Ronald Mark Heineman – 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 Ronald Mark Heineman.
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 Ronald Mark Heineman. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About Ronald Heineman
Ronald Mark Heineman is an Investment Adviser. Ronald Mark Heineman’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 241924 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/241924.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Ronald Mark Heineman.
Ronald Mark Heineman 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 Ronald Mark Heineman’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 11/4/2015
- Disclosure Type: Civil
- Disclosure Resolution: Pending
- Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC Litigation Release 23400, November 4, 2015: The SEC announced it has identified three additional individuals to charge in a case originally filed on July 17, 2014 against alleged corrupt brokers and others. In that related case (SEC Litigation Release 23046), the SEC charged individuals who pocketed millions of dollars running an elaborate pump-and-dump scheme involving shares of a medical education company and two other microcap stocks. The SEC filed a request in federal court in Brooklyn to lift the stay in its civil action for the purposes of filing an amended complaint alleging that broker Ronald Heineman and another broker facilitated the scheme through their brokerage firm while a third man, an attorney, profited illegally by selling unregistered shares for which no registration exemption applied. According to the SEC’s amended complaint two individuals engaged in a scheme to inflate the price of the medical education company stock in mid-2013 in collusion with two brokers. The plan was to profit at the expense of one broker’s clients and another’s customers as the price of the stock fell. Heineman, an owner of a company where one of the brokers worked, participated in the fraudulent scheme by facilitating the improper conduct by the broker and one of the individuals. In late August 2013, Heineman and another broker secretly agreed to purchase the company shares at pre-set prices in a way that permitted one of the individuals to liquidate his company positions at artificially inflated prices. Heineman is charged with violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 9(a)(1), 9(a)(2), and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder.
- Sanction Details ::
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 7/28/2015
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2012033877802
- DocketNumberAAO: 2012033877802
- Initiated By: FINRA
- Allegations: HEINEMAN WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HIS MEMBER FIRM, THROUGH HEINEMAN AND ANOTHER PRINCIPAL, ENTERED INTO A FRAUDULENT SCHEME WITH A VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM AND A CANCER DRUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO SECRETLY KICK BACK NEARLY FIVE PERCENT OF THE VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM’S $35 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE CANCER DRUG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO THE VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM AND THEREBY MISREPRESENT THE PRICE PAID FOR THE SHARES. THE FIRM EXECUTED AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND AGREED TO SERVE AS A FAKE PLACEMENT AGENT FOR AN ISSUANCE OF UP TO $40 MILLION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY’S SECURITIES TO THE VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM AND RECEIVE A FEE OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM’S INVESTMENT. THE RESPONDENT WAS AWARE THAT THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER WAS FALSE AND CONTAINED MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS. THE RESPONDENT WAS AWARE THAT THE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFFILIATE WERE FALSE AND CONTAINED MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS. THE SOLE, UNDISCLOSED PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WAS TO ENABLE THE KICK BACK. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 10B-5 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 10B-5(A) AND (C) THEREUNDER. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE ACTIVITIES AT THE FIRM. THE ACTIVITIES OF REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, REGISTERED PRINCIPALS, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PERSONS IN A MANNER REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND FINRA RULES AND TO PREVENT AND DETECT MISCONDUCT. INSTEAD, THE RESPONDENT FOSTERED A CULTURE OF NON-COMPLIANCE THAT RESULTED IN WIDESPREAD SUPERVISORY FAILURES AND VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND FINRA RULES.
- Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All Capacities
- Start Date: 10/6/2015
- Sanctions: Heineman willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder.
- Regulator Statement: Without admitting or denying the allegations, Heineman consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that his firm, through him, entered into a fraudulent scheme with a venture capital firm and a cancer drug development company to secretly kick back nearly 5 percent of the venture capital firm’s $35 million investment in the cancer drug development company to the venture capital firm, and thereby misrepresent the price paid for the shares. Heineman willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The firm executed an engagement letter and agreed to serve as a fake placement agent for an issuance of up to $40 million of the development company’s securities to the venture capital firm and receive a fee of 5 percent of the venture capital firm’s investment. Heineman was aware that the engagement letter was false and contained misrepresentations and omissions. Heineman was aware that the consulting agreements with an affiliate of the venture capital firm were false and contained material misrepresentations and omissions. The sole, undisclosed purpose of the consulting agreements was to enable the kick back. The firm and another principal facilitated a now-expelled FINRA firm’s concealment of its receipt of additional transaction fees from lateral transfer sellers, and did not disclose its commission-sharing agreement with the now-expelled FINRA firm to the lateral transfer sellers. The firm and the principal covered up a now-barred registered representative’s violation of various state Blue Sky Laws by intentionally causing the falsification of the firm’s books and records, including customer account statements, new account documents, trade confirmations and commission runs, to inaccurately reflect that another registered representative at the firm, in some instances the principal, was the representative of record for customer transactions the now-barred registered representative initiated. The principal was not only aware of this representative’s falsification of the firm’s books and records, he assisted with the falsifications. By doing so, the firm and the principal caused the firm to create and maintain false books and records. The firm, through the now-barred registered representative, engaged in churning and excessive trading in customer accounts. These customers did not authorize many of the individual trades the representative placed in their accounts, and the representative effectively controlled the trading in these accounts. The customer did not derive any benefit from the excessive trading in their accounts, and the representative and the firm reaped unwarranted commissions to the detriment of the customers. The firm and the principal failed to establish and implement an adequate AML compliance program reasonably designed to cause the detection and reporting of suspicious activities required under the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations thereunder. The firm also failed to monitor customer account activity and follow up on AML red flags regarding its penny stock liquidation business and abdicated some of its responsibility to the clearing firm. While designated as the firm’s AMLCO, the principal did not have the requisite knowledge, training and experience to adequately discharge his duties as AMLCO. As a result, the firm failed to designate a qualified AMLCO. Heineman, as principal, the chief compliance officer, failed to establish and implement an adequate supervisory system and WSPs. The firm failed to reasonably supervise churning and excessive trading, unauthorized trading, firm email review and registered persons subject to heightened supervision. Instead, Heineman and the firm fostered a culture of non-compliance that resulted in widespread supervisory failures and violations of federal securities laws and FINRA rules.
- Broker Comment: HALCYON AND ITS PRINCIPALS DENY THOSE ALLEGATIONS AND CONFIRM THAT IT MORE THAN A YEAR AGO TERMINATED THE PARTICULAR BROKER INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED CHURNING AND THE FAILURE TO SUPERVISE CLAIM, NAMED A NEW AML CO, AND REVISED AND UPDATED ITS AML POLICY AND WSPS. THE FIRM MAINTAINS THAT NEITHER THE FIRM NOR ITS PRINCIPALS ENGAGED IN ANY VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES LAWS AND RULES AND INTEND TO DEFEND THE CLAIMS. Halcyon and its Principals ultimately decided to agree to a settlement with FINRA based on a number of issues including the cost associated with litigation of the matter.
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 10/24/2013
- Disclosure Type: Investigation
- Disclosure Resolution:
- Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY
- Description of Investigation: GENERAL SUPERVISION
DISCLOSURE 4 –
- Event Date: 7/11/2006
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: ILLINOIS
- Allegations: DISQUALIFIED UNDER 8.E(1)(J) OF THE ACT DUE TO THE ENTRY OF A NASD ORDER.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details ::
- Sanction Details: CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL. RESPONDENT AGREED NOT TO SERVE AS DESIGNATED ILLINOIS PRINCIPAL FOR 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF ORDER AND PAID COSTS OF $2,500 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DISMISSED.
- Broker Comment: ILLINOIS ENTERED INTO AN AGREE. WITH HEINEMAN WHEREBY IT DISMISSED STATUTORY REVOCATION REQUEST. HEINEMAN REMAINS REGISTERED IN ILLINOIS BUT AGREED TO NOT SERVE IN CAPACITY OF AN ILLINOIS DESIGNATED PRINCIPAL FOR 2 YRS & TO PAY $2500 IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
DISCLOSURE 5 –
- Event Date: 7/1/2004
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: CAF040050
- DocketNumberAAO: 040050
- Initiated By: NASD
- Allegations: SECTION 17(B) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, NASD CONDUCT RULES 2110, 2210(B)(1)(A), 2210(B)(1)(B), AND 3010(A) AND 3010(B) – RESPONDENT RONALD M. HEINEMAN, ON BEHALF OF HIS MEMBER FIRM, FAILED TO MAINTAIN WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT SHOULD BE MET IN THE PREPARATION OF A RESEARCH REPORT. THE WRITTEN PROCEDURES IN PLACE DID NOT CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE RESEARCH REPORTS. RESPONDENT HEINEMAN ACTING ON BEHALF OF HIS MEMBER FIRM, FAILED TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE THE PREPARATION OF RESEARCH REPORTS’ DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE FIRM, HEINEMAN THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORTS AND THE ISSUERS.
- Resolution: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s) Sanctions: Suspension
- Regulator Statement: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE RESPONDENT RONALD M. HEINEMAN CONSENTED TO THE FINDING OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND TO THE FOLLOWING SANCTIONS: SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 30 DAYS AND FINED $22,500.00. THE SUSPENSION WILL COMMENCE WITH THE OPENING OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 2, 2004, AND WILL CONCLUDE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 31, 2004. FINES PAID.
- Broker Comment: NASD BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST ME, THE FIRM AND THE AUTHOR OF RESEARCH REPORTS FOR FAILING TO FULLY DISCLOSE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AND FOR NOT USING SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN PREPARING RESEARCH REPORTS. CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FIRM’S WSP TO ENSURE THAT THE MATTERS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE AWC WILL NOT BE REPEATED.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
- Event Date: 7/23/2001
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: CAF020032
- DocketNumberAAO: 020032
- Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
- Allegations: 07-31-01, NASD RULE 2110 – A MEMBER FIRM, ACTING THROUGH HEINEMAN, UNILATERALLY TERMINATED AN IPO FOR WHICH IT WAS THE LEAD MANAGING UNDERWRITER, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, AFTER FOUR DAYS OF AFTERMARKET TRADING AND REQUESTED NASDAQ TO CANCEL ALL TRADES, CONTRARY TO HIGH STANDARDS OF COMMERCIAL HONOR AND JUST AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OF TRADE, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTIONS TO THE MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING DENYING THE COMPANY ITS PROCEEDS AND BURDENING MEMBERS AND CUSTOMERS WHOSE TRADES HAD TO BE UNWOUND AND CANCELED.
- Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $50,000.00 Sanctions: Suspension
- Sanction Details: OFFER OF SETTLEMENT ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 27, 2002 WHEREIN RESPONDENT IS FINED $50,000, PLUS INTEREST, AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR TWO MONTHS. SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 21, 2003 TO CLOSE OF BUSINESS MARCH 20, 2003.
- Broker Comment: ON JULY 23,2001, NASD REGULATION INC. FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME AND OTHERS ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF NASD MARKETPLACE RULE 2110 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION IN 1998 OF A PROPOSED INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING GALACTICOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THE APPLICANT CONSENTED TO THE NOTED SANCTIONS AND TO FINDINGS THAT APPLICANT VIOLATED NASD RULE 2110 BY CAUSING AN NASD MEMBER FIRM TO CANCEL, PRIOR TO SETTLEMENT, AN IPO WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE MEMBER FIRM WAS ACTING AS CO-LEAD MANAGER.
DISCLOSURE 7 –
- Event Date: 1/26/1989
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: NY-6092-AWC
- DocketNumberAAO: 6092
- Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
- Resolution: Consent
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $3,000.00 Sanctions: Censure
- Broker Comment: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ALLEGATIONS MR. HEINEMAN ACCEPTED AND CONSENTED TO FINDINGS BY THE ASSOCIATION THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III SECT 1 OF THE RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE. ALSO, MR. HEINEMAN CONSENTED TO A SANCTION OF CENSURE AND A 3,000 FINE, JOINT AND SEVERALLY WITH APPLE FINANCIAL.
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.
- HALCYON CABOT PARTNERS, LTD. (CRD#: 32664) :: 8/16/2010 – 10/6/2015 :: NEW YORK, NY
- ARJENT LLC (CRD#: 131431) :: 2/7/2007 – 9/8/2010 :: GREENWICH, CT
- ARJENT LTD. (CRD#: 35909) :: 6/14/1997 – 8/21/2008 :: NEW YORK, NY
- ALEXANDER, WESCOTT, & CO., INC. (CRD#: 35935) :: 5/23/2001 – 5/25/2001 :: UTICA, NY
- TARPON SCURRY INVESTMENTS, INC. (CRD#: 34635) :: 2/2/2000 – 4/24/2000 :: NEW YORK, NY
- SHAMROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES (CRD#: 30998) :: 2/2/2000 – 3/6/2000 :: LAKE SUCCESS, NY
- KIRLIN SECURITIES INC. (CRD#: 21210) :: 9/26/1995 – 6/5/1997 :: SYOSSET, NY
- ATLANTIC GENERAL FINANCIAL CORP. (CRD#: 27272) :: 5/20/1991 – 8/25/1995
- TRIPP & CO., INC. (CRD#: 6967) :: 10/20/1989 – 6/7/1991 :: NEW YORK, NY
- APPLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CRD#: 10375) :: 3/3/1982 – 12/19/1989
- ROMA FINANCIAL, LIMITED (CRD#: 21792) :: 6/29/1988 – 9/19/1989 :: NEW YORK, NY
- BEVILL, BRESLER & SCHULMAN INCORPORATED (CRD#: 6971) :: 9/23/1981 – 3/23/1982
- STATE STREET SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 7528) :: 1/11/1978 – 2/23/1982
- BRUNS, NORDEMAN, REA & CO. (CRD#: 6589) :: 1/27/1981 – 9/4/1981
- SHEARSON LOEB RHOADES INC. (CRD#: 7506) :: 4/9/1980 – 2/23/1981
- ROONEY, PACE INC. (CRD#: 6218) :: 6/27/1979 – 4/10/1980
- RICHARD FRANKLIN, INC. (CRD#: 5977) :: 10/10/1974 – 11/30/1977
- HIBBARD & O’CONNOR SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 6420) :: 8/2/1973 – 11/30/1974
- UMIC, INC. (CRD#: 5974) :: 1/6/1972 – 7/28/1972
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.
Legit or Not?
Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including Ronald Mark Heineman, 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.
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.
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 Ronald Heineman
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
Ronald Mark Heineman – 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 (241924) for the broker – Ronald Mark Heineman
- 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.