Stifel Financial Corp., one of the largest brokerage firms in the United States with over $514 billion in client assets, has faced mounting regulatory scrutiny and record-breaking arbitration awards in recent years. In March 2025, a FINRA arbitration panel ordered Stifel to pay $132.5 million to investors, the largest retail award in FINRA history. If you suffered investment losses due to Stifel broker misconduct, unsuitable recommendations, or structured notes fraud, you may have legal options to recover your money.
Key Takeaways
- Stifel has faced $176+ million in damages tied to a single broker’s structured notes misconduct
- The March 2025 FINRA award of $132.5 million is the largest retail arbitration award ever
- Common claims include unsuitable investments, overconcentration, and failure to supervise
- FINRA arbitration offers a faster path to recovery than traditional litigation
- A securities attorney with broker-dealer defense experience can strengthen your case
Understanding Stifel Financial and Recent Enforcement Actions
Stifel Financial Corp. (NYSE: SF) is a financial services holding company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Through its primary broker-dealer subsidiary, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, the firm provides investment services to private clients, institutional investors, and investment banking clients across the country.
Despite its 134-year operating history and record-setting $3.3 billion in Global Wealth Management revenue in 2024, Stifel has accumulated a troubling regulatory record. According to FINRA BrokerCheck, the firm has approximately 137 state and self-regulatory body disclosure events, with 105+ regulatory actions in the past decade alone.
Warning: Stifel’s regulatory issues are ongoing. In September 2024, the SEC fined Stifel $35 million for failing to maintain proper records of electronic communications. The firm admitted the facts and acknowledged violations of federal securities laws.
The Chuck Roberts Scandal: $176 Million in Damages
At the center of Stifel’s recent legal troubles is former broker Chuck Roberts, who joined the firm in 2016 and was barred from the securities industry by FINRA in summer 2025 after refusing to testify in regulatory proceedings.
According to his FINRA BrokerCheck profile, Roberts accumulated 22+ customer complaints related to structured notes, with pending claims seeking over $39 million in combined damages. Stifel’s total liability connected to Roberts has exceeded $176 million in damages, settlements, and legal fees.
| Award/Settlement | Amount | Date | Case Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jannetti Family Award | $132.5 million | March 2025 | Structured Notes |
| Deluca Family Award | $14.3 million | October 2024 | Structured Notes |
| November 2024 Award | $2.35 million | November 2024 | Structured Notes |
| Roberts Client Settlement | $850,000 | Late 2025 | Broker Misconduct |
Types of Stifel Investment Fraud Claims
Investors who suffered losses at Stifel may pursue claims based on various forms of misconduct. Understanding the specific violations that occurred in your case is essential for building a strong FINRA arbitration claim.
Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
Brokers must recommend investments appropriate for each client’s risk tolerance, financial goals, and investment experience. When Stifel brokers recommend complex structured products to conservative investors seeking stable income, they may violate FINRA suitability rules.
Overconcentration
A diversified portfolio protects investors from catastrophic losses. When brokers concentrate client assets in a single product type, such as structured notes, they expose clients to unnecessary risk. The Jannetti case specifically cited Stifel’s failure to send an over-concentration letter.
Misrepresentation and Omission
Brokers must fully disclose the risks of any investment. In the Wisconsin school districts case, the SEC charged Stifel with misrepresenting the risks of CDO-linked investments and failing to disclose material facts.
Failure to Supervise
Brokerage firms must maintain supervisory systems to detect and prevent misconduct. Stifel has paid millions in fines for supervision failures, including a $2.3 million settlement for failing to supervise complex exchange-traded products.
Structured Notes: The Product at the Center of Stifel Claims
Structured notes are complex investment products that combine bonds with derivative components. While they may be marketed as offering “principal protection” or “guaranteed returns,” the SEC and FINRA have repeatedly warned investors about their significant risks.
What Are Structured Notes? Structured notes are debt instruments issued by financial institutions where the return is linked to the performance of underlying assets such as stocks, indexes, or commodities. Despite names suggesting safety, they carry substantial risks including potential total loss of principal.
Key Risks of Structured Notes
- Credit Risk: If the issuer defaults or declares bankruptcy, investors may lose their entire investment. This happened to investors who held structured notes issued by Lehman Brothers.
- Liquidity Risk: There is typically no secondary market for structured notes. Investors who need to sell before maturity may receive far less than their purchase price.
- Complexity: The terms and payout structures can be extremely difficult to understand, even for sophisticated investors.
- Hidden Costs: Structured notes often carry embedded fees that are not clearly disclosed to investors.
- Principal Loss: Despite “protection” language, investors can and do lose significant portions of their principal.
How to File a Stifel Investment Fraud Claim
If you believe you suffered losses due to Stifel broker misconduct, you can pursue recovery through FINRA arbitration. This process offers several advantages over traditional litigation, including faster resolution and lower costs.
Step 1: Gather Your Documentation
Collect all account statements, trade confirmations, correspondence with your broker, and any marketing materials you received about the investments in question. These documents help establish what was recommended, what was disclosed, and how your account was managed.
Step 2: Review Your Account for Red Flags
Look for warning signs of misconduct such as:
- High concentration in a single product or asset class
- Investments inconsistent with your stated risk tolerance
- Excessive trading generating commissions
- Unauthorized transactions
- Missing or altered account documents
Step 3: Consult a Securities Fraud Attorney
A qualified attorney can evaluate your claim, estimate potential damages, and guide you through the arbitration process. According to FINRA statistics, investors represented by attorneys are significantly more likely to receive awards than those who represent themselves.
Step 4: File Your FINRA Arbitration Claim
Your attorney will prepare and file a Statement of Claim with FINRA, initiating the arbitration process. The claim will detail the misconduct, your losses, and the legal basis for recovery.
What to Expect in FINRA Arbitration Against Stifel
Understanding the arbitration process can help you prepare for what lies ahead. While every case is different, the general timeline and procedures are consistent.
Timeline
According to FINRA data, the average case duration improved from 14.6 months in 2023 to 12.5 months in 2024. Complex cases may take longer, while some settle before hearing.
Settlement Rate
Approximately 69% of customer cases settle before reaching a hearing. Settlements are typically confidential and negotiated between parties with guidance from attorneys.
Recovery Amounts
When arbitrators award damages, the median recovery is 37-47% of the claimed amount. However, well-documented cases with clear misconduct can result in full recovery plus punitive damages.
Stifel’s Regulatory History: A Pattern of Violations
The Chuck Roberts cases are not isolated incidents. Stifel’s regulatory record reveals a pattern of compliance failures across multiple areas of its business.
| Violation | Fine/Settlement | Regulatory Body |
|---|---|---|
| Recordkeeping Failures (2024) | $35 million | SEC |
| Unit Investment Trust Violations (2020) | $3.6 million | FINRA |
| Penny Stock Sales | $300,000 | FINRA |
| Transaction Reporting Failures | $2.7 million | SEC |
| Exchange-Traded Products Supervision | $2.3 million | FINRA |
Why Broker-Dealer Defense Experience Matters
When pursuing a claim against Stifel, working with an attorney who understands how brokerage firms defend themselves provides a significant advantage. Gary Varnavides spent 10 years at Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP defending broker-dealers against investor claims. This experience provides unique insight into:
- The supervision failures that enable misconduct
- How firms attempt to shift blame to investors
- The documentation and evidence that undermines common defenses
- Arbitration strategies that large firms employ
The Insider Advantage: Having defended broker-dealers for a decade, Gary now uses that knowledge to help investors hold firms accountable. He understands the playbook firms like Stifel use because he helped write it.
Common Defenses Stifel May Raise
Understanding how Stifel defends against investor claims can help you prepare a stronger case. Common defenses include:
Sophisticated Investor Defense
Stifel may argue that you were a “sophisticated investor” who understood the risks. In the $132.5 million Jannetti case, Stifel described the claimants as “a sophisticated family of experienced and aggressive investors.” Strong documentation of your investment objectives can counter this defense.
Market Conditions Defense
Firms often claim that losses resulted from unpredictable market conditions rather than misconduct. An experienced attorney can demonstrate that the losses were foreseeable given the unsuitable nature of the investments.
Customer Authorization Defense
Stifel may claim you authorized all transactions and approved the investment strategy. Account opening documents and correspondence can show what you actually requested versus what was recommended.
Statute of Limitations Defense
FINRA rules require claims to be filed within six years of the event giving rise to the dispute. Act promptly to preserve your rights.
Time Limits for Filing Stifel Claims
There are important deadlines for pursuing investment fraud claims:
- FINRA Eligibility Rule: Claims must be filed within six years of the event giving rise to the dispute.
- State Securities Laws: California’s statute of limitations for securities fraud is typically two years from discovery or four years from the violation, whichever comes first.
- Federal Securities Laws: Claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 must generally be brought within two years of discovery.
Important: Time limits for investment fraud claims can be complex. The clock may start running from when you knew or should have known about the fraud. Contact an attorney promptly to evaluate your claim before deadlines expire.
Frequently Asked Questions About Stifel Investment Fraud Claims
How much does it cost to file a claim against Stifel?
Most securities fraud attorneys handle these cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no upfront attorney fees. The attorney receives a percentage of any recovery. Case costs such as filing fees and expert witnesses are typically advanced by the attorney and reimbursed from any recovery. Schedule a free consultation to discuss the specific fee arrangement for your case.
How long does a FINRA arbitration case against Stifel take?
According to FINRA statistics, the average case duration in 2024 was 12.5 months, down from 14.6 months in 2023. However, complex cases involving multiple claims or large damages may take longer. Many cases settle before reaching a hearing, which can significantly shorten the timeline.
What damages can I recover in a Stifel investment fraud case?
Depending on the facts of your case, you may be able to recover compensatory damages (your actual losses), lost opportunity costs (what you would have earned in suitable investments), and in cases of egregious misconduct, punitive damages. The $132.5 million Jannetti award included $79.5 million in punitive damages, demonstrating that arbitrators will punish particularly harmful conduct.
Can I file a claim if my Stifel broker has left the firm?
Yes. Under FINRA rules, brokerage firms are responsible for the conduct of their registered representatives. Even if your broker has left Stifel or been barred from the industry, as happened with Chuck Roberts, you can still pursue claims against the firm for failure to supervise and other violations.
What if I signed documents saying I understood the risks?
Signing disclosure documents does not necessarily bar your claim. Brokers still have an obligation to recommend suitable investments regardless of risk disclosures. If the investments were unsuitable for your financial situation and objectives, or if the broker misrepresented the true risks, you may still have a valid claim.
Will filing a claim affect my ability to invest with other firms?
No. Filing a FINRA arbitration claim against Stifel will not affect your ability to open accounts or invest with other brokerage firms. The claim is a private dispute resolution proceeding, not a public lawsuit, and creates no negative record for you as an investor.
Take Action: Protect Your Investment Recovery Rights
If you suffered losses due to Stifel investment fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or unsuitable investment recommendations, time is critical. The six-year FINRA eligibility window and state statutes of limitations can bar claims if you wait too long.
Varnavides Law has the experience and knowledge to pursue claims against major brokerage firms like Stifel. With a decade of experience defending broker-dealers, Gary Varnavides now fights for investors who have been harmed by the same firms he once represented.
Free Case Evaluation
Schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your Stifel investment fraud claim. We will review your account, evaluate your potential damages, and explain your legal options at no cost to you.
This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
