Former Moloney Securities Co., Inc. broker Robert Vance (CRD# 1887560) faces customer complaints related to unsuitable investment recommendations. He was registered with Moloney Securities Co., Inc. in Sonora, California, from 2016 to 2023.
In May 2023, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opened an investigation into the broker regarding, “Investigating potential rule violations of Regulation Best Interest.”
In September 2024, the SEC sought a judgment against the broker following allegations that he recommended clients purchase GWG Holdings, Inc. L Bonds between June 2020 and January 2022. The high-risk, unrated corporate bonds “may be considered speculative” and “were only suitable for investors with substantial financial resources and no need for liquidity in the investment.” It is alleged that he recommended at least 50 clients purchase approximately $4.3 million in L Bonds without a reasonable basis to believe the recommendations were suitable. The SEC found that many of the investors were “at or near retirement age and had moderate risk tolerance.”
Robert Vance Customer Complaints
He has been the subject of 18 customer complaints between 2022 and 2024, one of which was denied, according to his CRD report:
October 2024. “Suitability/negligence. 2021.” The customer is seeking $125,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
June 2024. “Suitability/negligence. 2017-2021.” The customer is seeking $100,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
March 2024. “Suitability/negligence. 2020-2021.” The case is currently pending.
October 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2014-2018.” The customer is seeking $1,000,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
October 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2014-2018.” The customer is seeking $500,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
October 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2013-2018.” The customer is seeking $500,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
August 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2017-2019.” The case was settled for $65,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
June 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2018.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $23,250. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
June 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2018-2020.” The customer is seeking $76,000 in damages. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
June 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2018-2020.” The customer sought $76,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $15,500. The complaint was regarding corporate debt.May 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2017-2020.” The customer sought $110,450 in damages, and the case was settled for $63,978.53. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
April 2023. “Suitability/negligence. 2017.” The customer sought $120,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $40,950.64. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
December 2022. “Suitability/Negligence. 2018.” The customer sought $125,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
November 2022. “Suitability/Negligence. 2021.” The customer sought $143,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $65,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
October 2022. “Suitability/Negligence.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $37,500. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
June 2022. “Suitability/Negligence 2016-2018.” The case was settled for $125,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt. The complaint was regarding corporate debt and non-listed preferred stocks.
May 2022. “Negligence/Suitability.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt.
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, Moloney Securities Co., Inc. may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Robert Vance’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
