Darrin Stuart Cohen is a Georgia based investment adviser and broker who is the subject of two pending customer disputes based on the allegation of unsuitable investment recommendations, according to an investigation conducted by attorney Alan Rosca.
Securities attorney Alan Rosca of the Rosca Scarlato LLC law firm is currently investigating conduct related to the two pending customer disputes instituted against broker Darrin Cohen, primarily on the allegation of unsuitable investment recommendations.
Darrin Stuart Cohen is currently in the employment of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) member firm Triad Advisors LLC. Darrin S. Cohen was in the employment of the same FINRA member firm when he allegedly made such recommendations and when the actions were instituted against him.
Concerned about investments with
Broker Darrin Cohen Has Two Pending Customer Disputes
The Triad Advisors broker Darrin Cohen is the subject of two pending customer disputes according to the reports on his FINRA Brokercheck page, as revealed by the investigation. The customer disputes were both instituted in March 2020.
The first client sought $200,000 in damages on the allegations of unsuitability of investment recommendation with respect to multiple alternative investments including those purchased in 2015.
The second client seeks to recover $400,000 in damages on similar allegations of unsuitable investment recommendation.
The investigation further reveals that broker Darrin Cohen might have allegedly recommended the investment into GPB Capital to the investors. The GPB Capital investment has been subject of various regulatory investigations which has led to the tangible loss of the value of the investment. The Rosca Scarlato lawyers already represent other GPB investors and are seeking compensation for their alleged losses.
Is Your Broker Responsible for Potential Investment Losses?
Generally speaking, broker misconduct is often very detrimental to the investors as it could lead to a considerable loss on the investment. This could lead to the investors’ loss of confidence in that broker dealer and even where the loss is severe, a loss of confidence in the financial markets. Where the misconduct is properly established, the broker or investment adviser, as well as the brokerage firm, could potentially be held liable for the loss.
Before recommending any investment to any investor a broker is typically expected to determine the suitability of such investments. The broker is typically expected to conduct reasonable due diligence into the suitability of such investment. This due diligence is for the broker to reasonably satisfy that the issuer of the security is not misrepresenting any portion of the security or investment.
Typically, the broker must reasonably ascertain whether the recommended investment is a valid and suitable investment for any investor at all before considering whether it is suitable for their specific client. For instance, an investment scheme that is structured like a Ponzi scheme is unsuitable for any investor let alone their specific investors. The due diligence begins with an inquiry into the investment and its issuer. The issuer’s business and operations are examined to identify red flags which must be also be carefully investigated.
Concerned about investments with
After carrying out the due diligence to determine whether the proposed investment recommendation is a viable investment option, the broker is typically required to further examine the recommendation in light of the investor’s financial need, financial health and status, tax status and age, risk appetite and liquidity needs. This will help to ascertain the suitability of such investments to the specific client.
In addition to this being the duty of the broker, the brokerage firm is also under a duty to ensure the compliance of the brokers with these requirements. The firm is expected to ensure that the brokers in their employment make suitable investment recommendations to their clients. All these are general considerations of the law and do not constitute legal advice for any investor’s particular situation.
Any investor seeking legal advice should reach out to a qualified attorney and discuss his or her specific facts so that the attorney may offer legal advice tailored to that investor’s specific situation.
Broker Darrin Cohen allegedly did not comply with some of the requirements mentioned above, which might have led to potential recommendations of unsuitable investment options to various investors.
Finally, it is important to note that, as of the date of this article, there has not been a finding of liability as to the complaints or allegations mentioned in this article, unless otherwise indicated. Any reader should also read the original sources hyperlinked in this blog for accuracy, including any BrokerCheck report and/or record of any disciplinary or regulatory action. Those sources are incorporated by reference into the text of this blog, and are the governing materials in case of any inconsistencies or typos in this blog.
Concerned about investments with
Securities Lawyer Investigating Potential Options on Behalf of Darrin Cohen Customers
The Rosca Scarlato LLC law firm represents investors who lose money as a result of investment-related fraud or misconduct and is currently investigating conduct related to broker Darrin Stuart Cohen’s two pending customer disputes on the allegation of unsuitable investment recommendation.
The firm takes most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advances the case costs, and only gets paid for their fees and costs out of money recovered for clients. Attorney Alan Rosca, a securities lawyer and adjunct professor of securities regulation, has represented thousands of victimized investors across the country and around the world in cases ranging from arbitrations to class actions.
Investors who believe they lost money as a result of conducts related to broker Darrin Cohen’s two pending customer disputes on the allegation of unsuitable investment recommendation may contact attorney Alan Rosca for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0530, via email at arosca@rscounsel.law, or through the contact form on this webpage.
