Financial advisor Peter Goffin customer complaints

Newbridge Securities Financial Advisor, Peter Goffin, Has Nine Customer Complaints

Peter Goffin is a Financial Advisor at Newbridge Securities Corporation in Boca Raton, FL.  Peter Goffin has been in the securities industry since 1987 and previously worked at Wachovia Securities Financial Network, JW Charles Securities and Commvest Securities.

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Peter Goffin is the subject of nine customer complaints, including the following: 

• March 2019 – “CLAIMANT ALLEGES:  BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE.”  The alleged damages are $150,000 and the matter is currently pending.
• July 2003 – “ATTORNEY FOR FLORIDA RESIDENT CLAIMS MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES AUGUST 1999 WERE UNSUITABLE BASED ON CLIENT’S AGE, INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, AND NET WORTH.”  The matter settled for $16,500. 
• July 2003 – “ATTORNEY FOR FLORIDA RESIDENT CLAIMS MUTUAL FUNDS PURCHASED IN 2000 WERE UNSUITABLE GIVEN CLIENT’S AGE, NET WORTH, AND INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES.”  The matter settled for $29,500.
• October 1993 – “UNSUITABILITY – DAMAGES ALLEGED APPROX $20,000.”  An arbitration panel awarded the customer $48,000.

In addition, the NASD censured Peter Goffin in 1995, ordered disgorgement of commissions and fined hin $5,000. 

For a copy of Peter Goffin’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1617710#disclosuresSection.

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, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis.  Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., 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.

Newbridge Securities Corporation Broker, Peter Goffin, Has Had Ten Customer Complaint Disclosures During His Career

Peter Goffin (CRD # 1617710) is a Financial Advisor at Newbridge Securities Corporation in Boca Raton, FL. Peter Goffin has been in the securities industry since 1987. According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Peter Goffin has been the subject of ten (10) customer complaints during his career, alleging sales practice misconduct, including the following: • March 2019—”CLAIMANT ALLEGES: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE.” Alleged damages are $150,000 and the matter remains pending. • 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.” Alleged damages were $30,300 and the complaint was denied. • March 2010—”CUSTOMER ALLEGES (THROUGH HER SON’S POA) THAT MR. GOFFIN PLACED [CUSTOMER] IN AN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT (KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST); THE INVESTMENT WAS PURCHASED BY THE CUSTOMER ON 07/28/2008.” Alleged damages were $13,500 and the complaint was denied. • July 2003—”ATTORNEY FOR FLORIDA RESIDENT CLAIMS MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES AUGUST 1999 WERE UNSUITABLE BASED ON CLIENT’S AGE, INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, AND NET WORTH.” The matter settled for $16,500. • July 2003—”ATTORNEY FOR FLORIDA RESIDENT CLAIMS MUTUAL FUNDS PURCHASED IN 2000 WERE UNSUITABLE GIVEN CLIENT’S AGE, NET WORTH, AND INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES.” The matter settled for $29,500. • 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 REQUESTS REVIEW OF ACCOUNT. LOSSES IN ACCOUNT APPROXIMATE $150,000.” The complaint was denied. • August 2001—”NEW YORK RESIDENT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY WITH REGARD TO MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS. SEEKS TO RECOVER $10,000 ON LOSSES ACCRUED THROUGH INTERNET TOLLKEEPER FUND, PURCHASED ON 12/19/99.” The complaint was denied. • April 2001—” MISREPRESENTATION.” The complaint was denied. • October 1993—” UNSUITABILITY – DAMAGES ALLEGED APPROX $20.000.” The matter went to arbitration and the panel awarded $48,000. For a copy of Peter Goffin’s CRD, click https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/1617710#disclosuresSection 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. 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. 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 • Other investments • Financial situation and needs • Tax status • Investment objectives • Time horizon • Liquidity needs • Risk tolerance • Any other information disclosed by the customer The Wolper Law Firm, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., 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.