888-840-1571

National Investment Fraud Lawyers

¿Perdió en bonos y fondos de Puerto Rico?

Madison Avenue Securities, LLC Broker Jeffrey Dixson Alleged to Make Unsuitable Investment Recommendations

Posted on Monday, October 21st, 2019 at 1:55 pm    

Madison Avenue Securities logo

Erez Law is currently investigating Madison Avenue Securities, LLC broker Jeffrey Dixson (CRD# 4166311) regarding investment losses due to investments in GPB Capital Holdings. Dixson has been registered with Madison Avenue Securities, LLC in Vancouver, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Clackamas, Oregon since 2007. 

In November 2007, the state of Washington, Office of the Insurance Commissioner sanctioned Dixson to a $6,000 fine following allegation that the “representative sold variable annuities to Washington residents that were not approved by the WA office of the insurance commissioner (OIC). Additionally, the WA OIC found that the representative falsely represented that the variable annuity applications were signed in Oregon.”

Dixson has been the subject of 21 customer complaints between 2010 and 2021, one of which was denied and one was closed without action, according to his CRD report. Recent complaints were regarding: 

May 2021. “Claimants allege unsuitable recommendations of multiple alternative investments, failure to supervise and elder abuse. The investments started for some clients between 2013 to 2015.” The case is currently pending. 

April 2021. “Claimants allege unsuitable recommendations of GPB and other alternative investments, failure to supervise and breach of fiduciary duty starting in 2015.” The customer is seeking $195,000 in damages in this pending complaint. 

April 2021. “Unsuitable recommendations of alternative investments, including GPB Automotive.” The customer is seeking $545,000 in damages in this pending complaint. 

November 2020. “Unsuitable recommendations of GPB and other Alternative Investments.” The customer is seeking $51,507 in damages in this pending complaint.

November 2020. “Unsuitable recommendations of alternative investments including GPB Automotive.” The customer is seeking $200,000 in damages in this pending complaint.

October 2020. “Unsuitable recommendations of alternative investments.” The case is currently pending. 

September 2020. “Unsuitable recommendation of GPB Automotive, lack of due diligence.” The customer is seeking $50,000 in damages in this pending complaint.

August 2020. “Unsuitable recommendations of alternative investments, including GPB and poor due diligence.” The customer sought $225,000 in damages and the case was settled for $120,991.22.

August 2020. “Unsuitable recommendation of GPB and one other alternative.” The customer is seeking $100,000 in damages in this pending complaint.

May 2020. ”Claimants allege failure to conduct Due Diligence on several points, unsuitable recommendation, over concentration, misrepresentations and omissions in violation of FINRA and WA regulations in the sale of alternative investments starting in 2013.” The customer is seeking $1,127,780 in damages in this pending customer complaint. 

April 2020. “Claimants allege failure to conduct Due Diligence on several points, unsuitable recommendation, overconcentration, misrepresentations and omissions in violation of FINRA regulations in the sale of GPB.” The customer sought $500,000 in damages and the case was settled for $100,000.

March 2020. “Claimants allege failure to conduct Due Diligence on several points, unsuitable recommendation, over concentration, misrepresentations and omissions in violation of Texas and FINRA regulations in the sale of GPB in 2016.” The customer sought $295,082 in damages and the case was settled for $89,500.

February 2020. “Claimants allege alternative investments were unsuitable, poor performance, lack of due diligence, elder abuse and failure to supervise. GPB was one of the investments claimant purchased.” The customer sought $100,000 in damages and the case was settled for $52,500.

November 2019. “Between 2016 to the present the Claimant has transactions in various alternative investments and fixed index annuities that were alleged as unsuitable. The allegations include Oregon Securities Law, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and elder abuse.” The customer sought $150,000 in damages and the case was settled for $52,500.

September 2019. “Between 2011 to 2017 the Claimant has transactions in various Alternative Investments that were alleged as unsuitable. The allegations include violations of FINRA Rule 2110 high standards of commercial honor and equitable principles of trade, Rule 2111 conducting adequate due diligence, negligence, misrepresentation and omission of material facts, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Oregon Securities Law and elder abuse.” The case was settled for $200,000.

August 2019. “Between 4/2012 through 7/2015 the Claimant had transactions in various Alternative Investments that were alleged as unsuitable. The allegations include negligence, professional negligence, violations of law, unsuitable recommendations, negligent supervision, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of securities industry rules and regulations.” The customer sought $650,000 in damages and the case was settled for $136,000. This case is regarding direct investments and real estate securities. 

July 2019. “Poor performance and unsuitable investments November 2015.” The customer sought $200,000 in damages and the case was settled for $85,000. This case is regarding direct investments. 

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, Madison Avenue Securities, LLC may be liable for investment or other losses suffered by Dixson’s customers.

Erez Law represents investors in the United States for claims against brokers and brokerage firms for wrongdoing. If and 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.