Registered Index-Linked Annuities — commonly known as RILAs or buffer annuities — are among the fastest-selling investment products in the United States. Brokers market them as offering stock-market participation with built-in downside protection through buffer or floor mechanisms. What brokers frequently omit is the full picture: RILAs carry surrender charges, cap rates that limit upside, and buffer structures that still expose investors to significant losses when markets fall sharply enough. When a broker recommends a RILA to an investor whose risk tolerance or liquidity needs make it unsuitable — or misrepresents how the product works — the result can be significant financial harm.
Varnavides Law, PC represents investors in California and nationwide in FINRA arbitration claims against broker-dealers for unsuitable RILA recommendations and misrepresentation. The firm’s defense-side background gives Gary Varnavides direct insight into how broker-dealer defenses are built — and where they are vulnerable.
Key Takeaways
- RILAs are securities: Broker-dealers who recommend RILAs are subject to Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), FINRA suitability rules, and state securities laws — including California Corporations Code § 25401.
- FINRA Rule 12206 is an eligibility rule, not a statute of limitations: It makes claims ineligible for FINRA arbitration when more than six years have elapsed from the event giving rise to the claim — but dismissal under this rule does not bar court proceedings.
- Four Reg BI obligations apply: 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1 requires every RILA recommendation to satisfy the Disclosure, Care, Conflict of Interest, and Compliance obligations under 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(2)(i)-(iv).
- Time limits are real and unforgiving: Rule 10b-5 / 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) claims carry a 5-year repose period under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b). § 1658(b) requires that no federal securities fraud claim may proceed once 5 years have elapsed from the violation — not subject to equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment. California investors also face a parallel 5-year deadline under Cal. Corp. Code § 25506(b).
- Recovery is possible: FINRA arbitration provides investors a streamlined path to seek rescission, compensatory damages, and fees from the broker-dealer that recommended an unsuitable or misrepresented product.
What Is a Registered Index-Linked Annuity?
A Registered Index-Linked Annuity is an insurance contract issued by an insurance company and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a security. That registration distinguishes RILAs from traditional fixed-indexed annuities (FIAs), which are insurance products regulated solely at the state level. Because RILAs are registered securities, their sale is subject to federal securities law and FINRA oversight — which means the broker who recommends one owes you legal duties that go well beyond what an insurance agent selling a non-registered product would owe.
RILAs use two core structural features to define their risk-return profile:
- Buffer: A buffer absorbs a defined percentage of index losses before the investor experiences any loss. For example, a 10% buffer means the investor is protected from the first 10% of index decline. If the index falls 15%, the investor loses 5%. If the index falls 25%, the investor loses 15%. The buffer does not protect against catastrophic declines — the investor absorbs all losses in excess of the buffer percentage.
- Floor: A floor sets the maximum percentage of the index loss that the investor will bear. A -10% floor caps the investor’s loss at 10% for the crediting period, regardless of how far the index falls. Floors provide more downside certainty than buffers but typically come with tighter cap rates on the upside.
In exchange for this partial protection, RILAs limit upside participation through a cap rate, participation rate, or spread. A cap rate of 12%, for instance, means that even if the index gains 30%, the investor’s credit is 12%. The product is designed so that the insurance company retains the excess gains above the cap.
These features are not inherently fraudulent — but they are complex. Misrepresentation occurs when brokers characterize a RILA’s buffer as equivalent to full principal protection, fail to disclose the cap rate, or omit the surrender charge schedule during the sales process. Suitability violations occur when a broker recommends a six-year surrender period to an investor who needs liquidity within two years, or recommends an aggressive cap-and-buffer structure to a conservative investor whose profile calls for capital preservation.
How Brokers Commit Misconduct With RILA Products
Common RILA Misconduct Patterns
FINRA’s 2025 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report identified Registered Index-Linked Annuities as a new focus area for regulatory oversight, noting deficiencies in how broker-dealers handle RILA sales — including inadequate suitability documentation and disclosure failures. These are the most frequently alleged misconduct patterns in RILA investor claims:
Based on Gary Varnavides’s experience representing investors in complex investment product disputes, the following misconduct patterns appear with notable regularity in RILA claims:
- Risk tolerance mismatch: Brokers recommend products with buffer structures or crediting methodologies that are inappropriate for the investor’s actual risk tolerance. A conservative investor who told her broker she wanted capital preservation should not be holding a RILA with a 10% buffer and a 5-year surrender schedule — but this mismatch is common.
- Misrepresentation of the buffer as “protection”: Brokers routinely describe the buffer as making the product “safe” or “protected” without explaining that losses exceeding the buffer are fully borne by the investor. In a significant market decline, an investor in a RILA with a 10% buffer can still lose 20%, 30%, or more.
- Failure to disclose surrender charges: RILAs typically impose surrender charges during the initial contract period — often 6 to 8 years — that penalize early withdrawal. An investor who needs to access funds before the surrender period expires can face steep charges reducing the net amount returned. Brokers who fail to discuss surrender charges in concrete terms violate their disclosure obligations.
- Cap rate obscured or omitted: The cap rate is the most important constraint on upside participation and a critical element of the product’s value proposition. Brokers who present only the buffer — without explaining that a 12% cap means the investor cannot benefit from years when the index gains 20% or more — are giving an incomplete and misleading picture.
- Churning from fixed annuity or variable annuity: Some brokers recommend switching an investor from a mature fixed annuity or variable annuity into a RILA primarily to earn a new commission, triggering surrender charges on the old product and resetting the surrender period on the new one. This exchange is potentially actionable as an unsuitable switch, an excessive-transaction violation, or a breach of the Care Obligation under Reg BI.
- Mischaracterizing the crediting methodology: RILAs use various index crediting methods — point-to-point, monthly average, daily average — that can produce dramatically different outcomes even with identical buffer and cap parameters. Brokers who do not explain the crediting methodology leave investors without information necessary to evaluate the product.
The “Safe Money” Sales Script Is Often Misleading
Brokers marketing RILAs frequently use language like “safe money,” “protected growth,” or “downside protection with upside potential” without explaining that the buffer has a ceiling. An investor holding a RILA during a 35% market correction with a 10% buffer absorbs a 25% loss — hardly the “safe money” outcome the sales pitch suggested. If that description drove your decision to buy, the broker may have violated both Reg BI and FINRA suitability rules.
The Regulatory Framework: Reg BI, FINRA Rule 2111 Suitability, and California Securities Law
Because RILAs are registered securities, their sale is governed by a multi-layered regulatory framework. Understanding how these rules interact is essential to evaluating whether a broker-dealer’s conduct was legally adequate.
Reg BI — Four Obligations Under SEC Release No. 34-86031 and 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1
Effective June 30, 2020, Reg BI (17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1, SEC Release No. 34-86031) requires broker-dealers making recommendations of securities — including RILAs — to retail customers to act in the customer’s best interest at the time of the recommendation. This is a higher standard than the prior suitability standard: “best interest” under 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(1) requires that the broker act without placing the broker’s or firm’s financial interest ahead of the retail customer’s interest. The “not placed ahead of” standard means that a broker with a financial incentive to sell a product may still have violated Reg BI if that incentive caused the broker to prioritize the firm’s interest over the customer’s — the violation turns on displacement, not merely the existence of an incentive.
17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1 imposes four distinct Reg BI obligations under § 240.15l-1(a)(2):
Disclosure Obligation — 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(2)(i)
Before or at the time of a recommendation, the broker must disclose material facts about the scope and terms of the relationship, all fees and costs associated with the recommendation, the type and scope of services provided, and all material conflicts of interest. For RILAs, this means disclosing surrender charge schedules, cap rates, participation rates, and how broker compensation is structured.
Care Obligation — 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(2)(ii)
The broker must exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill in understanding the risks, rewards, and costs of the RILA and in having a reasonable basis to believe it is in the specific retail customer’s best interest based on that customer’s investment profile.
Conflict of Interest Obligation — 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(2)(iii)
The broker-dealer must establish written policies and procedures to identify and disclose all conflicts of interest, mitigate conflicts that may bias the recommendation, and eliminate compensation arrangements — such as sales contests or quotas for specific annuity products — that create an incentive to favor the broker’s interest over the customer’s.
Compliance Obligation — 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1(a)(2)(iv)
The broker-dealer must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg BI as a whole. Systematic failure to implement and monitor RILA-specific compliance procedures can establish liability at the firm level, not just the individual registered representative.
FINRA Suitability Rules
FINRA Rule 2111 imposes three suitability obligations on member firms and their registered representatives: (1) reasonable-basis suitability — the product must be suitable for at least some investors based on adequate due diligence on the product itself; (2) customer-specific suitability — the recommendation must be suitable for this particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs; and (3) quantitative suitability — a series of recommendations, even if individually suitable, must not be excessive in light of the customer’s profile.
Following the Reg BI compliance date of June 30, 2020, 17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1 requires that Reg BI serve as the operative standard for retail-customer recommendations, with FINRA having stated that Reg BI compliance generally satisfies Rule 2111 for retail customers. Rule 2111 remains in force for non-retail and certain institutional contexts. Both rules are assertable in FINRA arbitration.
FINRA Rule 2330 governs recommended purchases and exchanges of deferred variable annuities specifically — requiring principal review and approval within seven business days and suitability documentation by the recommending representative. While Rule 2330’s mandatory requirements apply to variable annuities, not RILAs by their terms, FINRA’s 2025 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report identifies the application of Rule 2330 principles to RILA sales as an effective practice. Regardless of whether Rule 2330 applies by its terms to a given RILA transaction, the underlying suitability and disclosure standards under Rule 2111, Reg BI, and Rules 2090 and 2010 create enforceable obligations for every RILA recommendation.
FINRA Rule 2010 requires member firms to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade — a broadly applicable conduct standard that FINRA arbitration panels frequently invoke in investment product misconduct cases alongside suitability and Reg BI theories.
California Corporations Code § 25401
California investors have an additional, parallel recovery path under state securities law. California Corporations Code § 25401 makes it unlawful for any person to offer or sell a security in California by means of any written or oral communication that includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made — in light of the circumstances under which they were made — not misleading. This prohibition mirrors the federal Rule 10b-5 anti-fraud standard but operates under California law and is often assertable in FINRA arbitration alongside federal theories.
Filing a FINRA Arbitration Claim for RILA Losses
For most investors with RILA losses, FINRA arbitration is the primary recovery forum. FINRA administers a mandatory arbitration program under Rule 12200: disputes between customers and FINRA member firms (or their associated persons) arising in connection with the firm’s business activities are arbitrable, and most brokerage agreements include pre-dispute arbitration clauses that require FINRA arbitration as the exclusive forum.
How the Process Works
The investor (claimant) initiates arbitration by filing a Statement of Claim with FINRA’s arbitration program. The claim identifies the respondents (the broker-dealer firm and, typically, the individual registered representative), the factual basis for the claims, and the damages sought. FINRA serves the respondents, who file an Answer. The parties then proceed through a discovery process, arbitrator selection, and hearings.
For claims over $100,000, FINRA Rule 12403 provides a default panel of three arbitrators: two public (non-industry) and one non-public (industry) arbitrator. Customers may elect an all-public panel, replacing the single non-public arbitrator with a third public arbitrator — removing arbitrators with current or recent professional ties to the broker-dealer industry from the panel.
| Claim Amount | Panel Composition | All-Public Panel Option |
|---|---|---|
| $50,000 or less | Simplified arbitration (single arbitrator, no hearing) | N/A — simplified arbitration |
| $50,001 – $100,000 | One arbitrator (public) | N/A — single-arbitrator proceeding uses a public arbitrator by default; no industry arbitrator is present |
| Over $100,000 | Three arbitrators (default includes one non-public) | Available by customer election under Rule 12403 — all three arbitrators would be public |
What to Expect — Timing and Outcomes
According to FINRA’s 2024 Dispute Resolution Statistics, the overall median time to close a customer arbitration case was approximately 11.8 months. Cases that proceed to a hearing take longer — approximately 16.8 months — while cases resolved through paper decisions average 5.7 months. In 2024, approximately 68% of closed customer cases were resolved through settlement or mediation before a final hearing — about 56% through direct negotiation between the parties and an additional 12% through FINRA’s mediation program. For cases decided by arbitration award in 2024, customers received damages in approximately 31% of decisions. This figure covers all arbitration award decisions — including paper decisions, simplified arbitration, and cases decided at hearing.
These statistics reflect all types of securities disputes. Individual case outcomes vary based on the strength of the evidence, the specific misconduct alleged, the broker-dealer’s resources, and the quality of legal representation. A RILA case grounded in documented misrepresentation of product features, clear risk-tolerance mismatch, or a demonstrable pattern of unsuitable recommendations typically has stronger prospects than a case based solely on poor market performance.
FINRA Rule 12206: The Eligibility Rule (Not a Statute of Limitations)
A Critical Distinction: Eligibility vs. Statute of Limitations
FINRA Rule 12206(a) is frequently mischaracterized as a “statute of limitations” for arbitration claims. It is not. Rule 12206 is an eligibility rule under FINRA’s Customer Code. Panels may decline to arbitrate a claim when more than six years have elapsed from the event giving rise to the claim. If a claim is dismissed under Rule 12206, that dismissal does not prevent the investor from pursuing the same claim in court — and Rule 12206(c) explicitly states that it does not extend any applicable statutes of limitations.
The verbatim text of FINRA Rule 12206(a) states: “No claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under the Code where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim.” The rule has three important operational features:
- Panel-decided: Whether a claim is time-barred under Rule 12206 is a threshold question decided by the arbitration panel, not a court.
- No tolling of court limitations periods: Rule 12206(c) expressly states that the rule “does not extend applicable statutes of limitations.” An investor who misses the FINRA arbitration window may still have viable court claims if the applicable state or federal limitations period has not yet run.
- Court-directed arbitration exception: The six-year limit does not apply to any claim directed to arbitration by a court.
The practical implication: if your RILA was purchased more than four years ago, do not assume that your claim is time-barred. The full time-limit analysis is more complex and requires examining both the FINRA eligibility rule and the applicable court limitations periods.
Federal and California Statutes of Limitations for RILA Claims
Claims outside of FINRA arbitration — or claims where the FINRA eligibility period has passed — may proceed in federal or state court, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and repose periods.
Federal Securities Fraud (Rule 10b-5 / 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b))
A federal securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5) and 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) is subject to the limitations period established by 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b): the earlier of (1) two years after discovery of the facts constituting the violation, or (2) five years after the violation itself. The five-year period is a statute of repose under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(2)’s “in no event” language — not subject to equitable tolling. California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 2042 (2017). Once five years have elapsed from the underlying violation, the federal securities fraud claim is extinguished regardless of when the investor discovered the misconduct. This makes the date of the challenged transaction — not the date of discovery — the controlling deadline for the five-year repose analysis. Separately, the two-year discovery period runs from when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation, including the defendant’s scienter — not from mere inquiry notice. Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 650 (2010).
California Securities Fraud (Corp. Code § 25401 / § 25506)
Claims under California Corporations Code § 25401 are subject to the limitations period established by California Corporations Code § 25506(b): the earlier of (1) five years after the act or transaction constituting the violation, or (2) two years after the plaintiff discovered the facts constituting the violation. The California standard is similar to the federal repose structure but applies its own five-year outer limit running from the transaction date.
| Claim | Discovery Period | Outer Limit | Tolling |
|---|---|---|---|
| FINRA Arbitration (Rule 12206 eligibility) | N/A — eligibility-based | 6 years from event | Panel decides; does not extend court limitations |
| Federal § 10(b) / Rule 10b-5 | 2 years from discovery | 5 years from violation (repose — no tolling) | No equitable tolling for the 5-year repose |
| California Corp. Code § 25401 | 2 years from discovery | 5 years from transaction | Whichever deadline expires first bars the claim |
What Damages Can Investors Recover?
In a successful FINRA arbitration or court proceeding for RILA losses, investors may seek several categories of damages. The specific remedy depends on the legal theory asserted and the facts of the case.
Rescission / Out-of-Pocket Losses
Return of the amount invested, less any distributions received. For a RILA purchased with $200,000 where the investor has received no distributions and the current account value is $140,000, the out-of-pocket loss is $60,000, plus any surrender charges incurred.
Pre-Award Interest
Arbitration panels routinely award pre-award interest on compensatory damages, often calculated from the date of the challenged transaction through the date of the award. This can meaningfully increase the total recovery in cases with older transactions.
Alternative Investment Return
Under a rescission theory, an investor may recover what the invested funds would have earned in a suitable alternative investment during the same holding period — the opportunity cost of the unsuitable recommendation.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Arbitration panels have discretion to award attorneys’ fees and costs where the respondent acted in bad faith or where applicable law provides for fee-shifting. FINRA arbitration filing fees paid by the claimant are typically recoverable as costs if the investor prevails.
Punitive Damages
Available in egregious cases involving willful misconduct or intentional fraud, though panels award them infrequently. Subject to the legal standards and caps of the jurisdiction whose law governs the claim.
Surrender Charges
If the misconduct involved recommending a RILA exchange from a prior annuity, or if the claim requires the investor to surrender the RILA early, surrender charges incurred as a direct result of the broker’s misconduct are recoverable as a component of compensatory damages.
The Insider Advantage: Gary Varnavides’s Background
Gary Varnavides spent more than 10 years at Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP defending broker-dealers in FINRA arbitrations and securities matters before founding Varnavides Law to represent investors. Licensed in California and New York, he has been recognized as a New York Super Lawyers Rising Stars honoree from 2015 through 2023 (top 2.5% in New York Metro), received the IMCA Richard J. Davis Legal/Regulatory/Ethics Award for his publication “The Flawed State of Broker-Dealer Regulation,” and earned his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 2010 as Editor-in-Chief of the Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law.
That defense-side background matters in RILA cases. Broker-dealer defense strategy in product-liability arbitrations follows predictable patterns: challenging investor sophistication, arguing the client accepted disclosed risks through application documents, and attributing losses to market conditions rather than misconduct. Varnavides Law builds investor claims from the outset with these defenses in view — and with direct experience in where they hold and where they fail.
How We Evaluate a RILA Fraud Claim
Not every investor who lost money in a RILA has a viable misconduct claim. Product-level market losses during a downturn that exceeded the buffer — absent misrepresentation or suitability failure — may not support a claim on their own. Our evaluation of a RILA claim typically focuses on the following questions:
- What did the broker tell you about the product’s downside protection, and what do the application documents say? Is there a documented mismatch between the sales pitch and the product’s actual features?
- What was your investment profile at the time of the recommendation — risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, other assets — and how does the product’s risk-return structure align with that profile?
- How was the broker compensated for the sale? Was there a commission structure or sales incentive that created a conflict of interest the broker did not disclose?
- Were there surrender charges incurred in the course of the misconduct — for example, from switching out of a prior annuity — that add to the quantifiable harm?
- When did the transaction occur, and are the applicable time limits still open?
Varnavides Law offers a free consultation. Fee arrangements vary by matter and are discussed during consultation. Case costs (which may include filing fees and other arbitration-related expenses) are also discussed during your free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
My broker says RILAs aren’t subject to FINRA arbitration. Is that true?
No. RILAs are registered securities, and the broker-dealer that recommended one to you is a FINRA member subject to FINRA’s arbitration rules. FINRA Rule 12200 gives customers the right to arbitrate disputes with FINRA members — and their registered representatives — that arise in connection with the member’s business activities. A RILA recommendation is a business activity of the broker-dealer. Most brokerage account agreements also contain pre-dispute arbitration clauses requiring FINRA arbitration. The broker’s claim is incorrect.
Is a RILA the same as a variable annuity? Do the same rules apply?
RILAs and variable annuities are both registered securities, but they are structurally different products governed by partially different rules. Variable annuities invest in subaccounts similar to mutual funds and expose investors to market losses without a buffer or floor (unless the contract includes specific riders). RILAs use index crediting with a buffer or floor mechanism. FINRA Rule 2330 — which requires principal review and approval for variable annuity recommendations — applies by its terms to variable annuities, not RILAs. However, the underlying suitability standards (FINRA Rule 2111), the Reg BI best-interest obligation (17 C.F.R. § 240.15l-1), and the anti-fraud prohibitions (Rule 2020, Rule 10b-5 / 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), California Corporations Code § 25401) all apply to both product types.
What is a “buffer” versus a “floor” in a RILA, and does it matter for my claim?
Yes, the distinction matters. A buffer absorbs a defined percentage of index losses from the top down: with a 10% buffer, the investor loses nothing if the index falls up to 10%, but absorbs all losses beyond that (an index fall of 25% means the investor loses 15%). A floor sets the maximum loss the investor can suffer: with a -10% floor, the investor’s maximum loss for the crediting period is 10%, regardless of how far the index falls. Whether your broker accurately explained which structure your product uses — and what it means in practice for large market declines — is directly relevant to misrepresentation and disclosure claims.
I bought my RILA four years ago. Am I too late to file a claim?
Not necessarily, but timing is urgent. The FINRA eligibility rule (Rule 12206) bars claims from arbitration when more than six years have elapsed from the event giving rise to the claim — so a four-year-old transaction is still within the FINRA window. For federal securities fraud claims under Rule 10b-5 / 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), you have two years from discovery of the facts and an absolute five-year repose period from the violation. The five-year repose is not subject to tolling — once it passes, the federal claim is extinguished. California Corporations Code § 25506(b) applies the earlier of two years from discovery or five years from the transaction. You should consult with a RILA fraud attorney immediately to determine which deadlines apply and which are still open.
My annuity is still in the surrender charge period. Can I still file a claim?
Yes. Surrender charges during an active surrender period do not bar an investor from filing a FINRA arbitration claim. If the broker’s misconduct is established, the arbitration panel can award damages that include surrender charges the investor would incur in accessing funds early, and potentially the full amount lost as a result of the unsuitable or misrepresented recommendation. The existence of a surrender period does not shield the broker-dealer or supervising firm from liability for the underlying misconduct. Note: FINRA arbitration claims are brought against the registered broker-dealer who sold the RILA and their supervising firm — not against the insurance company that issued the product. Whether separate claims against the insurance company issuer are available depends on the specific facts and applicable law; that analysis is outside the scope of a FINRA arbitration claim.
The broker’s firm says my losses were caused by market conditions, not misconduct. How do you address that defense?
Market conditions are the most common defense in investment product arbitrations. The response depends on the specific theory of liability. For a suitability or Reg BI claim, the question is not whether the market caused the loss — it is whether the recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made, regardless of subsequent market movement. For a misrepresentation claim, the question is whether the investor would have purchased the product had accurate disclosures been made. Damages in a rescission-based theory may include not just the market loss but also what the investor would have earned in a suitable alternative investment. Varnavides Law’s defense-side background informs how we structure claims to withstand these arguments from the outset.
Does Varnavides Law handle RILA claims outside of California?
Yes. FINRA arbitration proceedings are not state-bar-bound — Varnavides Law represents investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration. Gary Varnavides holds California and New York bar admissions and has federal court credentials in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and Central District of California. For California investors, the firm also handles state court claims under the California Corporations Code and other California securities laws.
What do I need to bring to a free consultation about my RILA losses?
The most useful documents are: the original RILA application and product illustration provided by the broker, your brokerage account statements showing the purchase and subsequent performance, any marketing materials or emails you received from the broker before or during the sales process, and the annuity contract itself. If you have records of conversations with the broker (notes, emails, texts), bring those too. Even if you have none of these documents, we can usually obtain them through the discovery process once a claim is filed — but the application documents and account statements are particularly valuable for the initial evaluation.
How Varnavides Law Handles RILA Annuity Claims
If you experienced significant losses in a Registered Index-Linked Annuity and believe your broker misrepresented how the product works, recommended it without regard to your risk tolerance or liquidity needs, or failed to disclose material terms including surrender charges and cap rates, you may have a viable claim in FINRA arbitration.
Varnavides Law represents investors in California and nationwide in FINRA arbitration claims. Our defense-side background means we understand how broker-dealers prepare these cases—and how to counter those strategies effectively. Fee arrangements vary by matter and are discussed during a free consultation.
Speak With a RILA Annuity Fraud Lawyer
The time limits on RILA claims are real and, for the federal statute of repose, not subject to extension. If you believe you have a claim, schedule a free consultation.