Jack Charles Bixler Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

21 Min Read

Jack Charles Bixler  – and the firm that employs him or her – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

If you are like most people, before you go out to dinner at a new restaurant, you probably take a quick look at the reviews. This makes sense; you are going to pay for an expensive dinner, and you need to be sure that you are getting a good value.

Yet, when choosing a financial advisor, many people fail to conduct this same level of due diligence. Before turning over access to your money, you need to be sure that you have found a financial advisor that you can trust. Here, our audit report, including details of allegations, complaints, and sanctions will help you decide whether or not to invest with Jack Charles Bixler.

The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient… Warren Buffet

BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Jack Charles Bixler. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.


About Jack Bixler

Jack Charles Bixler is an Investment Adviser. Jack Charles Bixler’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 22331 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/22331.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Jack Charles Bixler.

Jack Charles Bixler has previously been reprimanded and has disclosures and/or client dispute(s) listed at FINRA BrokerCheck.


Accusations and Disclosures

You can find below, a quick snapshot of Jack Charles Bixler’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.




  • Event Date: 11/5/2019
  • Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
  • Disclosure Resolution: Settled
  • Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Recommendation of unsuitable investments, and an investment strategy, negligence, common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, the failure to supervise, financial elder abuse
  • Damage Amount Requested: $104,500.00
  • Settlement Amount: $57,000.00
  • Arbitration Docket Number: 19-03240





  • Event Date: 10/9/2019
  • Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
  • Disclosure Resolution: Pending
  • Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: Negligence; suitability; negligent misrepresentation and omission; intentional misrepresentation and omission; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; failure to supervise; violations of California Securities Act; control person liability; breach of FINRA Rules; breach of contract ; loss of investment opportunity
  • Damage Amount Requested: $693,123.29
  • Arbitration Docket Number:
  • Broker Comment: Sophisticated investors seeking refund of investment dollars on a single unsuccessful investment made as part of a more broadly diversified portfolio. Respondent named due to position as executive of the firm and played no role in the management of the offering nor had any affiliation with the company managing the asset in question. Respondent denies allegations.





  • Event Date: 9/29/2017
  • Disclosure Type: Regulatory
  • Disclosure Resolution: Final
  • Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2014041860801
  • DocketNumberAAO: 2014041860801
  • Initiated By: FINRA
  • Allegations: Bixler was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he, with his member firm and the firm’s CEO, participated in a fraudulent scheme and defrauded investors by selling investments in saltwater disposal wells at excessive, undisclosed markups through a middleman \development\ company they owned and controlled. The complaint alleges that the fraudulent markups totaled over $8 million. The complaint also alleges that investors were not informed, in the private placement memorandum (PPM) or otherwise, that the fund would pay or had paid excessive markups for its purchases of interests in saltwater disposal wells from the development company. Bixler repeatedly violated his fiduciary duties of loyalty to the fund by causing the development company to usurp opportunities to invest in the wells and by causing the fund to purchase interests in those wells from the development company at excessively marked up prices. Bixler breached his fiduciary duties of care to the fund by engaging in transactions with affiliates without taking steps to ensure that the fund was paying fair prices for its investments, such as abiding by the promise to obtain independent appraisals as represented in the PPM. As a result, among other things, the fund owned a smaller percentage of each well it purchased, and investors in the fund earned correspondingly lower distributions resulting from the fund’s well interests. As a result, Bixler willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5(a)-(c) thereunder, and FINRA Rules 2010 and 2020. The complaint further alleges that the development company was largely engaged in buying and reselling well interests, which were securities. Although this rendered it a dealer of securities, Bixler failed to register the development company with FINRA or the SEC. By virtue of his ownership and control of the development company, Bixler had the ability to cause the development company to register as a dealer but failed to do so. As a result, Bixler willfully violated Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and FINRA Rule 2010.
  • Resolution: Decision
  • Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
  • Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All capacities
  • Duration: Indefinite
  • Start Date: 6/30/2020 Sanctions: Monetary Penalty other than Fines
  • Sanction Details :: Amount: $28,934.60 Sanctions: Restitution
  • Sanction Details :: Amount: $901,418.00
  • Regulator Statement: Extended Hearing Panel decision rendered November 29, 2018. The sanctions are based on findings that Bixler willfully defrauded investors by charging unreasonable and undisclosed markups on sales of fractional interests in saltwater disposal wells in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 thereunder and FINRA Rules 2020 and 2010. The findings stated that Bixler and the firm’s chief executive officer (CEO) formed a business relationship with a development company that constructed and operated disposal wells that return saltwater byproduct from nearby oil wells to rock formations below the ground. Bixler and the CEO, with two firm associates, formed a salt-water reclamation fund (the fund) to bring in investors along with the capital needed to construct and operate the wells. Bixler, the CEO and the sales associates made all investment decisions for the fund, were the fund’s Investment Committee and owners of the fund’s managing member. The firm served as the managing broker dealer for the distribution of fund shares, selling the interests through firm representatives as well as brokers at other firms within the selling group. Investors purchased units in the fund at a cost of approximately $12.4 million. The fund’s original private placement memorandum (PPM) did not disclose to investors that the development company would resell interests to the fund at substantially higher prices than it purchased them. The findings also stated Bixler breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the fund by causing the development company to usurp opportunities to purchase lower priced well interests that should have been reserved for the fund, and by causing the fund to purchase those interests at marked up prices. The findings also included Bixler was aware the primary reason the development company existed was to buy working interests as a principal from the market and to sell the interests to investors, including the fund, which qualified it as a dealer of securities. As a result, Bixler caused the development company to act as an unregistered dealer in willful violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and FINRA Rule 2010. On December 21, 2018, Bixler appealed the decision to the NAC. NAC decision rendered June 23, 2020 wherein the findings made are affirmed and the sanctions imposed by the Hearing Panel are affirmed. The bar is in effect as of June 30, 2020. The decision became final on July 27, 2020.
  • Broker Comment: The Panel’s decision on appeal was denied by NAC. This is a case of first impression. FINRA has never before heard a case involving alleged markups in purchases and sales of saltwater disposal well interests (\SWDs\). SWDs are an unusual product which FINRA was unfamiliar with when its investigation began. The FINRA Panel issued a decision on November 29, 2018 which ignored important exculpatory evidence, including the fact that no investors lost money on the purchase of an SWD and the fact that the PPM for the Fund disclosed that the Development Company was formed, among other reasons, to facilitate IRC Section 1031 exchange transactions. The PPM also contained numerous disclosures concerning actual and potential conflicts of interest between the Fund, the Development Company and principals of the Firm. The evidence at the hearing established that, contrary to FINRA’s allegations, the Development Company’s acquisition costs were not material to customers who invested in SWDs. After the Firm elicited testimony to this effect and other exculpatory testimony, FINRA voluntarily decided not to call additional customers as witnesses. Although the Panel found that the Firm, its President and its CEO had a good-faith belief that SWDs were not securities but instead were real property, they nonetheless ignored this finding and the ample exculpatory evidence presented at the hearing and ultimately reached erroneous conclusions. While the Panel ordered estitution\ based on the alleged markups, customers have the option to reject this restitution due to the fact that many SWD investors made their investment to capitalize on the tax-advantaged savings available under IRC Section 1031. The Firm, its President and its CEO maintain that the Panel’s decision was based on erroneous factual and legal conclusions, including allowing FINRA to call incorrectly-identified witnesses at the hearing.
See also  Toni Gail Crippen Audit (2023) - A Scam or Legit Broker?



According to a study prepared for the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, 80 percent of American investors report that they have been solicited to participate in a fraud scheme, while 11 percent of American investors report that they personally lost money as a result of fraud.

FINRA notes that the rate of investment fraud is most likely much higher than it is reported. This is because many victims of financial advisor scams are too ashamed to come forward. Further, the study also found that a significant number of investors do not know how to spot common red flags of investment fraud. The least you should do is share your experience with other potential victims of investment scams.


Previous Associations

Under federal securities law and securities industry regulations, registered investment firms have a legal duty to supervise their financial advisors. Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 makes a securities firm liable for the conduct of representatives.

See also  Jonathan Robert Broadbent Audit (2023) - A Scam or Legit Broker?


  • SANDLAPPER SECURITIES, LLC (CRD#: 137906) :: 6/15/2006 – 6/30/2020 :: GREENVILLE, SC
  • CNP SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 132918) :: 3/1/2005 – 5/12/2005 :: NEWPORT BEACH, CA
  • JAMES HAROLD GOODE, JR. (CRD#: 16334) :: 9/17/2003 – 7/9/2004 :: SAN CLEMENTE, CA
  • WNC CAPITAL CORPORATION (CRD#: 36174) :: 1/16/2003 – 9/9/2003 :: IRVINE, CA
  • PROVIDENT ADVISERS, INC. (CRD#: 38642) :: 1/1/1997 – 7/29/1999 :: NEW YORK, NY
  • AIG EQUITY SALES CORP. (CRD#: 5967) :: 9/5/1996 – 12/12/1996 :: NEW YORK, NY
  • ALLIANCE FUND DISTRIBUTORS, INC. (CRD#: 14549) :: 9/25/1995 – 9/13/1996 :: NASHVILLE, TN
  • AMERICAN FINANCE GROUP SECURITIES CORP. (CRD#: 16233) :: 3/19/1992 – 9/22/1994 :: BOSTON, MA
  • COLONIAL EQUITIES CORP. (CRD#: 2295) :: 7/16/1990 – 1/7/1991
  • MDCC SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 21631) :: 5/16/1988 – 12/19/1988
  • BRAUVIN SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 14703) :: 6/3/1986 – 8/31/1987
  • SECURITY PROPERTIES CAPITAL CORPORATION (CRD#: 15508) :: 2/11/1985 – 6/5/1986
  • 1901 CENTURY FINANCIAL CORP. (CRD#: 338) :: 7/1/1983 – 12/6/1983
  • MINOCO CAPITAL CORPORATION (CRD#: 8411) :: 4/15/1983 – 7/5/1983
  • UNIVERSITY CAPITAL CORPORATION (CRD#: 8561) :: 2/18/1981 – 3/28/1983
  • UNIVERSITY SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 6518) :: 12/16/1980 – 3/28/1983
  • MCNEIL SECURITIES CORPORATION (CRD#: 5907) :: 2/12/1975 – 1/1/1981
  • INCOME-EQUITIES MARKETING CORPORATION (CRD#: 6632) :: 6/26/1974 – 3/3/1975
  • PRESCOTT, BALL & TURBEN (CRD#: 7101) :: 12/28/1970 – 4/23/1972
  • PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS INCORPORATED (CRD#: 640) :: 3/6/1968 – 1/19/1971
See also  Tyler W Daniels Audit (2023) - A Scam or Legit Broker?


The duty to supervise securities representatives is a strong legal requirement. Registered investment firms must take many different steps to ensure that they are protecting their customers from irresponsible and criminal financial advisors.

Jack Charles Bixler


Legit or Not?

Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including Jack Charles Bixler, but not limited to)  can (and do) steal money from their clients. While it’s rare that a broker will literally steal his client’s money (though that does happen), typically the “theft” of investment funds comes in the form of other fraudulent violations of securities law and FINRA rules which leads to significant investment losses.

Sometimes investment losses occur because advisors, stockbrokers, and even brokerage firms, commit fraud. Massimo Vignelli

Investors generally understand that there are risks associated with buying and selling securities. The market can go up, and the market can go down. No matter how skilled of an investor you are, there are always risks. With that being said, sometimes investment losses cannot be blamed on simple back luck.

See also  Daniel Herrera Audit (2023) - A Scam or Legit Broker?

There are 10 major types of complaints we receive against Investment Brokers –

  • Outright Theft (Conversion of Funds)
  • Unauthorized Trading
  • Misrepresentation or Omission of Material Facts
  • Excessive Trading (Churning)
  • Lack of Diversification
  • Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
  • Failure to Disclose a Personal Conflict of Interest
  • Front Running of Transactions
  • Breakpoint Sale Violations
  • Negligent Portfolio Management

Do your due diligence before investing. Public records are available for everybody to review and decide on the safest bet. 


How to Protect Yourself

We, as citizens, place a great deal of trust in the financial advisors who are tasked with helping us achieve and maintain financial security. Most of the time financial advisors and stockbrokers are honest folks who work diligently in their client’s best interests. However, on occasion financial advisors and the brokerage firms who employ them mess up and cause serious financial harm to their clients. Sometimes these losses are caused by simple negligence. Other times fraud or other serious misconduct is to blame.

See also  Russell David Ehrens Audit (2023) - A Scam or Legit Broker?


Jack Charles Bixler


Here are 5 signs that your broker needs to be reported –

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, certain investment professionals, known as registered investment advisors (RIAs), owe fiduciary obligations to their customers. Your investment broker must always look out for your best interests. If you lost money because of your broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, you may be entitled to compensation for the full value of your damages.
  • Unsuitable Investments: Many financial advisors are not fiduciaries. Instead, they are held to the suitability standard. These stockbrokers and financial advisors can only sell and recommend financial products that are appropriate for a customer’s unique investment profile. If you lost money in unsuitable investments, you should consider reporting them.
  • Material Misrepresentations or Omissions: Brokers have a duty to make fair and honest representations to their clients. If they fail to do so, and an investor loses money due to a misrepresentation or a material omission, the broker may be liable for the investor’s losses.
  • Lack of Diversification: Brokers must also act with the appropriate level of professional skill. Pushing a customer into over-concentrated investments is highly risky. Brokers can be held liable for losses sustained because of an investor’s inappropriate lack of diversification.
  • Excessive Trading (Churning): Stockbrokers and financial advisors must have a well-grounded, reasonable basis to execute all trades. Unfortunately, there are cases in which brokers will frequently trade on a customer’s account, simply to increase their own fees. This unlawful practice is known as churning.
  • Unauthorized Trading: Brokers must have the proper legal authority to make transactions on behalf of a client. If you lost money because your broker made trades that you never approved of, you may have been the victim of unauthorized trading. You should consult with an experienced attorney.


Report Jack Bixler

In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.

Jack Charles Bixler – and the firm that employs this broker – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA provides an online form to allow investors to file a formal complaint against their financial advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm.

Click here to go to FINRA’s Online Complaint Form →

This form will ask you for specific information related to your complaint. Be prepared by gathering the following:

  • Name and symbol for the investment product in question.
  • The CRD number (22331) for the broker – Jack Charles Bixler
  • Your complete contact information.

Remember, it is advised to report your broker to FINRA, only after you have exhausted all of your other remedies and carefully prepared a compelling complaint.  Once you file a complaint against your broker at FINRA, your case will be bound by FINRA’s rules and the arbitration panel’s eventual decision. The time clock will start, and your complaint will be served on your broker or broker-dealer.

Share this Article
Leave a comment