Jerry William Burch Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

Jerry William Burch  – and the firm that employs him or her – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

If you are like most people, before you go out to dinner at a new restaurant, you probably take a quick look at the reviews. This makes sense; you are going to pay for an expensive dinner, and you need to be sure that you are getting a good value.

Yet, when choosing a financial advisor, many people fail to conduct this same level of due diligence. Before turning over access to your money, you need to be sure that you have found a financial advisor that you can trust. Here, our audit report, including details of allegations, complaints, and sanctions will help you decide whether or not to invest with Jerry William Burch.

BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Jerry William Burch. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.

About Jerry Burch

Jerry William Burch is an Investment Adviser. Jerry William Burch’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 1450138 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1450138.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Jerry William Burch.

Jerry William Burch has previously been reprimanded and has disclosures and/or client dispute(s) listed at FINRA BrokerCheck.

Accusations and Disclosures

You can find below, a quick snapshot of Jerry William Burch’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.

DISCLOSURE 1 – 

• Event Date: 9/27/2007
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2005000324301
• DocketNumberAAO: 2005000324301
• Initiated By: FINRA
• Allegations: SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, SEC RULES 10B-5, 17A-3, 17A-4, ARTICLES III, SECTION 4(F) AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 2(C) OF FINRA’S BY-LAWS, NASD RULES 2110, 2120, 3050(C), 3110, INTERPRETATIVE MATERIAL 1000-1 -JERRY BURCH RECOMMENDED THE PURCHASE OF A COMMON STOCK WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS MATERIAL ADVERSE INTEREST – A RELATIVE’S CORPORATION HAD OPENED A SECURITIES ACCOUNT AT ANOTHER BROKER-DEALER AND HAD DEPOSITED A BLOCK OF STOCK WHICH IT HAD BEGUN TO SELL IN THE MARKET AND BURCH ACTIVELY RECOMMENDED THE STOCK WITHOUT DISCLOSING MATERIAL FACTS; DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY USE OF MEANS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY EMPLOYED A DEVICE, SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD OR ENGAGED IN AN ACT, PRACTICE OR COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH OPERATED OR WOULD OPERATE AS A FRAUD OR DECEIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF A SECURITY. BURCH FAILED TO NOTIFY HIS MEMBER FIRM, IN WRITING, OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACCOUNT IN WHICH HE HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST AND FAILED TO NOTIFY ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM, IN WRITING, OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH A MEMBER FIRM. BURCH FALSELY TOLD HIS MEMBER FIRM THAT CUSTOMER PURCHASES OF THE STOCK WERE UNSOLICITED OR OTHERWISE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT HE SOLICITED HIS CUSTOMERS’ PURCHASE OF THE STOCK; AND CREATED FALSE, INACCURATE OR MISLEADING FIRM RECORDS THAT HIS CUSTOMERS’ PURCHASES OF THE STOCK WERE UNSOLICITED WHEN, IN FACT, HE HAD SOLICITED CUSTOMERS. BURCH WILLFULLY FAILED TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 WITH A MATERIAL FACT.
• Resolution: Decision
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All Capacities
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 7/28/2011
• Regulator Statement: HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED JUNE 2, 2009 WHEREIN BURCH IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE STOCK WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HIS RELATIVE’S ACCOUNT WAS SELLING THE SAME STOCK, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER AND NASD RULES 2120 AND 2110; FAILING TO NOTIFY HIS FIRM OF HIS RELATIVE’S OUTSIDE ACCOUNT, IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULES 3050(C) AND 2110; AND FALSELY REPRESENTING TO HIS FIRM THAT CUSTOMER PURCHASES WERE UNSOLICITED RESULTING IN FALSE FIRM RECORDS, IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULES 3110 AND 2110 AND SEC RULES 17A-3 AND 17A-4. IN ADDITION, BURCH IS FINED $28,000 FOR VIOLATING SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER AND NASD RULES 2120 AND 2110. IN LIGHT OF THE BARS, NO SANCTIONS WERE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4, IN VIOLATION OF INTERPRETATIVE MATERIAL 1000-1, NASD RULE 2110 AND ARTICLE III, SECTION 4(F) AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 2(C) OF THE BY-LAWS. ON JUNE 26, 2009, BURCH APPEALED THE HEARING PANEL DECISION TO THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL (NAC). NAC DECISION RENDERED JULY 28, 2011 WHEREIN THE NAC AFFIRMED THE HEARING PANEL’S FINDINGS THAT BURCH MADE MATERIAL OMISSIONS, CAUSED HIS FIRM’S INACCURATE BOOKS AND RECORDS, AND FAILED TO AMEND HIS FORM U4. ACCORDINGLY, THE NAC BARS BURCH FOR THE FRAUD VIOLATION AND IMPOSES A SEPARATE BAR FOR CAUSING HIS FIRM’S BOOKS AND RECORDS TO BE INACCURATE. IN LIGHT OF THE BARS IMPOSED, THE NAC DID NOT IMPOSE A SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO AMEND HIS FORM U4. THE NAC DISMISSED THE FINDING THAT BURCH VIOLATED ARTICLE III, SECTION 4(F) OF THE BY-LAWS AND THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATION OF NASD RULE 3050. THE NAC DISMISSED THE $28,000 FINE IMPOSED BY THE HEARING PANEL. THE BAR IS EFFECTIVE JULY 28, 2011. THE DECISION IS FINAL AUGUST 30, 2011.
• Broker Comment: HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED JUNE 2, 2009 WHEREIN BURCH IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CUSTOMERS WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS WIFE’S ACCOUNT WAS SELLING THE SAME STOCK; FAILING TO NOTIFY HIS FIRM OF HIS WIFE’S OUTSIDE ACCOUNT; AND FALSELY REPRESENTING TO HIS FIRM THAT CUSTOMER PURCHASES WERE UNSOLICITED RESULTING IN FALSE FIRM RECORDS. BURCH WAS FINED $28,000 FOR VIOLATING SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, SEC RULE 10B-5 AND NASD RULES 2120 AND 2110. IN LIGHT OF THE BARS, NO SANCTIONS WERE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4. APPEALED TO THE NAC ON JUNE 26, 2009. DECISION UPHELD BY THE NAC ON 7/28/11 AND WILL BE APPEALED TO THE SEC WITHIN 30 DAYS. REP’S WIFE AND A CASUAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATE SET UP A JOINT ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING/PRODUCING PET CARE PRODUCT LINES AND PET BEAUTY CONTESTS. AT ASSOCIATE’S DIRECTION, A BUSINESS ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED. ASSOCIATE LATER DEPOSITED PERSONAL SHARES OF BED-N-BISCUIT INTO THE ACCOUNT. ASSOCIATE TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD DONE THIS ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS BESIDES REP’S WIFE. WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSOCIATE’S DEPOSIT OF SHARES AND LATER SALE OF SOME OF THOSE SHARES, REP BOUGHT BED-N-BISCUIT FOR HIMSELF, FAMILY MEMBERS AND FOUR CLIENTS. REP STATES THAT HE DID NOT FALSIFY FIRM RECORDS AS TO THE SOLICITATION OF THE SHARES PURCHASED AND THAT HE NOTIFIED HIS FIRM OF THE REQUEST FOR AN UPDATED U-4, AND THE FIRM MADE AN ERROR IN NOT COMPLETING THE UPDATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. REP ADDS THAT AS SOON AS THESE FACTS AND ERRORS WERE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION, HE NOTIFIED THE FIRM IMMEDIATELY, AND CONCLUDES THAT THE ABOVE FACTS WERE TESTIFIED TO BY HIM, HIS WIFE, HIS WIFE’S BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, AND HIS FIRM.

DISCLOSURE 2 – 

• Event Date: 10/4/2002
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
• Initiated By: MASSACHUSETTS
• Allegations: ON OR ABOUT JUNE 21, 2002, WBB SUBMITTED TO THE CENTRAL REGISTRATION DEPOSITORY (THE CRD) OF THE NASD AN APPLICATION (THE APPLICATION) FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION SEEKING REGISTRATION OF BURCH AS AN AGENT OF WBB IN MASSACHUSETTS. BURCH HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TEN (10) CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, MISREPRESENTATION, CHURNING, MAKING UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUD WHILE EMPLOYED AT VARIOUS BROKER-DEALERS SINCE 1986. THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BURCH SUGGEST A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT NECESSITATES THAT THE DIVISION PLACE CONDITIONS ON HIS REGISTRATION AS AN AGENT OF WBB.
• Resolution: Consent
• Sanction Details ::
• Sanctions: THE DIVISION APPROVED BURCH?S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN MASSACHUSETTS AS AN AGENT OF WBB UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE FOR TWO (2) YEARS: A) BURCH SHALL BE SUPERVISED ON A HEIGHTENED BASIS; B) WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO HAVE ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES; C)WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS; D) ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BSI SHALL MONITOR AND REPORT ON BURCH?S MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMERS WITH RESPECT TO THE CUSTOMERS? SATISFACTION WITH BURCH?S SERVICES; E) SHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL CUSTOMER COMPLAINT CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING; F) tSHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY REGULATORY INVESTIGATION, INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, ARBITRATION PROCEEDING, OR SECURITIES-RELATED LITIGATION CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING;tG) BURCH SHALL NOT PERFORM ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES WHILE ASSOCIATED WITH WBB; H) BURCH SHALL NOT POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS;
• Sanction Details: THE DIVISION APPROVED BURCH?S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN MASSACHUSETTS AS AN AGENT OF WBB UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE FOR TWO (2) YEARS: A) BURCH SHALL BE SUPERVISED ON A HEIGHTENED BASIS; B) WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO HAVE ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES; C)WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS; D) ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BSI SHALL MONITOR AND REPORT ON BURCH?S MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMERS WITH RESPECT TO THE CUSTOMERS? SATISFACTION WITH BURCH?S SERVICES; E) SHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL CUSTOMER COMPLAINT CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING; F) tSHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY REGULATORY INVESTIGATION, INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, ARBITRATION PROCEEDING, OR SECURITIES-RELATED LITIGATION CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING;tG) BURCH SHALL NOT PERFORM ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES WHILE ASSOCIATED WITH WBB; H) BURCH SHALL NOT POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS;
• Broker Comment: THE DIVISION APPROVED BURCH?S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN MASSACHUSETTS AS AN AGENT OF WBB UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE FOR TWO (2) YEARS: A) BURCH SHALL BE SUPERVISED ON A HEIGHTENED BASIS; B) WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO HAVE ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES; C)WBB SHALL NOT PERMIT BURCH TO POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS; D) ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BSI SHALL MONITOR AND REPORT ON BURCH?S MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMERS WITH RESPECT TO THE CUSTOMERS? SATISFACTION WITH BURCH?S SERVICES; E) SHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL CUSTOMER COMPLAINT CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING; F) SHOULD BURCH BECOME THE SUBJECT OF ANY REGULATORY INVESTIGATION, INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, ARBITRATION PROCEEDING, OR SECURITIES-RELATED LITIGATION CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT OF SECURITIES BUSINESS, WBB SHALL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR, IN WRITING; G) BURCH SHALL NOT PERFORM ANY PRINCIPAL, SUPERVISORY, OR MANAGERIAL DUTIES WHILE ASSOCIATED WITH WBB; H) BURCH SHALL NOT POSSESS OR EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS; I) BURCH SHALL NOTIFY MS. BAKERINK OF THE RECEIPT OF ANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINT, ORAL OR WRITTEN, CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM HIS CONDUCT AS A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE

DISCLOSURE 3 – 

• Event Date: 10/17/1989
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: I RECOMMENDED AND ENTERED IN UNSUITABLE TRANSACTION FOR THE ACCOUNT [CUSTOMER.
• Damage Amount Requested: $45,000.00
• Damages Granted: $6,086.96
• Arbitration Docket Number: 88-01302
• Broker Comment: ARBITRATION PANEL AWARDED [CUSTOMER $5,071.64 PLUS INTEREST OF $1,014.32 FOR A TOTAL OF $6,086.96. INVESTMENTS WERE CHOSEN BASED ON THE CUSTOMER’S TIME HORIZONS, TRACK RECORDS OF PARTNERSHIPS, AND THE FIRMS RECOMMENDATION. THE PROGRAMS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND WERE DOING WELL. ARBITRATION PANEL FOUND THE INVESTMENTS WERE NOT CONCURRENT WITH HER FINANCIAL BACKGROUND AND NEEDS; EVEN WITH E.F. HUTTON AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT’S RECOMMENDATION.

According to a study prepared for the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, 80 percent of American investors report that they have been solicited to participate in a fraud scheme, while 11 percent of American investors report that they personally lost money as a result of fraud.

FINRA notes that the rate of investment fraud is most likely much higher than it is reported. This is because many victims of financial advisor scams are too ashamed to come forward. Further, the study also found that a significant number of investors do not know how to spot common red flags of investment fraud. The least you should do is share your experience with other potential victims of investment scams.

Previous Associations

Under federal securities law and securities industry regulations, registered investment firms have a legal duty to supervise their financial advisors. Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 makes a securities firm liable for the conduct of representatives.

• WBB SECURITIES, LLC (CRD#: 118440) :: 2/27/2002 – 5/5/2011 :: NEWPORT COAST, CA
• PACIFIC AMERICAN SECURITIES, LLC (CRD#: 42999) :: 3/20/2000 – 2/22/2002 :: SAN DIEGO, CA
• MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED (CRD#: 7691) :: 12/4/1991 – 3/14/2000 :: NEW YORK, NY
• SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM & CO., INCORPORATED (CRD#: 7059) :: 3/5/1990 – 11/19/1991 :: NEW YORK, NY
• SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC. (CRD#: 7506) :: 4/11/1988 – 3/26/1990 :: NEW YORK, NY
• E. F. HUTTON & COMPANY INC (CRD#: 235) :: 3/25/1986 – 4/11/1988
• PRUCO SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 5685) :: 2/19/1986 – 4/28/1986

The duty to supervise securities representatives is a strong legal requirement. Registered investment firms must take many different steps to ensure that they are protecting their customers from irresponsible and criminal financial advisors.

Legit or Not?

Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including Jerry William Burch, but not limited to)  can (and do) steal money from their clients. While it’s rare that a broker will literally steal his client’s money (though that does happen), typically the “theft” of investment funds comes in the form of other fraudulent violations of securities law and FINRA rules which leads to significant investment losses.

Investors generally understand that there are risks associated with buying and selling securities. The market can go up, and the market can go down. No matter how skilled of an investor you are, there are always risks. With that being said, sometimes investment losses cannot be blamed on simple back luck.

There are 10 major types of complaints we receive against Investment Brokers –

• Outright Theft (Conversion of Funds)
• Unauthorized Trading
• Misrepresentation or Omission of Material Facts
• Excessive Trading (Churning)
• Lack of Diversification
• Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
• Failure to Disclose a Personal Conflict of Interest
• Front Running of Transactions
• Breakpoint Sale Violations
• Negligent Portfolio Management

Do your due diligence before investing. Public records are available for everybody to review and decide on the safest bet. 

How to Protect Yourself

We, as citizens, place a great deal of trust in the financial advisors who are tasked with helping us achieve and maintain financial security. Most of the time financial advisors and stockbrokers are honest folks who work diligently in their client’s best interests. However, on occasion financial advisors and the brokerage firms who employ them mess up and cause serious financial harm to their clients. Sometimes these losses are caused by simple negligence. Other times fraud or other serious misconduct is to blame.

Here are 5 signs that your broker needs to be reported –

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, certain investment professionals, known as registered investment advisors (RIAs), owe fiduciary obligations to their customers. Your investment broker must always look out for your best interests. If you lost money because of your broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, you may be entitled to compensation for the full value of your damages.
• Unsuitable Investments: Many financial advisors are not fiduciaries. Instead, they are held to the suitability standard. These stockbrokers and financial advisors can only sell and recommend financial products that are appropriate for a customer’s unique investment profile. If you lost money in unsuitable investments, you should consider reporting them.
• Material Misrepresentations or Omissions: Brokers have a duty to make fair and honest representations to their clients. If they fail to do so, and an investor loses money due to a misrepresentation or a material omission, the broker may be liable for the investor’s losses.
• Lack of Diversification: Brokers must also act with the appropriate level of professional skill. Pushing a customer into over-concentrated investments is highly risky. Brokers can be held liable for losses sustained because of an investor’s inappropriate lack of diversification.
• Excessive Trading (Churning): Stockbrokers and financial advisors must have a well-grounded, reasonable basis to execute all trades. Unfortunately, there are cases in which brokers will frequently trade on a customer’s account, simply to increase their own fees. This unlawful practice is known as churning.
• Unauthorized Trading: Brokers must have the proper legal authority to make transactions on behalf of a client. If you lost money because your broker made trades that you never approved of, you may have been the victim of unauthorized trading. You should consult with an experienced attorney.

Report Jerry Burch

In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.

Jerry William Burch – and the firm that employs this broker – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA provides an online form to allow investors to file a formal complaint against their financial advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm.

Click here to go to FINRA’s Online Complaint Form →

This form will ask you for specific information related to your complaint. Be prepared by gathering the following:

• Name and symbol for the investment product in question.
• The CRD number (1450138) for the broker – Jerry William Burch
• Your complete contact information.

Remember, it is advised to report your broker to FINRA, only after you have exhausted all of your other remedies and carefully prepared a compelling complaint.  Once you file a complaint against your broker at FINRA, your case will be bound by FINRA’s rules and the arbitration panel’s eventual decision. The time clock will start, and your complaint will be served on your broker or broker-dealer.

The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘ComplaintsBoard,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.

This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM.

To view the original article at BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM, you can visit https://brokercomplaints.com/report/jerry-william-burch/.