Were you the victim of Lifemark Securities Corp. broker David Griffith (CRD# 3072664)? He has been registered with Lifemark Securities Corp. in Utica, New York, since 2015.
David Griffith Customer Complaints
He has been the subject of five customer complaints between 2023 and 2025, according to his CRD report:
November 2025. “Allegations pertain to investments in alternative products intended to be a small component of a larger diversified portfolio. Investments were purchased from 03/2017 to 01/2021. Unfortunately, the company that issued one of the investments has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As a result, the client is alleging failure to perform due diligence, unsuitable recommendation, breach of contract/ fiduciary duty, and negligence.” The customer is seeking $475,000 in damages, and the case is currently pending. The complaint was regarding corporate debt losses, common and preferred stocks, and real estate security losses.
December 2024. “Client’s allegations pertain to an unsolicited investment in an alternative product, representing a small component of this client’s broader overall diversified portfolio. Advisor David K. Griffith did not recommend the product to the client. Instead, the client, an investor who embraced significant risk, asked Advisor Griffith to make this investment on his behalf. The client was advised of the risks inherent in the investment and signed acknowledgment forms to that effect. The investment was made in October 2020, and the client received several months of interest payments before the issuer filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The client’s allegations include claims of unsuitable investment practices, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. LifeMark maintains the transactions giving rise to the client’s allegations were suitable and appropriate based on the information available at the time, including the characteristics of the investment product and the client’s financial situation, risk tolerance, and objectives as represented by the client.” The customer is seeking $50,000 in damages, and the case is currently pending.
October 2024. “Allegations pertain to an investment in an alternative product intended to be a small component of a larger diversified portfolio. Investment was purchased in 02/2020. Unfortunately, the company that sold the investment has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Allegations include an unsuitable recommendation, failure to perform due diligence, negligence, and material misrepresentation. LifeMark believes this to be a suitable and appropriate transaction given the information available at the time of the transaction, concerning the investment product as well as the client’s financials, risk tolerance, and objectives as represented by the client.” The customer is seeking $265,000 in damages, and the case is currently pending. The complaint was regarding corporate debt losses.
March 2024. “Allegations pertain to an investment in an alternative product, intended to be a small component of a larger diversified portfolio. Investments were purchased from 03/2020 to 12/2020. Unfortunately, the company that issued the investment has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As a result, the clients are alleging failure to perform due diligence, material misrepresentation, negligence, and an unsuitable recommendation.” The customer sought $100,001 in damages, and the case was settled for $133,835.31.
November 2023. “Allegations pertain to an investment in an alternative product, intended to be a small component of a larger diversified portfolio. Unfortunately, the company that issued the investment has since filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As a result, the clients are alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Clients purchased the alternative product between February 2020 to March of 2021. LifeMark believes this to be a suitable and appropriate transaction given the information available at the time of the transaction, concerning the investment product as well as the client’s financials, risk tolerance, and objectives as represented by the client.” The customer sought $150,000 in damages, and the case was settled for $30,000. The complaint was regarding corporate debt losses.
Pursuant to FINRA Rules, member firms are responsible for supervising a broker’s activities during the time the broker is registered with the firm. Therefore, Lifemark Securities Corp. may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by David Griffith’s customers.
Erez Law represents investors in the United States for claims against brokers and brokerage firms for wrongdoing. If you have experienced investment losses, please call us at 888-840-1571 or complete our contact form for a free consultation. Erez Law is a nationally recognized law firm representing individuals, trusts, corporations and institutions in claims against brokerage firms, banks and insurance companies on a contingency fee basis.
"*" indicates required fields
