERATELY OR RECKLESSLY IGNORED MANY SIGNALS THAT THE IPO SALES WERE NOT LEGITIMATE. HIS WILLING, OR RECKLESS, PARTICIPATION IN AN EXTENSIVE IPO SCHEME DEMONSTRATES A WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR IMPORTANT INDUSTRY RULES.

DISCLOSURE 6 – 

• Event Date: 1/7/2000
• Disclosure Type: Civil
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Allegations: 03/03/2000WE SEC NEWS DIGEST, ISSUE 2000-39, DATED 03/01/2000, ENFORCMENT PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSES: THE SEC CHARGED THAT DEFENDANT OFFERED AND SOLD FOUR HOT IPOS (MEANING THAT THE SECURITIES WERE OVERSUBSCRIBED AND DIFFICULT TO PURCHASE), COLLECTING $8.7 MILLION FROM APPROXIMATELY 190 INVESTORS. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAS ACCESS TO THESE HOT IPOS NOR PURCHASED IPOS FOR THE INVESTORS. THE DEFENDANT STOLE THE INVESTORS MONEY AND EVADED THE CUSTOMERS BY PRODUCING PHONY TRADE CONFIRMATIONS AND ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. THE DEFENDANT RETURNED SOME MONEY TO REPRESENT REPAYMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND PROFITS ON THE SHAM IPO INVESTMENTS. (LR-16460) ** +11/27/2000+ THE SEC CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH VIOLATING THE ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATION OF THE BROKER-DEALER REGISTRATION PROVISIONS. (LR-16802)
• Resolution: Judgment Rendered
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Cease and Desist/Injunction
• Sanction Details: THE COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS, SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (EXCHANGE ACT), RULE 10B-5 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, AND SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT AIDED AND ABETTED VIOLATION OF THE BROKER-DEALER REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT. THE COURT ENJOINED THIS DEFENDANT FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THESE LAWS, AND WILL REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO PAY FULL DISGORGEMENT AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST. THE COURT FURTHER RULED THAT IT WOULD DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DISGORGEMENT AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST, AND DECIDE WHETHER CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES SHOULD BE ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AFTER THE COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER CONCLUDES HIS INVESTIGATION.
• Broker Comment: APPLICANT VEHEMENTLY DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH. IN THAT APPLICANT WAS DRAWN INTO A SCHEME DEVISED BY HIS EMPLOYER WHOM WHICH HE TRUSTED, AS HE SHOULD OF. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO HIM TO QUESTION THE BONA FIDES OF THE IPO. THERE IS NOT A INVESTIGATION FILED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AS PER THE U-5 FILED BY A.C. FINANCIAL. THEREFORE, A DRP IS NOT REQUIRED.

DISCLOSURE 7 – 

• Event Date: 12/15/1998
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLAIMANT ALLEGES SUITABILITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND MISREPRESENTATION.
• Damage Amount Requested: $65,000.00
• Damages Granted: $30,209.00
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 99-0000704
• Broker Comment: CLAIMANT WAS AWARDED 30,209.00 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, WHICH VTR,K/N/A FAIRCHILD FINANCIAL GROUP, AND JASON COPE ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR.

DISCLOSURE 8 – 

• Event Date: 10/16/1998
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLAIMANT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS & UNAUTHORIZED TRADING RELEVANT TO ACTIVITY THAT OCCURRED AT VTR CAPITAL, INC.-RESULTING IN ACTUAL DAMAGES OF APPROXIMATELY $14,571.92.
• Damage Amount Requested: $14,571.92
• Damages Granted: $31,421.00
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 98-03166
• Broker Comment: PENDING I FIRMLY DENY ANY AND ALL ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT FORTH BY STEVEN D. MURPHY. THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED AND UNTRUE. CLAIMANT WAS AWARDED THE SUM OF $31,421. OF WHICH APPLICANT AND VTR CAPITAL ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR.

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.

• IAR SECURITIES CORP. (CRD#: 5155) :: 1/27/2000 – 6/20/2001 :: NEW YORK, NY
• AC FINANCIAL, INC. (CRD#: 21616) :: 9/2/1999 – 2/5/2000 :: PALM HARBOR, FL
• FAIRCHILD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (CRD#: 21404) :: 11/20/1995 – 6/28/1999 :: NEW YORK, NY
• L.C. WEGARD & CO., INC. (CRD#: 3722) :: 7/11/1995 – 11/21/1995 :: 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 Jason Michael Cope, 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 Jason Cope

In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.

Jason Michael Cope – 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 (2623967) for the broker – Jason Michael Cope
• 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/jason-michael-cope/.