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 Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne.
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 Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Lloyd Beirne
Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne is an Investment Adviser. Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 1982417 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1982417.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne.
Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne 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 Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
Event Date: 9/18/2008
Disclosure Type: Regulatory
Disclosure Resolution: Final
Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Allegations: SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING RELEASE NO. 58580, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008: 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 LLOYD S. BEIRNE ( ESPONDENT). IN ANTICIPATION OF THE INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT (THE OFFER), WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO ACCEPT. ON JULY 24, 2008, A FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED BY CONSENT AGAINST BEIRNE, PERMANENTLY ENJOINING HIM FROM FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 (SECURITIES ACT), SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER, IN THE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 05-742, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. ON JUNE 26, 2003, BEIRNE PLED GUILTY TO ONE COUNT OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SECTION 371, TWO COUNTS OF SECURITIES FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. SECTIONS 78(B) AND 78FF, AND ONE COUNT OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. SECTIONS 78Q(A) AND 78FF(A) BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, U.S. V. LLOYD S. BEIRNE, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 02-681 (S-1) & 04-583. ON OCTOBER 31, 2007, AN AMENDED JUDGMENT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS ENTERED AGAINST BEIRNE AND HE WAS SENTENCED.
Resolution: Order
Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar
Sanction Details: 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 AND WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS HEREIN, EXCEPT AS TO THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION OVER HIM AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADMITTED, RESPONDENT 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 (ORDER). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(B)(6) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT RESPONDENT BEIRNE BE, AND HEREBY IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY BROKER OR DEALER; ANY REAPPLICATION FOR ASSOCIATION BY THE RESPONDENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE REENTRY PROCESS, AND REENTRY MAY BE CONDITIONED UPON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SATISFACTION OF ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) ANY DISGORGEMENT ORDERED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION HAS FULLY OR PARTIALLY WAIVED PAYMENT OF SUCH DISGORGEMENT; (B) ANY ARBITRATION AWARD RELATED TO THE CONDUCT THAT SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION ORDER; (C) ANY SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATION ARBITRATION AWARD TO A CUSTOMER, WHETHER OR NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT THAT SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION ORDER; AND (D) ANY RESTITUTION ORDER BY A SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATION, WHETHER OR NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT THAT SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION ORDER.
Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Allegations: SEC LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 19090 DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2005; BEIRNE VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT, AND RULE 10B-5, THEREUNDER. THIS MATTER INVOLVES A FRAUDULENT SHORT SELLING SCHEME CONDUCTED BY DEFENDANTS. FROM LATE OCTOBER 2002 THROUGH MARCH 2003, DEFENDANTS FRAUDULENTLY USED NON-EXISTENT TRADES TO HIDE A BURGEONING SHORT POSITION IN THE STOCK OF COMPANY 2
HELD IN COMPANY PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT AT ITS CLEARING BROKER. THE DEFENDANTS USED THE ACCESS THAT COMPANY
AS AN INTRODUCING BROKER, HAD TO THE CLEARING BROKER’S SYSTEM TO FALSELY PLACE COMPANY 2 BUY ORDERS, WHICH THEY KNEW THEY WOULD CANCEL THE NEXT DAY, CLAIMING THE ORDERS WERE PLACED IN ERROR. DEFENDANTS ENTERED AND CANCELLED THESE FICTITIOUS BUYS ALMOST DAILY FOR FIVE MONTHS, CONCEALING THE SIZE OF THE SHORT POSITION FROM THE CLEARING BROKER, AND AVOIDING SERIOUS FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES. THE SCHEME UNRAVELED ON MARCH 19, 2003, WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A TENDER OFFER FOR COMPANY 2 BY ITS MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER LIFTED COMPANY 2’S PRICE FROM $38 PER SHARE TO MORE THAN $47. COMPANY COULD NOT COVER ITS SHORT POSITION IN COMPANY 2 WHICH HAD GROWN TO APPROXIMATELY 660,000 SHARES, AND THE CLEARING BROKER WAS FORCED TO PAY $18 MILLION TO COVER THE POSITION.
Resolution: Judgment Rendered
Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Cease and Desist/Injunction Sanctions: Bar
Sanction Details: SEC LITIGATION RELEASE 20659, JULY 29, 2008: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED THAT ON JULY 24, 2008, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST LLOYD S. BEIRNE, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMMISSION’S COMPLAINT, BEIRNE CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT PERMANENTLY ENJOINING HIM FROM VIOLATING SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER. BASED ON THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ORDERED TO PAY DISGORGEMENT OR A CIVIL PENALTY. DEFENDANT ALSO CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF COMMISSION ORDER BARRING HIM FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY BROKER OR DEALER.
Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: COMMON LAW FRAUD; NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; UNSUITABILITY; AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION.
Damage Amount Requested: $700,000.00
Arbitration Claim File Detail: 02-03107
Arbitration Docket Number:
DISCLOSURE 4 –
Event Date: 2/26/2002
Disclosure Type: Regulatory
Disclosure Resolution: Final
Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: CAF020007
DocketNumberAAO: 020007
Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
Allegations: SECTION 10B-5 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT, SEC RULE 10B-5, NASD RULES 2110, 2120, 8210, REGULATION M – RESPONDENT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMPLOYED DEVICES, SCHEMES, OR ARTIFICES TO DEFRAUD AND/OR ENGAGED IN ACTS, PRACTICES, OR COURSES OF BUSINESS THAT OPERATED AS A FRAUD OR DECEIT UPON PUBLIC INVESTORS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES IN A PRIVATE PLACEMENT OFFERING; A MEMBER FIRM, ACTING THROUGH BEIRNE, ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO ARBITRARILY AND ARTIFICIALLY INCREASE THE PRICE OF SECURITIES; KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY, BY THE USE OF THE MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR OF THE MAILS, EMPLOYED DEVICES, SCHEMES, OR ARTIFICES TO DEFRAUD; MADE UNTRUE STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS OR OMITTED TO STATE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS MADE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE MADE, NOT MISLEADING; OR ENGAGED IN ACTS, PRACTICES, OR COURSES OF BUSINESS THAT OPERATED OR WOULD HAVE OPERATED AS A FRAUD OR DECEIT UPON ANY PERSONS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES; EFFECTED TRANSACTIONS IN, OR INDUCED THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF, ANY SECURITY BY MEANS OF MANIPULATIVE, DECEPTIVE, OR OTHER FRAUDULENT DEVICES OR CONTRIVANCES; ACTED AS A MARKET MAKER IN SECURITIES WHILE CONTINUING TO BE ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND RE-ACQUIRED SHARES OF SECURITIES FROM CUSTOMERS FOR THE FIRM’S PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT WHILE THE DISTRIBUTION WAS IN PROGRESS; INDIVIDUALS CAUSED THE FIRM’S SALES FORCE TO RECOMMEND THE PURCHASE OF SECURITIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS WHILE THE DISTRIBUTION WAS IN PROGRESS; FAILED TO RESPOND TO NASD REQUESTS TO APPEAR FOR AN ON-THE-RECORD INTERVIEW AND TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS.
Resolution: Decision
Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
Sanction Details :: Amount: $3,800,000.00 Sanctions: Bar
Sanctions: ORDERED TO PAY $11,423.91 IN COSTS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.
Sanction Details: HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED NOVEMBER 19, 2003 WHEREIN RESPONDENT IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY, FINED $3.8 MILLION, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, AND ORDERED TO PAY $11,423.91 IN COSTS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. APPEALED TO THE NAC ON DECEMBER 15, 2003. CROSS APPEALED BY DEPT. OF ENFORCEMENT ON DECEMBER 18, 2003.ON APRIL 22, 2004, THE NAC DETERMINED NOT TO CALL THIS CASE FOR REVIEW AND THE NAC ACCEPTED THE PARTIES’ WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR APPEALS AND CROSS APPEAL. JANUARY 6, 2004 – THE DECISION IS FINAL.
Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
Allegations: COMPLAINT NO. C07990037 FILED MAY 21, 1999 BY DISTRICT NO. 7 AGAINST LLOYD BEIRNE, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF NASD RULES 2110, 2310, AND 3010 IN THAT RESPONDENT BEIRNE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE AN INDIVIDUAL SO AS TO DETECT THE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC CUSTOMERS.
Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement
Sanction Details: RESPONDENT BEIRNE IS FINED $10,000, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 BUSINESS DAYS FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER FIRM IN ANY SUPERVISORY CAPACITY. THE SUSPENSION WILL COMMENCE WITH THE OPENING OF BUSINESS ON MARCH 20, 2000 AND WILL CONCLUDE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINES ON APRIL 7, 2000.
Broker Comment: COMPLAINT NO.C07990037 FILED MAY 21,1999 BY DISTRICT NO.7 AGAINST RESPONDENTS DL CROMWELL, INC.,DENISE CROWLEY-DELROSSI,LLOYD BEIRNE,AND MATTHEW GREENEWALD ALLEGING VOLATIONS OF NASD RULES 2110,2310,AND 3010 IN THAT RESPONDENT CROWELY-DELROSSI RECOMMENDED AND IMPLEMENTED A COURSE OF UNSUITABLETRADING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF PUBLIC CUSTOMER BASED UPON THE CUSTOMERS’ AGE,DISABILITY INCOME NEEDS AND THE CONCENTRATION OF POSITIONS,AND BASED UPON THE CUSTOMER’S TRADING INEXPERIENCE,INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES,FINANCIAL SITUATION,RETIREMENT NEEDS AND THE CONCENTRATION OF POSITIONS;RESPONDENTS BEIRNE AND GREENWALD EACH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE RESPONDENT CROWLEY SO AS TO DECTEC THE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC CUCTOMERS;ANDRESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM TO SUPERVISE EACH OF ITS RR’S THAT WAS REASONABLE DESIGNEDTO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND THE RULES OF THE NASD.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
Event Date: 5/29/1998
Disclosure Type: Regulatory
Disclosure Resolution: Final
Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
Initiated By: VIRGINIA – STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION DIVISION OF SECURITIES
Allegations: DIVISION ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANT OFFERED AND SOLD SHARES OF AN UNREGISTERED SECURITY, HALSTEAD ENERGY CORPORATION, TO VIRGINIA RESIDENTS.
Resolution: Stipulation and Consent
Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
Sanction Details :: Amount: $1,000.00
Sanction Details: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, DEFENDANT AGREED TO GIVE UP HIS LICENSE FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS, AGREED TO SPECIAL SUPERVISION FOR 24 MONTHS AT CONCLUSION OF 12 MONTH PERIOD, AND AGREED TO PAY A FINE OF $1,000.
Broker Comment: THROUGH AN OVERSIGHT AND NOT KNOWN TO ME, HALSTEAD ENERGY (HSNR) WAS NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED IN VA.
DISCLOSURE 7 –
Event Date: 12/18/1997
Disclosure Type: Regulatory
Disclosure Resolution: Final
Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: CO7970047
DocketNumberAAO: 7970047
Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
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.
COLIN WINTHROP & CO., INC. (CRD#: 26012) :: 5/10/1994 – 11/10/1995 :: JERICHO, NY
GRUNTAL & CO. INCORPORATED (CRD#: 372) :: 11/16/1992 – 4/12/1994 :: NEW YORK, NY
LADENBURG, THALMANN & CO., INC. (CRD#: 505) :: 12/17/1991 – 5/26/1992 :: NEW YORK, NY
LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. (CRD#: 7506) :: 8/22/1989 – 1/3/1992 :: 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 Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne, 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 Lloyd Beirne
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne – 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 (1982417) for the broker – Lloyd Sylvester Martin Beirne
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.
