There are options for clients of Bok Financial Securities, Inc. broker Gihan Fernando (CRD# 4469669) who suffered losses due to investments in business development companies (BDCs) and real estate securities. He has been registered with Cetera Investment Services LLC in Houston, Texas, since 2024. Previously, he was registered with Bok Financial Securities, Inc. in Sugar Land, Texas from 2003 to 2023.
Gihan Fernando Customer Complaints
He has been the subject of 35 customer complaints between 2020 and 2024, according to his CRD report:
March 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2018 through August 2018.” The customer is seeking $100,000 in damages.
March 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around April 2015.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $39,609.82.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2016.” The customer is seeking $97,854.48 in damages.
February 2024. “Alleged compensatory damage amount equals complainant’s original principal amount invested in the product.” The customer sought $500,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $153,990.90.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2016 through April 2016.” The customer sought $63,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $32,059.77.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2017.” The customer sought $60,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $19,926.55.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around February 2016 through April 2016.” The customer sought $99,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $50,289.35.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2017.” The customer sought $65,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $20,018.82.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2015 – March 2016.” The customer sought $129,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $96,255.96.
February 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2016.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $76,227.57.
January 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around January 2018.” The customer sought $200,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $61,596.37.
January 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2014 through June 2016.” The customer sought $669,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $311,260.45.
January 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2015 through March 2017.” The customer sought $150,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $88,660.16.
January 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2016.” The customer sought $225,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $124,509.20.
January 2024. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The customer sought $50,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $49,283.75.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The case was settled for $60,000.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around March 2017.” The customer sought $130,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $40,037.62.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2017.” The customer sought $75,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $23,098.63.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around September 2017.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,798.18.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2016 through September 2016.” The customer sought $600,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $340,368.55.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2017.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,798.18.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around July 2017.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,798.18.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2016 through June 2017.” The customer sought $150,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $56,203.58.
December 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2017.” The customer sought $275,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $84,695.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2015 through December 2017.” The customer sought $690,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $138,271.99.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2017.” The customer sought $390,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $120,112.90.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2015 – June 2016.” The customer sought $40,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $28,862.24.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2017 through March 2018.” The customer sought $160,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $49,277.09.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around June 2014 through June 2015.” The customer sought $500,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $375,501.37.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process on or around May 2015.” The customer sought $240,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $236,154.25.
November 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around August 2016 through September 2016.” The customer sought $105,439 in damages, and the case was settled for $68,868.11.
October 2023. “Complainant alleges that certain features of the products were misrepresented during sales process on or around December 2015 through May 2016.” The customer sought $300,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $147,460.26.
July 2023. “Client alleges that certain features of the product were misrepresented during sales process in September 2016.” The customer sought $191,425.94 in damages, and the case was settled for $81,901.85.
September 2022. “Client alleges that product features were misrepresented at time of sale. March 2017-November 2022.” The case was settled for $16,018.77.
July 2020. “Claimants allege unsuitable product recommendations. A total of seven transactions are included in the claim and were executed between March 2014 and November 2017.” The customer sought $1 million in damages, and the case was settled for $350,000. The complaint is regarding business development companies (BDCs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
Pursuant to FINRA Rules, member firms are responsible for supervising a broker’s activities during the time the broker is registered with the firm. Therefore, Bok Financial Securities, Inc. may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Fernando’s customers.
Erez Law represents investors in the United States for claims against brokers and brokerage firms for wrongdoing. If you have experienced investment losses, please call us at 888-840-1571 or complete our contact form for a free consultation. Erez Law is a nationally recognized law firm representing individuals, trusts, corporations and institutions in claims against brokerage firms, banks and insurance companies on a contingency fee basis.
"*" indicates required fields
