Martin Delaine Lewis – 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 Martin Delaine Lewis.
The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient… Warren Buffet
BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Martin Delaine Lewis. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Martin Lewis
Martin Delaine Lewis is an Investment Adviser. Martin Delaine Lewis’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 3067536 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/3067536.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Martin Delaine Lewis.
Martin Delaine Lewis 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 Martin Delaine Lewis’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 5/22/2019
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC Admin Release 34-85915 / May 22, 2019: The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative be instituted against Martin Delaine Lewis ( espondent). On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that on April 25, 2019, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duke, et al., Civil Action Number 3:19- CV-00857-B, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 5/22/2019 Registration Capacities Affected: from participating in any offering of a penny stock,
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 5/22/2019
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 4/8/2019
- Disclosure Type: Civil
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC Litigation Release No. 24446 / April 9, 2019: The Securities and Exchange Commission charged fifteen individuals including the respondent with acting as unregistered brokers or aiding-and-abetting such activity in connection with Intertech Solutions, Inc.’s fraudulent and unregistered securities offerings. The SEC’s complaints allege that Alexander Bevil, Richard Bohnsack, Daniel Broyles, Charles Davis, Michael Duke, Joel Duncan, Martin Lewis, Mark Parman, William Roth, Paula Saccomanno, Kenneth Shelton, Billy Ray Statham, Jr., Glenn Story, Dennis Swerdlen, and Harold Wasserman were hired by Intertech Solutions to engage in or facilitate cold-call solicitations of hundreds of prospective investors throughout the United States and Canada from at least February 2014 through December 2016. The complaints allege that, as a result of the defendants’ conduct, Intertech Solutions raised over $7 million from retail investors. According to the complaints, Intertech Solutions paid the defendants exorbitant commissions ranging from 35% to 50% of the funds provided by each investor. The complaints allege that the defendants did not disclose their commission rates to investors and instead distributed private placement memoranda that indicated that only 10% of investor proceeds would be used as commissions. The SEC previously charged Intertech Solutions and its control persons with orchestrating the fraudulent and unregistered offerings. The SEC’s complaint charge the defendant with either direct or indirect violations of the broker-dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Also charged with the securities registration and antifraud provisions of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.
- Resolution: Judgment Rendered
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s) Sanctions: Disgorgement
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $20,395.23 Sanctions: Monetary Penalty other than Fines Sanctions: Injunction
- Sanctions: permanently restrained; permanently barred from participating in an offering of penny stock; and undertakings
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 12/10/2015
- Disclosure Type: Criminal
- Disclosure Resolution: Final Disposition
- Disclosure Detail :: Criminal Charges :: Charges: ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIME
- Disposition: Dismissed Charges: MONEY LAUNDERING
- Disposition: Dismissed Charges: SECURITIES FRAUD
- Disposition: Convicted Charges: THEFT
- Disposition: Dismissed
DISCLOSURE 4 –
- Event Date: 3/21/2013
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: ALABAMA SECURITIES COMMISSION
- Allegations: BEGINNING IN APRIL AND CONTINUING THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF CALENDAR YEAR 2008, A RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA PARTICIPATED IN A SERIES OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH MARTIN D. LEWIS WHEREIN THE ALABAMA RESIDENT WAS SOLICITED FOR AN INVESTMENT IN SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3. SAID SOLICITATIONS WERE INITIATED BY A COLD CALL TO THE ALABAMA RESIDENT. SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3 IS IDENTIFIED AS THE ISSUER IN DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC); HOWEVER, THE PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM REGARDING SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3 IDENTIFIES IEG PERMIAN BASIN, LLC AS THE ISSUER. BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY LEWIS, THE ALABAMA RESIDENT PROJECTED THAT HE COULD EARN THREE (3) TO FIVE (5) TIMES HIS INVESTMENT IN SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3 OVER THE FIRST THREE (3) YEARS OF PRODUCTION. ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 8, 2008, THE ALABAMA RESIDENT MAILED A SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT AND A CHECK TO LEWIS FOR A ONE-EIGHT (1/8) INTEREST IN SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3. AS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2013, THE ALABAMA RESIDENT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT. A SEARCH OF THE EDGAR DATABASE MAINTAINED BY THE SEC REVEALS THAT SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3 FILED NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION PURSUANT TO REGULATION D, RULE 506, ON OR ABOUT APRIL 18, 2008. A NOTICE FILING OF SAID EXEMPTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2008. A REVIEW OF THE FORM D SUBMITTED TO THE SEC RELATIVE TO THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING RELATIONSHIPS PERTAINING TO SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3: SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3-ISSUER; IEG PERMIAN BASIN, LLC-PROMOTER/BENEFICIAL OWNER; LEWIS-BENEFICIAL OWNER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GENERAL AND/OR MANAGING PARTNER; BOWDEN-BENEFICIAL OWNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/GENERAL AND/OR MANAGING PARTNER. A SEARCH OF RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE COMMISSION REVEALS THAT NEITHER INSIGNIA NOR IEG PERMIAN BASIN, LLC. HAS REGISTERED NOR FILED A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMISSION. IN ADDITION, SAID SEARCH REVEALED THAT NEITHER LEWIS NOR BOWDEN IS REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION AS A BROKER DEALER AGENT, INVESTMENT ADVISOR REPRESENTATIVE, OR AS A RESTRICTED AGENT. ON OR ABOUT MAY 13, 2011, THE TEXAS STATE SECURITIES BOARD ISSUED AN EMERGENCY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST INSIGNIA, IEG, LEWIS, ET AL ALLEGING FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFER FOR SALE OF SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) WELL DRILLING PROGRAMS. LEWIS INITIALLY SOUGHT TO CONTEST THE ORDER IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT. HOWEVER, LEWIS LATER WITHDREW HIS REQUEST TO CONTEST THE ORDER AND HIS CASE FILED AGAINST THE TEXAS STATE SECURITIES BOARD WAS DISMISSED ON SEPT. 6, 2011. THE FINDINGS OF FACT OUTLINED IN THE EMERGENCY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER FILED AGAINST INSIGNIA, IEG, LEWIS, ET AL WERE LEFT INTACT. ON MARCH 21, 2013, ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER #CD-2013-0007 (CEASE AND DESIST ORDER) WAS ISSUED AGAINST SABINE PARTNERSHIP #3, LTD, INSIGNIA ENERGY GROUP, INC, IEG PERMIAN BASIN, LLC, MARTIN D. LEWIS, AND MELAINA BOWDEN, A/K/A MELAINA N. FREDERICK, A/K/A MELAINA FREDERICK-BOWDEN WITH NOTICES TO A RIGHT TO A HEARING, IF REQUESTED, WITHIN 28 DAYS. DUE TO FAILURE TO RESPOND BY RESPONDENT MARTIN D LEWIS CD2013-0007 WAS MADE A FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.
- Resolution: NO RESPONSE
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Cease and Desist
DISCLOSURE 5 –
- Event Date: 8/29/2011
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: ALABAMA
- Allegations: ON OR ABOUT SEPT 2010 ALABAMA RESIDENT RECEIVED A COLD CALL FROM LES BECK, REPRESENTING BENCHMARK; RESIDENT INDICATED THAT ANY INFO BE MAILED TO HIM, AND RECEIVED A PACKAGE FROM BENCHMARK INCLUDING AN AGREEMENT OF JOINT VENTURE, PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND A DOCUMENT ENTITLED DELATIN #1 SALT WATER INJECTION WELL PROJECT SUMMARY. JV AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BETWEEN BENCHMARK, MARTIN D. LEWIS AND ANY PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL. PER THE JV AGREEMENT, THE NAME OF THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE SABINE SALT WATER WELL JOINT VENTURE; AGREEMENT IS PRESIGNED BY MELAINA FREDERICK-BOWDEN ON BEHALF OF BENCHMARK, AND MARTIN D LEWIS AS ORIGINAL JOINT VENTURER. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BETWEEN LINVILLE LEWIS AND THE INVESTOR. A SEARCH OF REGISTRATION RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE AL SEC COMMISSION REVEALED NEITHER RECORD OF REGISTRATION NOR ANY PERFECTED EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION BY BENCHMARK, SABINE, LEWIS, BOWDEN OR BECK. THE COMMISSION ISSUED A CONSENT ORDER AGAINST BENCHMARK, ET AL WHEREIN BENCHMARK, ET AL: WILL ENSURE THEY FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES TO PRECLUDE ANY FURTHER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE AL SEC. ACT; PAID AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT FEE OF $2,000; AND REIMBURSED THE COMMISSION $2,000 ASSOCIATED WITH COST OF INVESTIGATION. CONSENT ORDER WAS AGREED, CONSENTED AND FINALIZED BY ALL PARTIES ON 08/29/11.
- Resolution: Consent
- Sanction Details ::
- Sanctions: ON OR ABOUT SEPT 2010 ALABAMA RESIDENT RECEIVED A COLD CALL FROM LES BECK, REPRESENTING BENCHMARK; RESIDENT INDICATED THAT ANY INFO BE MAILED TO HIM, AND RECEIVED A PACKAGE FROM BENCHMARK INCLUDING AN AGREEMENT OF JOINT VENTURE, PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND A DOCUMENT ENTITLED DELATIN #1 SALT WATER INJECTION WELL PROJECT SUMMARY. JV AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BETWEEN BENCHMARK, MARTIN D. LEWIS AND ANY PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL. PER THE JV AGREEMENT, THE NAME OF THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE SABINE SALT WATER WELL JOINT VENTURE; AGREEMENT IS PRESIGNED BY MELAINA FREDERICK-BOWDEN ON BEHALF OF BENCHMARK, AND MARTIN D LEWIS AS ORIGINAL JOINT VENTURER. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BETWEEN LINVILLE LEWIS AND THE INVESTOR. A SEARCH OF REGISTRATION RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE AL SEC COMMISSION REVEALED NEITHER RECORD OF REGISTRATION NOR ANY PERFECTED EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION BY BENCHMARK, SABINE, LEWIS, BOWDEN OR BECK. THE COMMISSION ISSUED A CONSENT ORDER AGAINST BENCHMARK, ET AL WHEREIN BENCHMARK, ET AL: WILL ENSURE THEY FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES TO PRECLUDE ANY FURTHER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE AL SEC. ACT; PAID AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT FEE OF $2,000; AND REIMBURSED THE COMMISSION $2,000 ASSOCIATED WITH COST OF INVESTIGATION. CONSENT ORDER WAS AGREED, CONSENTED AND FINALIZED BY ALL PARTIES ON 08/29/11.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
- Event Date: 5/13/2011
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: TEXAS
- Allegations: RESPONDENTS OFFERED SECURITIES FOR SALE IN TEXAS AT A TIME WHEN NEITHER THE RESPONDENTS NOR SAID SECURITIES WERE REGISTERED WITH THE SECURITIES COMMISSIONER. RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFER FOR SALE OF A SECURITY IN TEXAS AND THROUGH AN OFFER CONTAINING A STATEMENT THAT IS MATERIALLY MISLEADING OR OTHERWISE LIKELY TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Cease and Desist
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.
- AMERICAN LANDMARK SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 42187) :: 6/25/1998 – 1/22/2003 :: IRVING, TX
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 Martin Delaine Lewis, 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.
Sometimes investment losses occur because advisors, stockbrokers, and even brokerage firms, commit fraud. Massimo Vignelli
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 Martin Lewis
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Martin Delaine Lewis – 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 (3067536) for the broker – Martin Delaine Lewis
- 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/martin-delaine-lewis/.
