Kim Dee Isaacson Allegedly Made  Omissions of Material Facts & Fraudulent Misrepresentations to Her Morgan Stanley Customers

Kim Dee Isaacson allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations to Morgan Stanley customers, according to a Complaint from FINRA’s Department of Enforcement currently under review by attorney Alan Rosca.

Attorney Alan Rosca, of the RoscaLaw LLC firm, is investigating activity related to Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are encouraged to contact attorney Alan Rosca with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

Isaacson, specifically, from May 2010 through January 2014, via telephone calls conducted with a customer known only as HM, allegedly made intentional and repeated misrepresentations regarding the actual daily value of HM’s Morgan Stanley accounts so that, by January 2014, HM was purportedly led to believe that his accounts were worth $3.1 million more than their actual value, according to the aforementioned Complaint.

Isaacson also allegedly made omissions of material facts to Morgan Stanley customers, the Complaint notes.

Isaacson also allegedly presented the aforementioned misrepresentations in order to hide losses and the purported fact that HM’s accounts were actually not achieving the supposed four to six percent returns that Isaacson had promised his customers, the Complaint reports.

Isaacson also allegedly made omissions of material facts to Morgan Stanley customers, the Complaint notes.

Isaacson Allegedly Failed to Discuss the Trades with HM & Allegedly Effected Approximately 360 Unauthorized Trade in HM’s Accounts

Isaacson allegedly failed to discuss the aforementioned trades with HM and also implemented additional misrepresentations to HM regarding certain transactions which essentially allegedly hid his unauthorized trades, according to the aforementioned Complaint currently under review by attorney Alan Rosca.

Isaacson, specifically, from May 2010 through January 2014, allegedly effected approximately 360 unauthorized trades in HM’s accounts which included transactions which HM had purportedly prohibited Isaacson from purchasing, according to the aforementioned Complaint.

After HM reportedly discovered Isaacson‘s alleged misconduct in January 2014, Isaacson then allegedly attempted to settle HM’s Complaint away from, and without the knowledge of, Morgan Stanley, the Complaint notes.

Isaacson, as a result of the alleged aforementioned misconduct, allegedly violated FINRA Rules, and therefore FINRA asks that monetary sanctions be imposed and ordered that Isaacson bear such costs of proceeding as are deemed fair and appropriate under the circumstances in accordance with FINRA Rules, the Complaint reports.

Securities Lawyer Investigating

The RoscaLaw firm represents investors who lose money as a result of investment-related fraud or misconduct and are currently investigating Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The firm takes most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance 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, and has helped recover tens of millions of dollars on behalf of investors.

Investors who believe they lost money as a result of Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations may contact attorney Alan Rosca for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0530, via email at arosca@roscalaw.com, or through the contact form on this webpage.

filed under: Investigations

Tags: , , , ,

In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent updates regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases. Also, the brokercheck report linked to some of our blogs is the up-to-date version as of the date of posting. Visitors may check the most recent version of each brokercheck report at www.finra.org.