Furgison Law Group investigates claims against Ridgeway & Conger, Inc., Kenley Brisard, Philip Brisard and Leigh McCobb

The securities fraud lawyers at Furgison Law Group are currently investigating claims against Ridgeway & Conger, Inc., Kenley Brisard, Philip Brisard and Leigh McCobb. The arbitration specialists at Furgison Law Group are investigating claims involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, failure to supervise, misrepresentations, omissions of material facts, conflict of interests, violations of state and federal securities laws, along with other broker misconduct.

FINRA issued complaint against Ridgeway & Conger, Inc., Kenley Brisard, Philip Brisard and Leigh McCobb

Ridgeway & Conger, Inc. (CRD #113055, New Woodstock, New York), Kenley Brisard (CRD #2641960, Westbury, New York), Philip Brisard (CRD #2646923, Westbury, New York) and Leigh McCobb Garber (CRD #2768572, Cazenovia, New York) were named respondents in a FINRA complaint alleging that the firm, Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard sold an unregistered security that consisted of interest-only strips from loans issued by the United States Small Business Association (SBA) meant only for QIBs to individual retail investors at undisclosed markups using general solicitation emails that fraudulently misrepresented the product and their role in its development. The complaint alleges that Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder when they engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with customer purchases of securities with respect to the emails they sent to customers. In the alternative, Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard negligently made material misstatements in violation of FINRA Rule 2010 by violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The misrepresentations and omissions in the Brisards’ statements to customers were material because a reasonable investor would consider them important in making investment decisions, because they significantly altered the total mix of information made available to the solicited customers, and because they denied the investors the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to invest in the SBA interest-only security. The complaint also alleges that Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard, in connection with offers of the SBA interest-only security, sent false and fraudulent emails containing similar misrepresentations and omissions to additional customers and prospects, and failed to comply with Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933; or in the alternative, negligently made material misstatements in the general solicitation emails in violation of FINRA Rule 2010, by failing to comply with Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard knowingly, willfully and/or recklessly ignored and/or contradicted the PPM for the SBA interest-only security to which they had ready access, and they made statements that had no underlying factual basis. Kenley Brisard and Philip Brisard failed to reasonably and/or independently investigate and understand the SBA interest-only security before they recommended the investment to customers and failed to reasonably consider the information contained in the PPM. 

The complaint further alleges that the firm charged excessive markups on customers’ unregistered securities transactions. In each of the transactions, the firm purchased the SBA interest-only security for its own account from a placement agent, and shortly thereafter sold it to individual retail customers. In each of these transactions, the firm already had the order from the customer in hand before it purchased the security from the placement agent. In each instance Garber, on the firm’s behalf, signed the trade tickets approving the markup. In total, the firm charged approximately $112,408 in markups for a security which the firm purchased for a total of about $548,722 and sold to customers for a total of about $661,131. Nothing in the nature of the firm’s or Kenly Brisard or Philip Brisard’s business or the identified purchases of the SBA interest-only security justified the size of the markups on the purchases by the firm’s customers. In addition, the complaint alleges that the firm fraudulently failed to disclose the excessive markups on trade confirmations or otherwise to purchasers of the SBA interest-only security, thereby willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated FINRA Rule 2020. The firm’s misrepresentations and omissions were material because a reasonable investor would consider them important in making investment decisions. In the alternative, the firm negligently failed to disclose the excessive markups to customers who purchased the SBA interest-only security and thereby failed to comply with Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. 

Moreover, the complaint alleges that Kenley Brisard, Philip Brisard and the firm marketed and sold the unregistered securities through general solicitation without an exemption, failing to comply with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. At no time did the firm, Kenley Brisard or Philip Brisard attempt to determine whether any of the investors to whom they sold the SBA interest-only security were QIBs. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the firm and Garber failed to establish and maintain proper supervisory systems and procedures for the firm’s sales of Securities Act of 1933 Rule 144A securities, markup and Section 5 activities related to the sales of the interest-only unregistered security. Garber gave her written approval for the sale of the unregistered securities to individual customers despite the fact that three months earlier she had provided a written representation to the placement agent that the firm would only sell the product, a Rule 144A security, to QIBs. Garber was the designated supervisor for markups and private placements, and she approved the excessive markups and signed the internal trade tickets, and approved the sales of unregistered securities despite the fact that they violated Section 5. Despite the fact that the firm was engaged in the business of selling and buying securities issued pursuant to Rule 144A, the firm did not have a reasonable supervisory system, including WSPs, for this activity. (FINRA Case #2010022046101)

Investors Have the Right to Recover Their Losses

When investments are sold by brokerage firms licensed by FINRA, they are subject to the laws that FINRA enforces. The brokerage firms are responsible for ensuring that their brokers are trading fairly, ethically and in the best interest of their clients. Ideally, they would accomplish this through careful supervision. Unfortunately, too often this supervision has been inadequate to fully protect investors. If you purchased any investments through a representative of a registered brokerage firm and suffered loses through negligence or fraud, it immediately puts the brokerage firm at fault for failing to supervise their broker. FINRA law then dictates that you can hold the firm legally liable to recover your damages.

Can I recover my investment losses?

If you lost a substantial portion of your retirement savings or other assets as a result of investments purchased through Ridgeway & Conger, Inc., Kenley Brisard, Philip Brisard and Leigh McCobb, please contact us immediately. Our investment fraud lawyers have recovered millions of dollars from the largest banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms in the world on behalf of investment fraud victims. You may have certain legal rights that require your immediate attention. Time is of the essence in these claims. The sooner you act, the greater your chances of recovering your investment losses. Don't wait. Contact us TODAY for a FREE Consultation and case evaluation. We will tell you if you have a viable claim worth pursuing.