When a financial advisor or broker makes false statements or deliberately withholds information you need to make an informed investment decision, that conduct is not merely unethical — it is a serious violation of federal and California securities law. Investment misrepresentation and material omission cause real financial harm, and the law provides meaningful recovery options through FINRA arbitration and civil litigation.
At Varnavides Law, PC, we represent investors in California and New York who have suffered losses because a broker or financial advisor lied about, or failed to disclose, material facts about their investments. Misrepresentation and omission are among the most common forms of investment fraud — and among the most recoverable, when the evidence is properly developed. Gary Varnavides spent 10 years at Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP defending broker-dealers against exactly these claims — which means he understands the defense playbook from the inside and uses that knowledge on behalf of investors.
Key Takeaways
- Federal prohibition: 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) (Exchange Act §10(b)) and SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) prohibit material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with securities transactions.
- Six elements required: A federal 10b-5 claim requires material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, transaction nexus, reliance, economic loss, and loss causation — all six must be established.
- FINRA Rule 12206 is an eligibility rule — not a statute of limitations: Claims must be submitted to FINRA arbitration within six years of the occurrence giving rise to the claim; separate substantive SOLs govern court filings.
- California offers additional protection: California Corporations Code §25401 prohibits misrepresentations in California securities transactions, with the limitations period set by California Corporations Code §25506 (2 years/5 years).
- Gary’s advantage: A decade of broker-dealer defense work before switching to the investor side gives Gary Varnavides unique insight into how firms defend misrepresentation claims.
What Investment Misrepresentation and Omission Mean Under the Law
Investment misrepresentation occurs when a financial professional — a broker, registered investment adviser, or other securities professional — provides false or misleading information about a security or investment strategy to influence an investor’s decision. Material omission is the counterpart: failing to disclose information that a reasonable investor would consider important to that decision.
The core federal prohibition comes from two interconnected provisions. The primary provision — codified at 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) — makes it unlawful for any person to use “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, in violation of SEC rules. SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) — issued directly under that authority — expands the prohibition to cover any device or scheme to defraud, any material misstatement or omission, and any act operating as a fraud, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
The implied private right of action under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 has been recognized by the Supreme Court and is the primary federal vehicle for investor recovery. California adds its own independent layer of protection through California Corporations Code §25401, which prohibits making any untrue statement of material fact or omitting a material fact necessary to make the statements made not misleading in connection with any offer or sale of a security in California.
Types of Investment Misrepresentation and Omission
Misrepresentation and omission take many forms. Understanding what happened in your situation is the first step toward understanding whether you have a recoverable claim.
| Type | What It Looks Like | Common Example |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmative False Statement | Broker makes a factually false claim about the investment | Describing a speculative private placement as “safe” or “guaranteed” |
| Material Omission | Broker fails to disclose a fact a reasonable investor would consider important | Not mentioning that the issuer is under active SEC investigation |
| Half-Truth | Partial disclosure that creates a misleading overall impression | Touting quarterly gains while concealing that annual performance was deeply negative |
| Risk Misrepresentation | Understating or hiding the true risk profile of an investment | Selling a non-traded REIT with illiquid redemption terms as “conservative income” |
| Fee and Commission Concealment | Hiding or minimizing fees that erode investor returns | Failing to disclose high surrender charges on variable annuities or markups on bond purchases |
| Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure | Failing to disclose that the broker receives compensation or benefits for recommending the investment | Recommending proprietary products without disclosing the firm’s higher compensation for those products |
Warning Signs You May Be a Victim
- Your investment performed dramatically worse than your broker’s projections — and you later discover facts your broker knew but did not share
- You find fees, commissions, or charges that were never disclosed when you invested
- Your broker becomes evasive when you ask for explanations of your account
- Your account holds investments you do not recognize or did not authorize
- The risk level in your portfolio does not match your stated objectives or tolerance
- Marketing materials you received turn out to have contained false information about the investment
- You learn that your broker received special compensation for recommending the product to you
The Six Legal Elements of a Federal Rule 10b-5 Claim
To recover under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in a securities fraud claim, an investor must establish six elements, each of which is independently required. These elements were developed through decades of Supreme Court interpretation. A critical contribution came from Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), which specifically addressed loss causation (Element 6) — holding that it is a distinct, required element, not assumed from the mere purchase of shares at an inflated price, and that a plaintiff must show the fraud was the proximate cause of the economic loss ultimately suffered.
Elements 1 Through 3
- 1. Material Misrepresentation or Omission: The broker made a false statement of material fact, or omitted a fact whose disclosure was necessary to prevent other statements from being misleading. Under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), a fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important — meaning its disclosure would have significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available to investors. Materiality is not a bright-line rule; it is evaluated in light of all the circumstances.
- 2. Scienter: The defendant acted with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Scienter is a distinct element of a federal 10b-5 claim — negligence alone does not satisfy it. The Supreme Court addressed the pleading standard for scienter in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. §§78u-4 et seq.), which requires pleading a “strong inference” of scienter that is cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference — but the substantive element at trial requires intent or recklessness.
- 3. Transaction Nexus (In Connection with a Purchase or Sale): The misrepresentation or omission must have been made “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security. This is read broadly by the courts but requires that the fraud touch on a securities transaction — general investment advice unconnected to a specific transaction is generally outside the scope.
Elements 4 Through 6
- 4. Reliance: The investor relied on the misrepresentation or omission in making the investment decision. For omissions, courts ask whether the investor would have acted differently had the omitted fact been disclosed. In open-market purchase cases, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), recognized a rebuttable fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance for securities trading on efficient markets — the investor is presumed to have relied on the integrity of a market price that incorporated all publicly available information, including the misrepresentation. In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014), the Supreme Court confirmed that defendants may rebut this presumption at the class certification stage by demonstrating that the alleged misrepresentation had no price impact on the market price.
- 5. Economic Loss: The investor must have suffered actual economic loss — a decline in the value of the investment attributable to the fraud. Purchasing a security at an inflated price, standing alone, does not constitute the required economic loss unless and until the inflation dissipates and the investor suffers a realized or measurable decline in value.
- 6. Loss Causation: The misrepresentation or fraud must have been the proximate cause of the economic loss ultimately suffered. Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), held that pleading a price that was inflated at the time of purchase is not sufficient — the investor must show that the disclosure of the fraud or the materialization of the concealed risk caused the actual economic loss. A defendant may defeat loss causation by showing that other factors, not the misrepresentation, caused the decline in value.
Note: 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) also requires the conduct to involve any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce — a threshold jurisdictional requirement satisfied by virtually every securities transaction conducted through phone, mail, or the internet, and treated separately from the six substantive fraud elements above.
Federal Versus California Claims — Different Scienter Standards
Federal Rule 10b-5 requires scienter — intentional or reckless deception. California Corporations Code §25401, by contrast, does not require scienter: an investor can recover if the statement was materially false or the omission was material, regardless of whether the seller acted intentionally. Note that California Corporations Code §25501 preserves a reasonable-care defense for the seller — §25401 is not technically a strict-liability provision — but the practical standard is materially different from the federal scienter requirement. This makes the California state law claim strategically important for California investors whose brokers may argue they were merely negligent.
Broker Disclosure Obligations: FINRA Rule 2020, Regulation Best Interest, and Know Your Customer
Beyond the federal anti-fraud statutes, brokers who are members of FINRA are subject to additional disclosure and conduct obligations that form the basis of investor claims in arbitration.
FINRA Rule 2020 prohibits members from effecting any transaction in, or inducing the purchase or sale of, any security by means of any manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance — the FINRA analog to the federal Rule 10b-5 prohibition.
Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI, 17 C.F.R. §240.15l-1), effective June 30, 2020, imposes four distinct obligations on broker-dealers when making recommendations to retail customers. The first is the Disclosure Obligation — the broker-dealer must, prior to or at the time of recommendation, provide the retail customer with a written disclosure specifying all material facts about the scope and terms of the relationship and all material conflicts of interest. The second is the Care Obligation — the broker-dealer must exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill to understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs of the recommendation and have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the retail customer’s best interest. The third is the Conflict of Interest Obligation — the broker-dealer must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and address all conflicts of interest associated with recommendations. The fourth is the Compliance Obligation — the broker-dealer must establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg BI as a whole.
A Reg BI violation — particularly a failure to satisfy the Disclosure Obligation or the Conflict of Interest Obligation — can support investor claims in FINRA arbitration alongside or parallel to Rule 10b-5 and state-law claims. When a financial advisor holds discretionary authority over an account, the same conduct may also give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty claim or an unsuitable investments claim under FINRA suitability standards.
FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) requires members to use reasonable diligence to know and retain the essential facts concerning every customer and their account. Without adequate customer knowledge, a broker cannot make suitable recommendations — and cannot make truthful disclosures about how a proposed investment fits that customer’s actual financial situation.
Who Can Be Held Liable: The Janus Maker Limitation
One important doctrinal point affects who can be pursued in a Rule 10b-5(b) claim about misstatements. In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), the Supreme Court held that only the “maker” of a statement — the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it — can be held liable under Rule 10b-5(b) for making an untrue statement.
This matters when an investor’s losses trace to a misleading prospectus, offering memorandum, or other document prepared by a third party. The investment adviser who distributed the document may not be the “maker” of the statements within it. For those situations, Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) — prohibiting schemes and acts to defraud — remain available and are not subject to the same maker limitation. Additionally, California Corporations Code §25401 uses different language and the Janus limitation may not apply in the same way to state-law claims.
California Securities Law Claims
California investors have an independent avenue for recovery under the California Corporations Code. 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 material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
The California claim is significant for several reasons. First, it does not require proof of scienter — making it broader than the federal 10b-5 claim in that respect. Second, it covers both oral and written misrepresentations. Third, the right of rescission under California Corporations Code §25501 allows an investor to undo the transaction entirely and recover the original consideration paid, with interest, rather than having to prove a precise damages calculation based on loss causation.
The limitations period for California Corporations Code §25401 claims is set by California Corporations Code §25506: the claim must be brought within two years after the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts giving rise to the cause of action, but not more than five years after the transaction. This is a true limitations period — not a FINRA forum-eligibility rule.
Time Limits — FINRA Eligibility Rule Versus Statutes of Limitations
Understanding the difference between the FINRA arbitration eligibility period and the substantive statutes of limitations is critical — confusing them can be costly.
| Forum / Claim | Rule | Period | What It Governs |
|---|---|---|---|
| FINRA Arbitration | FINRA Rule 12206 (forum eligibility) | 6 years from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim | Whether the claim is eligible to be heard in FINRA arbitration — NOT a substantive SOL |
| 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) / SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) | 28 U.S.C. §1658(b) (Sarbanes-Oxley Act limitation period for private securities fraud actions) | 2 years from discovery; 5-year absolute repose | Substantive SOL for court litigation on §10(b) private fraud claims |
| California Corp. Code §25401 | California Corporations Code §25506 | 2 years from discovery; 5 years from transaction | Substantive SOL for CA state-law claims |
| California common law fraud | Code of Civil Procedure, §338(d) | 3 years from discovery | Substantive SOL for fraud claims in California courts |
FINRA Rule 12206: Eligibility, Not Limitations
FINRA Rule 12206 sets a six-year eligibility period running from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim — it determines whether FINRA will hear the dispute, not whether the underlying legal claim is time-barred. A claim dismissed by FINRA as ineligible under Rule 12206 may still be viable in court if the substantive statute of limitations has not expired. Critically, the Rule 12206 period runs from the “occurrence or event” — FINRA arbitrators do not automatically apply state-law discovery-rule tolling to determine eligibility. If you are approaching six years from a specific transaction or broker act, contact an attorney immediately, because missing this window forecloses the FINRA arbitration forum even if a court claim may remain.
The Gary Varnavides Approach to Misrepresentation Claims
Gary Varnavides built his litigation practice on a distinctive foundation: before founding Varnavides Law, he spent a decade at one of New York’s prominent broker-dealer defense firms representing financial institutions against investor claims. He has seen firsthand how compliance departments document — and sometimes obscure — broker misconduct, what discovery requests yield the most useful evidence, and where the defense’s vulnerabilities lie.
Gary is admitted to the bar in California and New York. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was recognized as a New York Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2015 through 2023, an honor given to the top 2.5% of attorneys in the New York Metro area. He received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 2010, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. His article “The Flawed State of Broker-Dealer Regulation” received the IMCA Richard J. Davis Legal/Regulatory/Ethics Award.
Varnavides Law, PC is based in Los Angeles, at 1901 Avenue of the Stars in Century City, and handles FINRA arbitration matters for investors nationwide. Cases requiring California or New York state-court litigation are handled through Gary’s California and New York bar admissions respectively.
The FINRA Arbitration Process for Misrepresentation Claims
The vast majority of investor claims against FINRA-member broker-dealers proceed through FINRA arbitration rather than court. When investors open brokerage accounts, the customer agreement typically requires that disputes be resolved through FINRA arbitration. Under FINRA Rule 12200, customers may also elect to arbitrate even absent a predispute agreement.
According to FINRA’s Dispute Resolution Statistics, in 2024 FINRA received 562 customer arbitration filings, with an average case duration of approximately 11.8 months. FINRA mediation achieved a settlement rate of approximately 89% in 2024, making mediation a significant resolution pathway. As of 2025, misrepresentation and omission claims remain among the most frequently filed investor claims in FINRA arbitration.
Case Evaluation
We review account statements, trade confirmations, broker communications, marketing materials, and compliance records to assess the strength of your misrepresentation or omission claim and calculate recoverable damages.
Filing the Claim
We prepare and file the Statement of Claim with FINRA’s arbitration forum, articulating each violation, the applicable legal theory, and the damages sought. The respondent broker-dealer has 45 days to answer.
Discovery
FINRA discovery is governed by FINRA Customer Code Rules 12500-12604 — not by the Fed. R. Civ. P. framework used in federal court. Under Rules 12500-12604, depositions are presumptively unavailable absent extraordinary circumstances, and discovery is more limited than federal court litigation. We request internal compliance files, supervisory records, broker communications, and expert analysis of account activity.
Arbitrator Selection
The arbitration panel is selected through a ranking and striking process. In misrepresentation cases, experienced panel selection is critical because the factual and doctrinal issues are complex.
Mediation
Many cases resolve through FINRA mediation before the final hearing. With the 89% mediation settlement rate, we actively evaluate whether a negotiated resolution serves our client’s interests better than arbitration.
Hearing and Award
If the case proceeds to a hearing, we present evidence, examine witnesses, and argue the legal and factual basis for your claim. FINRA arbitration awards are final and binding, and can be confirmed in federal or state court for collection.
Recoverable Damages in Misrepresentation Cases
If you have been the victim of investment misrepresentation or material omission, you may be entitled to recover:
- Out-of-pocket losses: The difference between what you paid for the investment and the actual value you received
- Rescission: Under California Corporations Code §25501, you may be entitled to rescind the transaction and recover the original consideration paid, plus interest at the legal rate, less any income received on the security
- Consequential losses: Lost investment opportunities or other demonstrable economic harm caused by the fraud
- Interest: Pre-award interest running from the date of loss
- Attorney fees and costs: In specific circumstances, including under California law, fee-shifting may be available
- Punitive damages: In egregious cases of intentional fraud, FINRA arbitrators may award punitive damages to the extent permitted by the substantive law of the applicable jurisdiction
Varnavides Law offers a free consultation. Fee arrangements vary by matter and are discussed during consultation. You remain responsible for case costs separate from attorney fees; we discuss cost arrangements during the consultation. We generally handle cases involving losses of $100,000 or more in securities matters.
Why Experienced Representation Matters in Misrepresentation and Omission Cases
Investment misrepresentation and omission cases require navigating two distinct legal frameworks — federal securities law under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and California law under §25401 — with different scienter standards, different damages measures, and different limitations periods. A claim that cannot meet the federal scienter standard may still succeed under California §25401; recovery limited to damages under the federal framework may be replaced by the right of rescission under California §25501, allowing return of the original investment plus interest. Building the strongest case for a California investor often means pursuing both frameworks in parallel.
Successfully prosecuting these claims also requires aggressive discovery. FINRA Customer Code Rules 12500-12604 require broker-dealers to produce internal compliance records, supervisory notes, and broker communications — materials that often reveal the full extent of what the firm knew and when. Varnavides Law’s insider knowledge of how brokerage firms handle these productions means knowing what to demand, how firms document (and sometimes obscure) broker misconduct, and where the most valuable evidence tends to live.
If you believe your broker misrepresented or withheld material information about your investment, the most important first step is a conversation with an attorney who understands both the doctrinal requirements and the practical realities of FINRA arbitration. Contact Varnavides Law, PC to schedule a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between misrepresentation and omission in a securities claim?
Misrepresentation is an affirmative false statement — your broker told you something that was factually untrue about the investment. Omission is the failure to disclose a material fact — your broker did not tell you something important that you needed to make an informed decision. Both forms of conduct are prohibited under the same federal provisions: §10(b) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §78j(b)), which prohibits manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with any securities transaction, and SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5), which expressly covers both “untrue statement[s] of a material fact” and omissions of material facts necessary to prevent misleading statements. California Corporations Code §25401 independently prohibits the same conduct under California law. In practice, the same broker conduct often involves both — a broker who overstates the safety of a product is simultaneously making a false statement and omitting the true risks.
Do I need to prove my broker acted intentionally to have a federal securities claim?
Yes, for a federal claim under Rule 10b-5. The scienter element requires proof that the broker acted with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for the truth. Mere negligence does not satisfy the federal standard. However, California Corporations Code §25401 does not require scienter — meaning you may recover if the statement was false or the omission was material, regardless of intent. Note that §25501 preserves a reasonable-care defense for the seller, so §25401 is not technically strict liability, but the practical standard is materially different from the federal scienter requirement. This is one reason why California investors often pursue both federal and state-law claims simultaneously.
How long do I have to file a claim for investment misrepresentation?
There are multiple time limits, and they operate independently. For FINRA arbitration, FINRA Rule 12206 sets a six-year eligibility period running from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim — this is a forum-access rule, not a substantive statute of limitations. For federal §10(b) claims brought in court under 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), 28 U.S.C. §1658(b) provides two years from discovery of the violation, with an absolute five-year repose period. For California Corporations Code §25401 claims, California Corporations Code §25506 provides two years from discovery, with an absolute five-year period from the transaction. For California common law fraud claims, Code of Civil Procedure, §338(d) provides three years from discovery. Because these periods run concurrently and some may expire before others, contact an investment misrepresentation lawyer as soon as you suspect something went wrong.
What is FINRA Rule 12206 and why does it matter?
FINRA Rule 12206 is the eligibility rule for FINRA arbitration — it sets the six-year period within which a claim must be submitted to FINRA arbitration. It is not a substantive statute of limitations. Critically, the six-year period under Rule 12206 runs from the “occurrence or event” giving rise to the claim, not necessarily from discovery. FINRA arbitrators do not automatically apply state-law discovery-rule tolling to determine whether a claim is eligible. If a claim is dismissed as ineligible under Rule 12206 because more than six years have passed since the transaction or conduct at issue, the investor may still be able to pursue that claim in court — if the relevant substantive statute of limitations has not expired. Missing the Rule 12206 window forecloses arbitration but does not necessarily forfeit the underlying legal claim entirely.
Can I recover if my broker says the market caused my losses?
The defense that “market conditions caused the losses” is a standard argument in misrepresentation cases. It goes to loss causation — one of the six required elements under Rule 10b-5. Under Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), the investor must show that the fraud — not just broader market movements — was the proximate cause of the loss. If the investment would have declined even without the misrepresentation (for example, because of a market-wide downturn that affected all similar investments), the broker can argue the loss causation element is not met. We work with financial experts to separate losses attributable to broker misconduct from broader market losses, and we know how to counter this defense because Gary spent a decade raising it on behalf of broker-dealers.
What is Reg BI and how does it affect my claim?
Reg BI (17 C.F.R. §240.15l-1) has been in effect since June 30, 2020. It imposes four obligations on broker-dealers making recommendations to retail customers: a Disclosure Obligation (must provide written disclosure of material facts and conflicts of interest before or at the time of recommendation), a Care Obligation (must exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill and have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the customer’s best interest), a Conflict of Interest Obligation (must have policies to identify and address conflicts), and a Compliance Obligation (must maintain compliance policies). A broker-dealer’s failure to satisfy any of these obligations — particularly the Disclosure Obligation regarding conflicts — can form the basis of investor claims in FINRA arbitration. Reg BI violations are often coupled with Rule 10b-5 and state-law misrepresentation claims.
What evidence do I need to pursue a misrepresentation claim?
Helpful evidence includes account statements, trade confirmations, prospectuses or offering documents provided at the time of investment, emails and written communications with your broker, notes from phone conversations, account opening documents listing your investment objectives and risk tolerance, and any marketing materials you received. Do not worry if you do not have everything — FINRA Customer Code Rules 12500-12604 require broker-dealers to produce internal compliance files, supervisory records, and broker communications. We know what to request and how to use what we find.
What is the fraud-on-the-market doctrine and does it apply to my case?
The fraud-on-the-market doctrine, recognized by the Supreme Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), creates a rebuttable presumption of reliance for investors who purchase securities in efficient markets: because market prices incorporate all publicly available information, an investor who buys at the market price is presumed to have relied on the integrity of that price, and thus on any public misrepresentation reflected in that price. The presumption is rebuttable — in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014), the Supreme Court confirmed that defendants may rebut the presumption at class certification by showing the alleged misrepresentation had no price impact on the market price; the defendant may also show that the plaintiff did not actually rely on market integrity. The fraud-on-the-market doctrine is most commonly invoked in securities class actions, but individual investors in public-company securities may also invoke it to satisfy the reliance element in a private claim.
Contact an Investment Misrepresentation Lawyer Today
If your broker made false statements or withheld information that caused you to lose money, you may have grounds to recover through FINRA arbitration or securities litigation. Time limits apply and run from the date of the transaction or conduct — not necessarily from when you discovered the problem. Varnavides Law, PC offers free consultations for investors with losses of $100,000 or more in securities matters.