Financial Advisor Peter Goffin has Eleven FINRA Disclosures

• November 8, 2024
• Newbridge Securities

Peter Goffin (CRD#: 1617710) was a previously registered broker and investment advisor.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 1987 and previously worked with Commvest Securities; JW Charles Securities; Wachovia Securities Financial Network, LLC; and Newbridge Securities Corporation

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in September of 2024, Peter Goffin became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND NEGLIGENCE, VIOLATION OF REG BI.” The damage amount requested is $100,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Peter Goffin has been the subject of ten other FINRA disclosures, which include:

• August 2024—“ BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND VIOLATION OF REG BI.” The damage amount requested was $500,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• January 2024—“ BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION.” The damage amount requested is $400,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• November 2023—“ BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND NEGLIGENCE.” The customer dispute settled for $300,000.
• October 2023—“ BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISON.” The damage amount requested is $500,000 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• September 2023—“ FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.” The customer dispute settled for $40,000.
• August 2021—“ Claimant alleges: unsuitability, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud.” The customer dispute settled for $32,500.
• January 2012—“ CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE THE FEES AND OTHER TERMS OF HIS VARIABLE ANNUITY AND ALLEGES THAT IT IS AN UNSUITABLE PRODUCT FOR HIM.” The customer dispute was denied.
• June 2002—“ FLORIDA RESIDENT COMPLAINS REGARDING FEB-APRIL 2000 PURCHASES OF HIGH-TECH AND NEW ECONOMY MUTUAL FUNDS IN ACCOUNT WITH INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE OF CONSERVATIVE INVESTMENTS INTENDED TO GENERATE REGULAR INCOME. NO DEMAND HAS BEEN MADE; HOWEVER CLIENT RQUESTS REVIEW OF ACCOUNT. LOSSES IN ACCOUNT APPROXIMATE $150,000.” The customer dispute was denied.
• March 1995—“Censure, Disgorgement and $5,000 fine.”- National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
• October 1993—“ UNSUITABILITY – DAMAGES ALLEGED APPROX $20.000.” The damage amount requested was $20,000 and the customer was awarded $48,000.

For a copy of Peter Goffin’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.

Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.

Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s age, tax status, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance; a client’s other investments, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, and any other information disclosed by the customer should also be considered.

Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation. Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.

The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at (800) 931-8452 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com