Were You a Victim of Former Gilford Securities Incorporated Financial Advisor Jeremy Hare?

Erez Law is currently investigating former Gilford Securities Incorporated financial advisor Jeremy Hare (CRD# 2593809) regarding use of discretion in customer accounts. Hare was registered with Gilford Securities Incorporated in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania from 2011 to 2012, when he was terminated regarding, “The firm has received customer complaints of unauthorized trading. Mr. Hare was incurring expenses without firm’s authorization.” Previously, he was registered Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 2008 to 2011.

In January 2014, FINRA suspended Hare after he failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

In September 2012, FINRA barred Hare and sanctioned him to a monetary penalty other than fines in the amount of $4,380.25 following allegations that he exercised discretion in 41 trades in a customer’s account without written authorization from the customer or his member firm.

Hare has been the subject of 16 customer complaints between 2001 and 2016, according to his CRD report:

• September 2016. “Statement of claim alleges damages arising from claims of negligent misrepresentation/omission, restitution, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent supervision, common law fraud and churning of accounts and charging exorbitant commissions. From 2008-2011.” The customer is seeking $1,000,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.
• September 2016. “Statement of claim alleges damages arising from claims of unsuitability, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud and churning of accounts and charging exorbitant commissions, from 2009 to 2011.” The customer is seeking $300,000 in damages and the case is currently pending.
• August 2014. “Unauthorized and unsuitable trades. Churning of account and charging commissions in lieu of managed account fee during 4/2008 – 2011.” The customer sought $1,000,000 in damages and the case was settled for $1,075,000.
• December 2012. “Between August 2011 through July 2012 client is alleging commissions charged were contrary to what was understood.” The case was settled for $20,000.
• August 2012. “Churning, unauthorized and unsuitable transactions during the period 5/2008 – 7/2011.” The case was settled for $50,000.
• August 2012. “From August 2011 through June 2012 client alleges Mr. Hare (SP) provided misleading information concerning positions in their account, also alleges inappropriate investments, margin use and unauthorized trading.” The case was settled for $55,000.
• August 2012. “From December 2011 through June 2012 client alleges Mr. Hare (SP) provided misleading information concerning positions in their account, also alleges inappropriate investments, margin use and selling a position without authorization.” The case was settled for $98,107.82.
• June 2012. “From August 2011 through June 2012 the client alleged Mr. Hare (SP) was trading the account without authorization.” The customer sought $25,000 in damages and the case was settled for $15,000.
• May 2012. “From November 2011 though (SP) April 2012 client alleges agreed upon commission charges for specific transactions were not corrected in a timely matter and one unauthorized trade.” The case was settled for $8,428.20.
• October 2011. “Customer alleges that Mr. Hare made unauthorized, unsuitable trades and churned his accounts.” The customer sought $75,000 in damages and the case was settled for $30,000.
• June 2011. “Provided misleading information to customer regarding account valuation, large volume of transactions has not benefited the customer and failure to maintain cash reserves of $50,000, all during 2009 – 2010.” The case was settled for $115,000.
• September 2009. “Claimants, residents of Florida, allege between 2003 and 2008, fa invested in unsuitable and risky closed end funds and equity based unit’s. Claimants allege they have suffered monetary losses and are requesting compensatory damages of between $100,000 and $500,000.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages and the case was settled for $107,000.
• July 2009. “Claimant, who is a resident of Pennsylvania, alleges that beginning in 2003 FA set up his account in unsuitable, high risk investments contrary to his objectives which were conservative and preservation of principal. Claimant is seeking damages in excess of $500,000.” The case was settled for $80,000.
• September 2008. “Client (SP) alleges that a mutual fund purchased for July 2008 was misrepresented.” The client sought $49,973.84 in damages and the case was settled for $22,820.43.
• November 2007. “Poa (daughter of the client) for the client (client is a Michigan resident), claimed that the objectives for the clients trust account had been moderate growth and income from inception of the account. The POA further claimed that she has been acting as the clients agent for many years. The POA claimed that the FA became the financial advisor for the trust account in may 2006. The POA claimed that from May 2006 through December 2006, due to her traveling, she was unaware of the portfolio repositioning that the fa was doing until she collected her mail. The POA claimed that after learning of the repositioning, she decided to accept the changes because she felt the changes would result in the funds stated objectives of moderate growth and income and she trusted the firm. The POA claimed that the value of the trust account had decreased by over $100,000 (from approximately $950,000 to $846,858) since the FA became the advisor. The POA also claimed that the account was mismanaged and churned. The POA has demanded restitution in the amount of no less than $100,000. From May 2006 through the present there were withdrawals from the account amounting to approximately $123,000. The trust account was invested in a diversified portfolio of fixed income securities, open and closed-end mutual funds, UITs, preferred/fixed rate cap securities.” The client sought $86,962 in damages and the case was settled for $43,750.
• August 2001. “New York resident complains that Fan 2001 purchase of Cumberland bonds not authorized and also that he did not authorize margin. Losses not specified but initial calculations shows under $5k.” The case was settled for $8,093.88.

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, Gilford Securities Incorporated may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Hare’s customers.

Erez Law represents investors in the United States for claims against former Gilford Securities Incorporated financial advisor Jeremy Hare, who is alleged to use discretion in customer accounts. If you were a client of Gilford Securities Incorporated or another firm, and 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.