Super Lawyers
AVVO
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Martindale-Hubbell

Janney Montgomery Scott: 100+ Customer and Regulatory Complaints

Janney MontgomeryPublic records published by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and accessed on April 2, 2019 indicate that Pennsylvania-based broker-dealer firm Janney Montgomery Scott has received more than 100 complaints from customers and regulatory authorities. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding Janney Montgomery Scott (CRD# 463).

Established in Pennsylvania in 1947, Janney Montgomery Scott is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and registered with 53 US states and territories. According to its BrokerCheck report, it has received 47 regulatory sanctions and 64 customer complaints that evolved into arbitration.

In March 2019 the Nasdaq Stock Market sanctioned Janney Montgomery Scott in connection to allegations it failed on 476 occasions it failed to maintain a continuous two-sided trading interest during regular market hours” and at prices considered within percentages that were “away from the national best bid or offer.” The firm was censured and issued a fine of $27,500.

In March 2019 the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations breached its fiduciary duty and provided inadequate disclosures in connection to the mutual fund share class selections it offered customers, and specifically that it purchased, recommended or held for its advisory customers share classes that came with certain fees when those customers were eligible for lower-cost share classes. In connection with the SEC’s findings, the firm was censured and ordered to pay disgorgement of more than $215,700.

In 2018 a customer alleged Janney Montgomery Scott breached its fiduciary duty, executed unauthorized trades, breached contract, and acted negligently. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $115,700.

In 2016 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to supervise a financial advisor, resulting in its failure to identify and forestall a “fraudulent scheme” she orchestrated. The firm was issued a fine of $125,000.

In 2016 the SEC sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it conducted inadequate due diligence during certain securities offerings and consequently did not have a reasonable basis to believe in the truthfulness of material representations that were made in official statements regarding those offerings. The firm was issued a fine of $500,000.

In 2015 a customer alleged Janney Montgomery Scott breached its fiduciary duty, participated in unauthorized trading, failed in its supervisory duties, and breached contract. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $152,100.

In 2015 FINRA sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it disadvantaged some of its retirement plan and charitable organizational customers who were eligible to purchase mutual fund share classes without front-end sales charges. The firm was censured and ordered to pay restitution to the affected customers.

In 2015 the State of Delaware sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to reasonably supervise a former financial advisor who made unsuitable investment recommendations. The firm was ordered to pay $105,000.

In 2013 a customer alleged the firm acted negligently, breached its fiduciary duty, misrepresented and omitted material facts, and acted negligently. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $547,432.

In 2012 FINRA sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it filed a form with the municipal securities rule-making board that contained an incorrect date. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $52,000.

In 2012 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, acted negligently, and made unsuitable mutual fund recommendations. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $427,060.

In 2012 FINRA sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to issue firms fully and promptly. It was censured and issued a fine of $55,000.

In 2011 the SEC sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to establish, maintain and enforce policies that were adequately designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $850,000.

In 2010 the Florida Office of Financial Regulation sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to comply with certain terms in the registrations agreements of some of its representatives. It was ordered to pay a fine of $10,000.

In 2010 FINRA sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to properly establish elements of an anti-money laundering program that were reasonably designed to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $175,000.

In 2007 the New York Stock Exchange Division of Enforcement sanction the firm following allegations, among others, it engaged in activities that were not consistent with just and equitable positions of trade; participated in “away-from-market stock loan transactions” for which it “compensated alleged finders… when those finders had not performed any services in connection with those transactions”; and failed in its supervisory duties. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $2,500,000.

In 2005 the National Association of Securities Dealers sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it allowed two of its institutional customers to circumvent the efforts of mutual fund companies to “block or restrict the client’s market timing transactions.” The firm was censured and issued a fine of $1,200,000.

In 2004 the SEC sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it did not disclose its receipt of a payment for the publication of research and that it failed to maintain internal email communications between July 1999 and June 2001. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $875,000.

In 2004 a customer alleged the firm breached contract, made unsuitable investment recommendations, breached its fiduciary duty, and acted negligently. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $3.2 million.

In 2004 a customer alleged the firm omitted material facts, failed in its supervisory duty, made unsuitable recommendations, and breached contract. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $654,750.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, churned investments, made unsuitable recommendations, and participated in unauthorized trading. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $100,000.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, made misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, and recommended unsuitable investments in common stock, mutual funds, options, and preferred stock. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $2,066,000.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, breached contract, acted negligently, and failed in its supervisory duties. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $110,000.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm acted negligently, misrepresented material facts, recommended unsuitable investments in corporate bonds, and breached its fiduciary duty. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $273,800.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, failed in its supervisory duties, and recommended unsuitable securities. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $455,292.

In 2003 a customer alleged the firm recommended unsuitable investments. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $70,300.

In 2002 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, recommended unsuitable stock products, and failed in its supervisory duties. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $98,900.

In 2001 a customer alleged the firm made misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, executed unauthorized transactions, and breached its fiduciary duty. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $98,600.

In 2001 a customer alleged the firm breached its fiduciary duty, misrepresented material facts, acted negligently, and recommended unsuitable investments. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of $50,000.

In 2000 a customer alleged Janney Montgomery Scott breached its fiduciary duty, breached contract, and acted negligently. The complaint resulted in an award to the customer of more than $69,900.

In 2000 the SEC sanctioned Janney Montgomery Scott in connection to allegations it failed to supervise the conduct of a former representative who misappropriated more than $1.8 million in funds from about 25 firm clients. According to the SEC, the representative “exploited certain deficiencies” in the firm’s internal operations, and the firm did not have proper protocols governing the review and approval of client authorization letters for fund transfer or withdrawals, among other matters. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $100,000.

In 1993 the Pennsylvania Securities Commission sanctioned the firm in connection to allegations it failed to establish and maintain supervisory procedures that were reasonably designed to identify and prevent two representatives’ unsuitable limited partnership sales and dishonest and unethical activities. The firm was censured and issued a fine of $100,000.

If you or someone you know has a complaint regarding Janney Montgomery Scott, call Fitapelli Kurta at 877-238-4175 for a free consultation. You may be able to recover lost funds. Fitapelli Kurta accepts all cases on contingency: we only get paid if and when you collect money. You may have a limited window to file your complaint, so we encourage you to avoid delay. Call 877-238-4175 now to speak to an attorney for free.

Contact Information