Did you lose money investing with Suresh Kumar (CRD# 5683972)?
Galvin Legal, PLLC is launching an investigation on behalf of investors who may have suffered losses investing with Suresh Kumar. If you suffered losses investing with Suresh Kumar, then Galvin Legal, PLLC may be able to help you recover your losses in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA“) arbitration claim.
If you suffered losses and would like a free consultation with a securities attorney, then please call Galvin Legal, PLLC at 1-800-405-5117.
As of January 3, 2023, Suresh Kumar’s FINRA BrokerCheck Report contains the following:
BARRED: FINRA has barred this individual from acting as a broker or otherwise associating with a broker-dealer firm.
Disclosure Events
1 Regulatory Event
May 23, 2022 – An Order Accepting Offer of Settlement was issued in which Kumar was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Kumar consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he made material misrepresentations to a participant about why he could not repay him his money. The findings stated that Kumar operated an undisclosed OBA where he directly received hundreds of thousands of dollars from proprietary traders pursuant to verbal and written agreements in which Kumar promised to train the participants to pass the Series 57 examination, teach them to trade securities as part of his purported team at his member firm and double the value of their initial trading deposit with the firm. Pursuant to these agreements, participants had to make an initial deposit into a contingency fund while Kumar trained them for the exam. If the participants wanted to discontinue the program before passing the exam, they were entitled to a refund of a substantial portion of their contingency fund deposit within three months. The participant requested Kumar return his contingency fund deposit after he took and failed the exam and decided not to continue in Kumar’s training program. Kumar was obligated to, but did not, repay the participant his $48,000 contingency fund deposit. Therefore, the participant inquired when Kumar would return his funds. Kumar falsely and misleadingly stated to the participant that the firm held $100 million of Kumar’s money and that Kumar could not repay the participant his contingency fund deposit until the firm released Kumar’s funds. In fact, at the time Kumar made those verbal representations, he knew he had less than $2,500 with the firm. Kumar knew he previously spent the participant’s contingency fund deposit on personal expenses and to repay a purported loan and that he had no other liquid assets with which
to repay the participant. The findings also stated that Kumar failed to disclose his OBA to his firm. Although Kumar’s OBA began years before he registered with FINRA, he continued to engage in the same OBA while he was registered with FINRA through his association with the firm. The findings also included that Kumar failed to disclose to his firm that he effected about 100 PSTs in brokerage accounts that the participant and another participant held away from the firm. FINRA found that Kumar submitted a false attestation to his firm. Kumar falsely attested that he did not conduct an outside business, did not engage in unapproved methods of electronic communications, and did not engage in PSTs. FINRA also found that during his on-the record testimony, Kumar refused to answer certain questions regarding deals he claimed to have entered into that, according to him, impacted his ability to repay participants. In addition, FINRA determined that in response to FINRA’s written requests for information and documents, Kumar provided false, misleading, and incomplete written responses regarding the number of agreements he entered with participants, copies of those agreements and the institutions at which he had bank accounts. Moreover, FINRA found that in response to its requests for information and documents, Kumar failed to provide FINRA with electronic communications it requested and provided false statements regarding the same communications. Kumar also deleted the electronic communications that FINRA had requested. Furthermore, FINRA found that in response to its request for information and documents, Kumar failed to identify an overseas bank account he controlled until more than nine months after FINRA originally requested the information. Furthermore, Kumar failed to provide copies of statements for the overseas bank account until about ten months after FINRA originally requested them. (FINRA Case #2020066434701)
Current and Previous Registrations
10/21/2019 – 04/23/2020 T3 TRADING GROUP, LLC (CRD#:154431) NEW YORK, NY
09/05/2013 – 10/18/2019 T3 TRADING GROUP, LLC (CRD#:154431) NEW YORK, NY
10/25/2011 – 09/05/2013 ECHOTRADE LLC (CRD#:42239) PHOENIX, AZ
08/07/2009 – 10/21/2011 ECHOTRADE LLC (CRD#:42239) PHOENIX, AZ
If you suffered losses and would like a free consultation with a securities attorney, then please call Galvin Legal, PLLC at 1-800-405-5117.
Due Diligence Requirement
FINRA requires broker’s to conduct due diligence on investments and to conduct a suitability analysis when recommending securities to a customer that takes into account the customer’s knowledge and experience. FINRA Rule 2111(a) states that “a member or an associated person must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy involving a security or securities is suitable for the customer, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the member or associated person to ascertain the customer’s investment profile. A customer’s investment profile includes, but is not limited to, the customer’s age, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, investment objectives, investment experience, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information the customer may disclose to the member or associated person in connection with such recommendation.”
Rule 2111 is composed of three main obligations: reasonable-basis suitability, customer-specific suitability, and quantitative suitability. Brokers and the brokerage firms they work for that fail to conduct adequate due diligence on investments they recommend or that make unsuitable recommendations can be held responsible for the customer’s losses in a FINRA arbitration claim.
If you suffered losses and would like a free consultation with a securities attorney, then please call Galvin Legal, PLLC at 1-800-405-5117.
Request a Free Consultation with a Securities Attorney
If you suffered losses investing with Suresh Kumar and would like a free consultation with a securities attorney, then please call Galvin Legal, PLLC at 1-800-405-5117.
This information is all publicly available and is being provided to you by Galvin Legal, PLLC.
Galvin Legal, PLLC is a national securities arbitration, securities mediation, securities litigation, securities fraud, securities regulation and compliance, and investor protection law practice. For more information on Galvin Legal, PLLC and its representation of investors, please visit www.galvinlegal.com or call 1-800-405-5117.
