IPG Failure to Supervise
Regulators alleged that IPG (Investment Placement Group) failed to reasonably supervise its employees’ electronic communications.
The strict monitoring of employee communications is very important. Though not alleged here to have occurred yet, the failure of monitoring can lead to fraudulent representation of investments. It can also lead to large scale securities fraud such as Ponzi-like schemes.
Beginning in January 2020, IPG permitted an instant messaging platform to be used by its employees for business purposes. Between January 2020 and November 2022, the regulator FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) alleges that IPG failed to “establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system […]reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the firm’s obligation to preserve and review business-related communications sent and received through the approved messaging platform.”
In January 2020, the firm engaged a third-party vendor to capture the electronic messages its employees sent
and received for preservation purposes. The employee’s personal device had to be connected to the archiving service for this to occur.
The firm, however, did not take sufficient steps to verify that its employees’ devices were in fact connected to the third party archiving service. Moreover, the firm’s internal procedures did not address the use of the third party electronic messaging platform or describe how supervisors at the firm should verify that employees’ devices were connected.
FINRA fined IPG $100,000 and issued a censure. Within 60 days of the settlement, FINRA ordered senior management, and senior management agreed, to certify that a supervisory system to fix shortcomings is implemented.
IPG’s investment advisory arm previously came under regulatory scrutiny due to mutual fund fees being undisclosed.
We fight to protect investors and monitor when a firm fails to supervise its advisors.
Linqto Captial and SPV Losses
Linqto Inc., which sells securities through Linqto Capital, is currently under investigation by the SEC. Allegations include failing to give accurate information to investors, selling investments to unsuitable investors and failing to purchase shares for certain investors.
Linqto sold investors Single Purpose Vehicle (SPV) investments that purported to place retail investors in pre-IPO holdings. To market its SPV, it used guerilla-style marketing appealing to small investors who often lack the investment sophistication to appreciate the risks of private investments.
One such campaign in January 2023 sought to sell the crypto currency company “Ripple.” Linqto tried to sell Ripple pre-IPO shares to Linqto’s users at a price at least 60% higher than what Linqto paid. The difference between the price a brokerage pays for an investment and the price the brokerage sells the investment to its investors is referred to as a “markup.” The SEC prohibits markups above 10%. Linquto did not disclose this unreasonably heightened markup to it investors and collected $2 million in fees.
It is alleged that not only did Linqto sell non-accredited and unsophisticated investors, in violation of state and federal securities laws, but that it bragged about the violation. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Linqto’s CEO sent an email to his company stating, “When we go for a Spike Day (over $1M in sales), we sometimes have to pull out all stops and even sell to the unwashed.“
Regulators also allege that Linqto failed to purchase investments on behalf of some paying investors.
In July 2025, Linqto filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court.
SPVs are investment vehicles where a group of investors join together to purchase a certain investment or a certain type of investment. The investors do not own the investment directly, but instead own a proportionate share of the SPV. SPVs are commonly used for things such as investing in private, pre-IPO shares of certain companies. While claiming to be democratizing such markets, these vehicles can victimize smaller, retail investors.
The investments use a Regulation D platform. This means that the actions of fund managers is largely opaque and the guardrails to protect smaller investors is absent.
For over 20 years, we have represented investors victimized by investment professionals. Feel free to call us about this or other investment fraud issue.
Eliseo Prisno Fraudulent Fees
On July 3, 2025, the SEC charged Eliseo Prisno of P/E Capital Investment Management Partners of Chicago with charging improper fees. This fraudulent billing practice violates numerous state and federal laws.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that from at least February 2019 through at least July 2023, Prisno and P/E Capital charged more than $2.4 million in unauthorized fees to his and his firm’s investors. In some instances, the complaint alleges, Prisno and P/E Capital deceptively circumvented their brokerage firm’s requirement that clients directly authorize any additional fees by using their clients’ login credentials to access their accounts without their consent.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Chicago, charges Prisno and P/E Capital with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, the repayment to investors, with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against both defendants, and a conduct-based injunction against Prisno.
The complaint of the SEC described the scam. First, Prisno and P/E would facilitate the client’s opening of a brokerage account with Brokerage Firm A by creating a username, password, and account security questions for the client on custodial brokerage’s, a brokerage firm where the trades would be made, online platform. While some clients changed their passwords, others continued to use the password provided to them by P/E Capital. This enabled Defendants to access an investor’s account without her knowledge. The brokerage account opening documents supplied to the investor included no reference to any Added Fees.
Second, P/E Capital would provide the custodial brokerage with the client’s purported contact information, which oftentimes included a mobile phone number and an email address controlled by P/E, not the client. From there, Prison and P/E controlled the account and any warning would go to them and not the investor. Taking advantage of this, approved the fraudulent fee and made the approval appear to be the investor’s approval.
Prisno’s record reveals that he worked for P/E since 2015. He also previously worked for Merrill Lynch.
The federal court complaint also identifies that Prisno targeted the Filipino community. The investors Prison targeted were also largely unexperienced with investing.
As an investment advisor, Prisno is a fiduciary of his investors and is required to put their interests ahead of his own. He is also required to fully and completely disclose the compensation that he and his firm receives from his investment actions on his investors’ behalf.
We are a firm dedicated to protecting investors of advisor misdeeds. Please contact us with any questions concerning this or other area of advisor abuse.
Annuity and Variable Life Cases
Annuity and variable life investments are expensive, provide little help for retirement and render your savings illiquid. Financial professionals push these investments because these investments pay commissions that can be ten times higher than the commission on appropriate investments.
The complexity of these investments hide the commissions and the unnecessary costs. But it is important to remember that most financial professionals are required to act in your best interests when recommending investments or investment strategies. This means that they can only offer suitable investments.
Variable contracts, life variable life and variable annuities, can be unsuitable for multiple reasons. FINRA, the regulatory agency that oversees securities brokers, views variable annuities with suspicion. “Due to the complexity and confusion surrounding them, which can lead to questionable sales practices, variable annuities are a leading source of investor complaints to FINRA.”
An investor must be informed of all costs for the annuity to be suitable, including advisory fees and commissions. The death benefit must be desired and beneficial to the investor for the annuity recommendation to be suitable.
“When making a recommendation of an annuity, [the insurance producer] shall act in the best interest of the consumer under the circumstances known at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the producer’s or the insurer’s financial interest ahead of the consumer’s interest. The requirements under Section 5.A.1.a. require a producer to consider the types of products the producer is authorized and licensed to recommend or sell that address the consumer’s financial situation, insurance needs and financial objectives.
An investor must be informed of all costs for the annuity to be suitable, including advisory fees and commissions per FINRA Rule 2330(b)(1)(A)(i). The death benefit must be desired and beneficial to the investor for the annuity recommendation to be suitable.
The lack of liquidity alone also makes a variable annuity sale unsuitable. Such a finding was recently made by FINRA in Dept. of Enforcement v. Xagoraris. In FINRA’s 2014 decision, in which the broker was barred from the securities industry, FINRA stated that a variable product was unsuitable because of the lack of liquid funds to pay the premiums. This was found in Xagoraris even though the investor had over $430,000 in mutual funds and in the investor’s IRA.
We have handled a substantial number cases concerning variable annuities and variable life over the past 20 years. Please call us if you wish to discuss these issues.
Jon Kubler takes NFL Star in Ponzi
Former Pro Bowler Mike Rucker has sued Jon Kubler (Kubler), his former investment adviser. Rucker claims that he and his family lost nearly $3 million after their money was unknowingly mismanaged and invested into a Ponzi scheme. Rucker filed the lawsuit in March 2025 against Jon Kubler, who had managed the family’s money for 21 years.
In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified the Ruckers that Kubler had been accused of running a commercial real estate Ponzi scheme, with his companies having raised approximately $5.6 million in investor funds only to invest just 4% of that money. The SEC claimed that Kubler had used investor’s money to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors as well as for personal use. Kubler was indicted by the Justice Department last month on charges of securities fraud and money laundering.
In particular, the SEC alleges that Kubler along with Aksarben Evolution, LLC (“Aksarben”), AV Bhill, LLC (“AV Bhill”), CFH Texas, LLC (“CFH Texas”), Green Saddle, LLC (“Green Saddle”), and Kubler Consulting, LLC (“Kubler Consulting”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Kubler Financial, Inc. (“Kubler Financial”) and Midwest PEG, LLC (“Midwest PEG”) (collectively, “Relief Defendants”) that from at least 2016 and continuing through the present, Defendants raised over $5 million from at least 56 investors.
Kubler and his cohorts represented to investors that they would use their money for investment “opportunities” consisting primarily of real estate holdings. In fact, Defendants engaged in a complete fraud. Of the approximately $5.6 million raised, Defendants invested only $227,500, and fraudulently used the remaining 96% of the money by making approximately $3.7 million of Ponzi payments.
According to the Rucker’s lawsuit, Kubler mismanaged the family’s real estate dealings, including a line of credit they had secured to build a house, and also took out loans under their name and their real estate business’ name in order to pay himself. They also alleged that Kubler had diverted more than $1 million of their funds, forged their signatures to open accounts in their names and company names, and caused the family significant financial loss when he convinced Mrs. Rucker to take out a $14 million life insurance policy that generated fees and commission that Kubler paid to himself as the placing agent.
Rucker filed suit against Kubler and his companies in North Carolina Business Court.
We are a firm dedicated to the rights to investors and fight to inform investors of fraud and representing fraud victims. Please contact us for a free and confidential consultation.
Rajesh Markan
On June 27, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled charges against Rajesh Markan, formerly a broker and investment adviser representative employed by two securities brokerage firms, Merrill Lynch and Hilltop Securities, for soliciting his investors to invest in a fake private equity fund.
According to the SEC’s complaint, from at least 2015 through July 2024, Markan, while working as a registered representative of the two brokerages and investment advisers, solicited approximately ten of his brokerage customers to invest, collectively, approximately $2.9 million in a bogus private equity fund.
The SEC alleges that Markan told the investors that a well-known New York private equity firm advised the fund, which Markan called “Intrinsic Value Portfolio.” The complaint alleges that because Markan claimed it was a private equity investment, Markan told investors that their money would be illiquid for six to twelve years, but he assured them that, ultimately, they could expect to make above-market returns. According to the SEC, these representations were false. The fund touted by Markan was fake. Markan kept most of the investors’ money for himself.
The SEC also alleges that Markan lulled investors by sending fabricated statements purporting to show their account balances, and Markan created a fake domain name so he could send emails as a purported employee of the New York private equity firm. The SEC handed Markan a permanent bar.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas filed criminal charges against Markan in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which he pled guilty on June 10, 2025. Additionally, on October 1, 2024, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred Markan from associating with any securities brokerage in the United States.
There are also a number of civil suits against the employers of Markan.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division), charges Rajesh Markan with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
We are a firm dedicated to the representation of investors.
Jeffrey Perryman
Jeffrey Perryman was previously an agent of New York Life Insurance, NY Life Securities and Eagle Strategies. He operated primarily in Fort Collins and Windsor, Colorado. We have filed suit against Perryman’s former employers and are working with a number of investors who allege improper life insurance sales by Perryman and that Perryman charged improper fees. Some have also alleged that he forged initials or signatures on insurance policy documents.
Life insurance is an expensive and is often an unsuitable way of investing retirement savings. Advisors and agents often have an inappropriate incentive to sell excessive amounts of insurance in the form of a heightened commission. When many advisors should be recommending securities like bonds or fixed income investments, which pay commissions of less than 1%, advisors like Perryman are alleged to have recommended an unsuitable level of life insurance because such investments pay commissions several times greater. Adding to this, investors allege Perryman charged management fees, in addition to the commissions, to oversee the policies.
New York Life and its various financial services arms discontinued its relationship with Perryman on April 11, 2024. Perryman resigned after New York Life allegedly found that he exceeded the scope of his approved activities as an investment advisor for charging for unapproved fees. Perryman had been an employee of New York Life since the early 1990s.
On October 7, 2024, Perryman consented to the sanction of a permanent bar from the securities brokerage industry. Perryman entered into this settlement after failing to cooperate with regulators investigating his actions. The regulator sought information concerning Perryman’s fees into the alleged unapproved activity.
There are also four resolved customer disputes involving settlements of claims by Perryman’s employers.
We are a firm that represents investors and believes in investor protections. Please contact us with any information concerning this matter.
Mack Jamie Sprouse
An update on Mack Jamie Sprouse, who was previously indicted on 11 counts of securities fraud by a grand jury. Sprouse was arrested on June 3, 2025. The Colorado statute prohibiting securities fraud is C.R.S. Sec. 11-51-501.
Updated information reveal the breadth of the scam. The State of Colorado alleges that Sprouse victimized approximately 80 investors. According to the charges brought against him, Mack Jamie Sprouse solicited approximately $4.8 million from at least 80 investors in his house-flipping business, Urban Veneer Holdings LLC. Sprouse raised investor funds through the issuance of promissory notes with a promise to repay the principal of the note and high-interest payments.
As previously discussed, this type of fraud is considered securities fraud because profits of investors are dependent upon the actions of others. This is commonly referred to as the “Howey” test.
Sprouse is not registered to offer or sell securities in Colorado. Registration is a prerequisite to selling securities in Colorado. The Colorado Division of Securities investigated this matter, and the Colorado Attorney General’s Criminal Justice/Financial Fraud Unit is prosecuting the case.
A grand jury indictment is a formal accusation that an individual committed a crime under Colorado laws. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
We are a firm dedicated to protecting the rights of investors.
Changes to FINRA Rule 2210
Changes to FINRA Rule 2210 may be coming. The FINRA, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Board of Governors met June 4-5, 2025. The Board approved two rule proposals, approved the appointments of new Advisory Committee members, met with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Mark Uyeda, and received updates on FINRA’s long-term financial planning and FINRA’s enterprise risk management and cybersecurity program.
The current version of FINRA Rule 2210 requires fair and balanced representations in communications that brokers and brokerages have with investors. The reason for this prohibition is to prevent the investing public from investing on false or misleading information they believe is from a trusted source. Further, any recommendation, such as this, must disclose any financial interest, such as stock options. Most important to the proposed amendment, the Rule prohibits the projection of investment performance of an investment or strategy.
The amendments are purportedly to “better align the regulatory requirements for broker-dealers and investment advisers related to performance projections in written communications to investors.” The amendments would create a narrowly tailored exception, or safe harbor, to the general prohibition on investment or strategy projections. The amended rule would permit the presentation of projected performance and targeted returns when members meet specified conditions, including adopting internal rules, having a reasonable basis for the criteria and assumptions made in calculating the projections or targeted returns, and providing specified information. The amendments will be filed with the SEC for approval.
FINRA is a not-for-profit organization, self-regulatory organization, dedicated to investor protection and market integrity. It is created by the securities brokerage industry to oversee the securities brokerage industry. FINRA regulates just one part of the securities industry, brokerage firms. FINRA is overseen by the SEC, writes rules, examines for and enforces compliance with FINRA rules and federal securities laws, registers broker-dealer personnel and offers them education and training, and informs the investing public.
We are a firm dedicated to the protection of the rights of investors. Please contact us with investment-related issues you may have.
Jeffrey Alan Arbeit
Jeffrey Alan Arbeit accepted a bar from the securities industry on June 11, 2025. Regulators alleged that Arbeit failed to cooperate into allegations that he inappropriately sold securities “away” or sold securities there were not approved by his employing securities brokerage.
Arbeit first became registered with FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, through an association with a Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC, primarily out a Texas office, as an Investment Representative in March 2016. On March 7, 2025, Farmers Financial filed a Uniform Termination Notice of Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) stating that it had terminated Arbeif’s employment for “failing to report private securities transaction pursuant to FINRA Rule 3280 and Firm policy.” Although Arbeit is not currently associated with a FINRA member firm, he remains subject to FINRA’s jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 4 of FINRA’s By-Laws.
The failure to report a private securities sale is a serious charge. Many brokers who sell private securities away from their employer do so because of an unreasonably high commission or the company is illegitimate.
In June 2025, Arbeit refused to cooperate with FINRA and documents as requested by FINRA staff pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010. For this misconduct, Jeffrey Alan Arbeit is barred from association with any securities brokerage firm in the United States in all capacities.
As a licensed broker, FINRA required him to cooperate with its investigation. FINRA Rule 8210(a)(l) states, FINRA is authorized to require a person subject to its jurisdiction “to provide information orally, in writing, or electronically … with respect to any matter involved in [a FINRA] investigation.” FINRA Rule 8210(a)(2) states that FINRA is allowed to “inspect and copy the books, records, and accounts of such member or person with respect to any matter involved in [a FINRA] investigation.”
FINRA Rule 8210(c) further states that no person “shall fail to provide information … or to permit an inspection and copying of books, records, or accounts pursuant to this Rule.” A violation of FINRA Rule 8210 is also a violation of FINRA Rule 2010, which requires associated persons, in the conduct of their business, to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”
We are a firm that is dedicated to representing investors. Call us for questions on this or other issue concerning inappropriate actions by investment professionals.