Erez Law Files Cases Against Broker Chuck Robert from Stifel

Erez Law recently filed another FINRA arbitration against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated related to broker Chuck Robert’s misrepresentations, breach of fiduciary duties, and other misconduct. Our firm currently represents clients in 18 cases who suffered cumulative investment losses of over $80 million primarily due to structured product recommendations by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated Broker Chuck Roberts (CRD# 2064602). Many of the claims also involve violations and losses related to speculative stocks.

Erez Law obtained a FINRA arbitration award of $14.2 million against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated based on the sale of structured notes and the management of a discretionary account. The award included $9 million in punitive damages after arbitrators found the defendant violated the Florida Securities Act.

Erez Law also secured an arbitration award of $2.4 million against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated for a client we represented, alleging claims of failure to supervise, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud and violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act and ERISA. 

Erez Law continues to speak to customers of Chuck Roberts, who have similar complaints against the stockbroker for wrongdoing. We are continuing to take on new cases to help pursue the losses customers experienced because of Roberts’ actions and are holding Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated responsible for their negligent supervision.

Chuck Roberts Structured Products Losses

Structured products are highly complex debt securities with an embedded derivative component linked to the performance of an underlying reference asset, typically an individual stock, index, or basket of stocks or indices. Structured products are debt obligations of their issuer, typically broker-dealers, investment banks, and their financial institution affiliates. Structured products typically limit the investor’s upside participation in the underlying reference asset while offering some form of downside protection against losses. Although they are registered with the SEC, structured products do not trade on an exchange and are generally not liquid investments.

Due to their complexity and similarities to options, securities regulators require brokerage firms such as Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated to specifically approve clients for structured products or develop similar investor protection safeguards. 

It is alleged that Chuck Roberts represented to clients that investing in structured notes he selected would preserve capital and generate a return with a “long-term average of around 12.25%.” He also claimed that the structured notes he recommended to his clients were less risky than investing in stocks, that they had downside protection, and that he had never lost money for investors in structured notes.

He allegedly represented to his clients that structured notes are “almost like a substitution for bonds…at 15%.” In fact, structured notes are not almost bond substitutes, and his representation is false and grossly misleading.

The structured products he recommended were often autocallable notes which offered little to no meaningful downside protection against a significant decline in the price of the underlying reference assets, which were often highly speculative and extremely volatile securities.

It is alleged that he failed to adequately disclose the significant risks of the structured products he recommended and to adequately explain their complex terms and trigger thresholds. His unsuitable strategy also allegedly sometimes involved recommending structured notes involving the same high-risk linked securities, thereby concentrating his clients’ accounts in certain securities and increasing the level of risk to which they were unknowingly exposed.

It is alleged that his unsuitable strategy also involved recommending structured notes linked to single high-risk stocks. For example, he recommended clients invest in an autocallable structured note linked to Square (NKA Block), a high risk and unprofitable technology stock. When Square’s stock price dropped precipitously immediately after clients invested, they realized large, totally avoidable, and unacceptable losses.

In one case, Roberts allegedly recommended to over-concentrate clients’ accounts in structured notes, which was unsuitable and not in their best interest. These investments were not suitable for Roberts’ risk-averse clients, who had no desire to expose their newly obtained capital from a one-time liquidity event to undue risk. These risk-averse clients had never invested in structured notes and had no significant investment experience, making these high-risk investments an unsuitable recommendation.

Examples of structured notes that resulted in losses include:

• Bank of Montreal Contingent Barrier Note linked to Pinterest due 8/31/23
• Barclays Bank Phoenix Contingent Interest Note linked to Least Performing of RTY, KRE, and NDX due 6/2/23
• BMO Autocallable Barrier Notes with Contingent Coupons Linked to Pinterest due 8/31/2023
• BMO Autocallable Barrier Notes with Contingent Coupons Linked to Square due 12/7/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes Linked to Dynatrace due 10/31/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes Linked to KRE, XBI, and XLK due 3/2/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes Linked to KRE, XBI, and XLK due 4/27/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes linked to Least Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 3/2/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes Linked to least performing of XLK and XBI and due 3/2/23
• BofA Contingent Income Auto-Callable Yield Notes Linked to XBI, KRE, and XLK due 12/7/23
• BofA Contingent Interest Note linked Least Performing of XBI, KRE, and XLK due 8/31/23
• BofA Contingent Interest Note linked Least Performing of XLK and XBI due 3/28/23
• BofA Contingent Interest Note linked to Dynatrace due 10/31/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to KBE, XBI, and XLK due 10/31/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to least performing of XBI, KRE, and XLK due 6/2/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to Least Performing of XBI, XLK, and SMH due 1/26/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to Okta due 10/31/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to worst of XBI, KRE, and XLK due 6/2/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to Worst Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 6/2/23
• Citigroup Autocallable Contingent Interest Note linked to Worst Performing of XBI, XLK, and SMH due 1/25/23
• Citigroup Equity Linked Contingent Coupon Notes linked to Okta due 10/31/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Autocallable Yield Notes Linked to KRE, XBI, and XKL due 1/11/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Autocallable Yield Notes Linked to KRE, XBI, and XKL due 1/26/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Autocallable Yield Notes linked to Lowest Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 1/26/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Autocallable Yield Notes linked to RTY, DJI, and KRE due 1/18/24
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Autocallable Yield Notes linked to Zoom due 6/28/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Yield Notes linked to Least Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 1/26/23
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Yield Notes linked to worst of RTY, DJI, and KRE due 1/18/24
• Credit Suisse Contingent Coupon Yield Notes linked to Zoom due 6/28/23
• GS Autocallable Contingent Coupon Equity-Linked Notes linked to DocuSign due 9/28/23
• GS Autocallable Contingent Coupon Equity-Linked Notes linked to Snap due 12/7/23
• GS Autocallable Contingent Coupon Equity-Linked Notes linked to Twilio due 6/28/23
• HSBC Autocallable Contingent Income Barrier Notes Linked to Match Group due 8/31/23
• HSBC Contingent Income Barrier Note linked to Match due 8/31/23
• HSBC Contingent Income Barrier Note linked to Uber due 10/31/23
• JPMorgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Least Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 3/28/23
• JPMorgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Least Performing of KRE, XBI, and XLK due 6/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Palantir due 12/27/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Palantir due 12/7/23
• JPMorgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Palantir due 9/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Palantir Technologies due 9/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Roblox due 10/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Sea due 10/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Sea due 8/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Square due 10/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to Twilio due 10/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Note linked to UiPath due 9/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Notes Linked to KRE, XBI, and XLK due 3/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Notes Linked to Palantir due 12/7/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Notes Linked to Palantir due 9/28/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Notes Linked to Roblox due 10/31/23
• JP Morgan Auto Callable Contingent Interest Notes Linked to Square due 10/31/23
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to Coupa due 9/28/23>
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to least performing of INDU, NDX, and KRE due 2/29/24
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to least performing of XBI, XLK, and KRE due 4/27/23
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to Snap due 8/31/23
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to worst of XBI, XLK, and KRE due 9/28/23
• Morgan Stanley Contingent Income Auto-Callable linked to Worst Performing of XBI, XLK, and KRE due 4/27/23

The underlying reference assets were often highly speculative and extremely volatile securities such as the volatile S&P Biotech ETF (XBI), which tracks the Biotechnology Select Industry Index. Therefore, when XBI declined rapidly in 2022, clients realized losses in these structured notes.

Chuck Roberts Stock Losses

It is alleged that Chuck Roberts recommended unsuitable trading of speculative stocks and volatile stocks of companies, often with no profits. In some instances, it is alleged that the trades were unauthorized.

He allegedly failed to adequately disclose the risks attendant to his stock trading strategy. Examples of stocks in which he engaged in the same unsuitable and unauthorized short-term stock trading include:

Chuck Roberts Asset Management Programs

Chuck Roberts allegedly recommended some clients enroll in the Stifel Solutions Program, in which he managed the assets on a discretionary basis, executing trades without obtaining the client’s authorization prior to each trade.

Stifel represents its Solutions Program as follows:

“The Stifel Solutions Program is designed for investors looking for the convenience of individualized investment management services offered directly through their trusted Stifel Financial Advisor. In this program, approved Stifel Financial Advisors manage your assets on a discretionary basis through the consistent application of a pre-screened investment process that may use a variety of investment styles, from conservative to aggressive.”

Chuck Roberts allegedly recommended certain clients enroll in the Stifel Horizon Program, a non-discretionary managed account wherein the client was charged a fee for his service as an advisor. Importantly, the Horizon Program is non-discretionary, meaning he was required to obtain the client’s informed consent before each trade. Regrettably, this did not occur for many clients.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated advertises its Horizon Program as the following:

“Combining the advice and personal attention of a Stifel Financial Advisor with the resources of our nationally recognized research franchise, the Horizon program is designed for clients who want the benefit of disciplined investment advice while maintaining ultimate control over their specific investment decisions.”

It is alleged that he failed to provide anywhere close to the services represented that he would provide in the Solutions Program and Horizon Program accounts.

Chuck Roberts Regulatory Complaints

Chuck Roberts has been the subject of 23 customer complaints from 2010 to 2024. Two of these were denied, and one was withdrawn. According to his CRD report, customers in complaints filed in 2022 and 2024 have alleged egregious misconduct by Roberts, including:

• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Negligence
• Fraud 
• Breach of contract
• Violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
• Violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act
• Breach of FINRA rules
• Unauthorized trading
• Churning/Reverse churning
• Violations of Regulation Best Interest
• Violations of California Corporations Code
• Violations of New Jersey Uniform Securities Law
• Negligent supervision

These complaints allege more than $53.2 million in damages.

In 2010, the state of Illinois sanctioned him to pay a $1,000 civil and administrative penalty and fine related to trading in initial public offerings (IPOs).

That same year, he was sanctioned by FINRA to pay a $40,000 civil and administrative penalty and he was suspended for four weeks related to allegations that he “had knowledge that a sales assistant and possibly others replaced customer email addresses with the sales assistant’s firm email address to facilitate the opening of online accounts and to lessen the number of communications that the customers received; therefore, trade confirmations were sent to the sales assistant rather than the customers although the customers continued to receive their monthly account statements, prospectuses and 1099 federal tax forms by mail.”

Chuck Roberts Registrations and Work History

Chuck Roberts has been a registered representative of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated in New York, New York, and Miami, Florida since 2016. He currently serves as a Managing Director of the CR Wealth Management Group.

He began his career serving two years between 1990 and 1992 at Lehman Brothers Inc. in New York, New York, and then three years at PaineWebber Incorporated in Weehawken, New Jersey between 1992 and 1995. Next, he was registered with M. J. Whitman, Inc. in New York, New York for three years between 1995 and 1998, followed by five years between 1998 and 2003 at Cibc World Markets Corp. in New York, New York. Then, he was registered with Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. in New York, New York between 2003 and 2005 and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York, New York between 2005 and 2009, and then Morgan Stanley in New York, New York between 2009 and 2016.

Chuck Roberts Investment Loss and Your Legal Options

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, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Chuck Roberts’ 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.