William John Scholander – 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 William John Scholander.
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 William John Scholander. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.
About William Scholander
William John Scholander is an Investment Adviser. William John Scholander’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 2938044 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2938044.
Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for William John Scholander.
William John Scholander 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 William John Scholander’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.
DISCLOSURE 1 –
- Event Date: 9/2/2016
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
- Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: SEC Admin Release 34-78768 / September 2, 2016: The Securities and Exchange Commission (\Commission\) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (\Exchange Act\) against William Scholander ( espondent\). On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that on August 8, 2016, a judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jason Cope et al., Civil Action Number 14 Civ. 7575, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also, on April 20, 2016, Scholander pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1348, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, and one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in United States v. William Scholander et al., Crim. Indictment No. 1:15-cr-335.
- Resolution: Order
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: see comment
- Start Date: 9/2/2016
DISCLOSURE 2 –
- Event Date: 9/9/2015
- Disclosure Type: Criminal
- Disclosure Resolution: Final Disposition
- Disclosure Detail :: Criminal Charges :: Charges: Wire Fraud
- Disposition: Pled guilty Charges: 18 USC 1349 Conspiracy to Commit Securities and Wire Fraud; 18 USC 1348 Securities Fraud; 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud
- Disposition: Pled guilty
DISCLOSURE 3 –
- Event Date: 6/15/2015
- Disclosure Type: Civil
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- Allegations: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the \Commission\) alleges that this case concerns a series of sophisticated fraudulent schemes orchestrated by an individual and a series of confederates. These schemes involved the control and manipulation of the common stock of various microcap issuers, including Lenco Mobile Inc., with the ticker symbol LNCM (\Lenco\); Kensington Leasing, Ltd., with the ticker symbol KNSL (\Kensington Leasing\); Wikifamilies Inc., with the ticker symbol WFAM (\Wikifamilies\); Casablanca Mining Ltd., with the ticker symbol CUAU (\Casablanca\); Lustros Inc. with the ticker symbol LSTS (\Lustros\); and Gepco, Ltd., with the ticker symbol GEPC (\Gepco\). Collectively, these issuers will be referred to as the \Fraudulent Issuers.\ The schemes, which took place between approximately 2008 and 2014, followed the same general blueprint: the individual would cause each issuer to issue tens of millions of shares of restricted stock to him and his nominees, which he then used for two types of illegal distributions. In the first type of illegal distribution, the individual, along with his confederates, illegally sold the shares into the public market, often by inducing Scholander, and others (the egistered Representative Defendants\), to place buy orders in their customers’ accounts with the purpose of matching trades with the individual’s sales. In the second type of illegal distribution, the individual and his confederates paid unregistered individuals undisclosed commissions to sell his shares to investors in purported private placements. In both, the individual, the Registered Representative Defendants, and unregistered individuals frequently made misrepresentations and omissions to investors in connection with the sales of these shares. Scholander directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, has engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business that constitute violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder.
- Resolution: Judgment Rendered
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Injunction
- Sanctions: bar
DISCLOSURE 4 –
- Event Date: 1/20/2015
- Disclosure Type: Employment Separation After Allegations
- Disclosure Resolution:
- Disclosure Detail :: Firm Name: RADNOR RESEARCH & TRADING COMPANY LLC
- Termination Type: Discharged
- Allegations: A DECISION OF THE NAC TO UPHOLD THE SANCTION PLACED ON MR. SCHOLANDER BY A FINRA HEARING PANEL.
DISCLOSURE 5 –
- Event Date: 1/5/2015
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2013036681701
- DocketNumberAAO: 2013036681701
- Initiated By: FINRA
- Allegations: SCHOLANDER WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HE WILLFULLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT ON HIS FORM U4. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE WRITTEN CUSTOMER COMPLAINT ALLEGED A SALES PRACTICE VIOLATION AND CONTAINED A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINT AND EVEN AFTER REPEATED NOTICE FROM FINRA, SCHOLANDER NEVER DISCLOSED IT ON HIS FORM U4, WHICH REMAINS INACCURATE TO THIS DAY.
- Resolution: Decision
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
- Sanction Details :: Amount: $50,000.00 Sanctions: Suspension
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: Any capacity
- Duration: six months
- Start Date: 12/19/2016
- End Date: 6/18/2017
- Regulator Statement: Amended default decision rendered October 18, 2016 wherein respondent Scholander is suspended in all capacities for six months and is fined $50,000. The sanctions are based on findings that Scholander willfully failed to disclose a customer complaint on his Form U4. The findings stated that the written customer complaint alleged a sales practice violation and contained a claim for compensatory damages. The findings also stated that despite knowledge of the customer complaint and even after repeated notice from FINRA, Scholander never disclosed it on his Form U4, which remains inaccurate to this day. This default decision is amended to clarify that Scholander is suspended in all capacities. The decision became final on November 15, 2016.
DISCLOSURE 6 –
- Event Date: 8/7/2012
- Disclosure Type: Judgment / Lien
- Disclosure Resolution:
- Disclosure Detail :: Judgment/Lien Amount: $34,857.00
- Judgment/Lien Type: Civil
- Broker Comment: MR. SCHOLANDER IS CURRENTLY DISPUTING THIS LIEN.
DISCLOSURE 7 –
- Event Date: 1/31/2012
- Disclosure Type: Regulatory
- Disclosure Resolution: Final
- Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2009019108901
- DocketNumberAAO: 2009019108901
- Initiated By: FINRA
- Allegations: WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, RULE 10B-5 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, VIOLATED FINRA RULES 2010, 2020, NASD RULE 3110, 3030: SCHOLANDER AND THREE INDIVIDUALS ENTERED INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH A COMPANY, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COMPANY WAS TO PAY THEM $350,000 TO PERFORM FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES. THE COMPANY PAID THEM $350,000, ALTHOUGH NO ADVISORY SERVICES WERE PROVIDED, AND THEY USED THE MONEY TO START A BRANCH OF A MEMBER FIRM. SCHOLANDER, ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS, AND BROKERS AT THE BRANCH WORKING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION SOLICITED AND RECOMMENDED THE PURCHASE OF OVER $2.8 MILLION OF COMPANY STOCK TO FIRM CUSTOMERS. SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL KNEW AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATIONS OF THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY THAT THE FIRM, THE BRANCH, AND THEY PERSONALLY HAD BENEFITED FROM THE $350,000 PAYMENT MADE BY THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT. SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY OR THE $350,000 PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANY TO ANY CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THEY SOLICITED A PURCHASE OF COMPANY STOCK OR THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES WHO WORKED UNDER THEIR DIRECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. BY THEIR FAILURE, SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL CAUSED THE OTHER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES TO FAIL TO DISCLOSE THE AGREEMENT AND THE PAYMENT. THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY AND THE $350,000 PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANY WERE MATERIAL INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH A REASONABLE INVESTOR WOULD HAVE WANTED TO KNOW. THEIR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY AND THE $350,000 PAYMENT WAS INTENTIONAL, OR AT A MINIMUM RECKLESS. AT THE TIME, SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL ENTERED INTO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY AND RECEIVED THE $350,000 PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL WERE EMPLOYED BY AND REGISTERED WITH ANOTHER FINRA MEMBER FIRM. SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL FAILED TO DISCLOSE THEIR OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITY TO THE FIRM, IN WRITING OR OTHERWISE. THE FIRM HAD AN EXISTING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO WHICH IT HAD PROVIDED FINANCIAL CONSULTING AND INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES. AT THE TIME SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT, THEY KNEW THEY WOULD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THAT ARRANGEMENT. SCHOLANDER PERFORMED SERVICES AND THE INDIVIDUAL ANTICIPATED PERFORMING SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY, AND THEY BENEFITED FINANCIALLY FROM THE AGREEMENT. SCHOLANDER AND THE INDIVIDUAL ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF A MEMBER FIRM, AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, UNDER WHICH THE FIRM PAID $350,000 TO THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL FOR BRANCH EXPENSES AND COMMISSIONS EARNED BY SCHOLANDER AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS. BY ARRANGING FOR A LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF $350,000 OF COMMISSIONS AND EXPENSES TO AN INDIVIDUAL ALONE IN A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, SCHOLANDER, ACTING WITH OTHERS, CAUSED THE FIRM’S BOOKS AND RECORDS TO BE FALSE AND MISLEADING IN NOT REFLECTING THE ACTUAL COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SECURITIES.
- Resolution: Decision
- Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
- Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: All Capacities
- Duration: Indefinite
- Start Date: 12/29/2014
- Regulator Statement: HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED AUGUST 16, 2013 WHEREIN SCHOLANDER IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR COMMITTING FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER AND FINRA RULES 2010 AND 2020. SCHOLANDER ENGAGED IN OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHOUT GIVING PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO HIS FIRM, IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULE 3030. IN LIGHT OF THE BAR, NO ADDITIONAL SANCTION IS IMPOSED FOR THIS VIOLATION. THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THAT SCHOLANDER CAUSED A BOOKS AND RECORDS VIOLATION, IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULE 3110, IS DISMISSED. THE HEARING PANEL FINDS THAT ENFORCEMENT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT SCHOLANDER CAUSED THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF HIS FIRM TO BE FALSE AND INACCURATE. SCHOLANDER IS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,904.89. THE ASSESSED COSTS SHALL BE DUE ON A DATE SET BY FINRA, BUT NOT SOONER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THIS DECISION BECOMES FINRA’S FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN THIS PROCEEDING. ON AUGUST 30, 2013, SCHOLANDER APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL (NAC). NAC DECISION RENDERED DECEMBER 29, 2014 WHEREIN THE NAC AFFIRMED THE HEARING PANEL’S FINDINGS AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED. THE BAR IS IN EFFECT AS OF DECEMBER 29, 2014. THE NAC ALSO IMPOSED APPEAL COSTS OF $1,319.04. SCHOLANDER’S WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 GIVES RISE TO A STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION. ON JANUARY 28, 2015, SCHOLANDER APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC). THE BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT. SEC RELEASE 34-74437, MARCH 4, 2015: IT IS ORDERED THAT, PENDING THE SEC’S REVIEW OF HIS APPEAL, APPLICANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE SANCTIONS FINRA IMPOSED IS DENIED. SEC decision rendered March 31, 2016 wherein the findings of violations and sanctions imposed are sustained. The decision became final May 31, 2016.
- Broker Comment: HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED AUGUST 16, 2013 WHEREIN SCHOLANDER IS BARRED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR COMMITTING FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER AND FINRA RULES 2010 AND 2020. SCHOLANDER ENGAGED IN OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHOUT GIVING PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO HIS FIRM, IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULE 3030. IN LIGHT OF THE BAR, NO ADDITIONAL SANCTION IS IMPOSED FOR THIS VIOLATION. THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THAT SCHOLANDER CAUSED A BOOKS AND RECORDS VIOLATION, IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULE 3110, IS DISMISSED. THE HEARING PANEL FINDS THAT ENFORCEMENT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT SCHOLANDER CAUSED THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF HIS FIRM TO BE FALSE AND INACCURATE. SCHOLANDER IS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,904.89. THE ASSESSED COSTS SHALL BE DUE ON A DATE SET BY FINRA, BUT NOT SOONER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THIS DECISION BECOMES FINRA’S FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN THIS PROCEEDING. ON AUGUST 30, 2013, SCHOLANDER APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL (NAC). NAC DECISION RENDERED DECEMBER 29, 2014 WHEREIN THE NAC AFFIRMED THE HEARING PANEL’S FINDINGS AND SANCTIONS IMPOSED. THE BAR IS IN EFFECT AS OF DECEMBER 29, 2014. THE NAC ALSO IMPOSED APPEAL COSTS OF $1,319.04. SCHOLANDER’S WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 GIVES RISE TO A STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION. IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN, THE DECISION WILL BE FINAL ON FEBRUARY 2, 2015.
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.
- RADNOR RESEARCH & TRADING COMPANY LLC (CRD#: 130120) :: 5/13/2011 – 1/20/2015 :: NEW YORK, NY
- FIRST MERGER CAPITAL, INC (CRD#: 44083) :: 2/15/2010 – 4/1/2011 :: NEW YORK, NY
- SEABOARD SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 755) :: 3/11/2009 – 2/22/2010 :: NEW YORK, NY
- MARTINEZ-AYME SECURITIES (CRD#: 109838) :: 10/23/2008 – 3/19/2009 :: NEW YORK, NY
- BASIC INVESTORS INC. (CRD#: 1187) :: 7/20/2007 – 10/24/2008 :: NEW YORK, NY
- LEGEND SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 44952) :: 4/2/2007 – 7/27/2007 :: NEW YORK, NY
- NEW YORK GLOBAL SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 46429) :: 6/27/2003 – 3/12/2007 :: NEW YORK, NY
- BENCHMARK SECURITIES GROUP, INC. (CRD#: 103760) :: 12/17/2002 – 7/9/2003 :: OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
- HARRISON SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 14103) :: 1/11/2002 – 6/28/2002 :: PORT WASHINGTON, NY
- PRESTIGE FINANCIAL CENTER, INC. (CRD#: 30407) :: 6/14/2000 – 3/15/2001 :: NEW YORK, NY
- CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC (CRD#: 41464) :: 3/13/1999 – 6/27/2000 :: GARDEN CITY, NY
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 William John Scholander, 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 William Scholander
In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.
William John Scholander – 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 (2938044) for the broker – William John Scholander
- 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.