The arbitration names multiple respondents with a time frame from December 2001 - March 2010. The account of [REDACTED], [REDACTED]'s husband, was at Leerink and serviced by Richard Cody from December 2001 - May 2005. At Leerink, [REDACTED] alleges excessive trading and unsuitable recommendations, including de facto discretion. It is alleged that the value of the account decreased at least 33%from an initial value of $377,000 while maintained at Leerink.

$150,000.00

$115,000.00

FINRA

Respondent Cody failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

Letter

Suspension

All capacities

Indefinite

Continues until required payment is made or discharged.

3/28/2019

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of FINRA By-Laws, and FINRA Rule 9554, Respondent Cody is suspended on March 28, 2019 for failure to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Admin Release 34-85355, IA Release 5203 / March 19, 2019: The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted against Richard G. Cody ("Respondent"). On the basis of this Order and Respondent's Offer, the Commission finds that on November 9, 2018, Cody pled guilty to one count of investment adviser fraud in violation of Title 15 United States Code, Sections 80b-6 and 80b-17, and two counts of making a false declaration in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1623(a), before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in United States v. Richard G. Cody, Case No. 1:17-cr-10291-FDS.

Order

Bar (Permanent)

any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO

Indefinite

3/19/2019

from participating in an offering of penny stock

Indefinite

3/19/2019

Petition to Vacate in Part and Confirm in Part FINRA Arbitration Award. Allegations include negligence and breach of fiduciary duty relating to investments made between 2010 to present.

Client is alleging misrepresentation and forgery relating to activities occurring in 2013 and 2014.

$245,000.00

$2,500.00

FINRA

Respondent Cody failed to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

Letter

Suspension

All Capacities

Indefinite

Continues until required payment is made or discharged.

3/14/2018

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of FINRA By-Laws, and FINRA Rule 9554, Respondent Cody is suspended on March 14, 2018 for failure to comply with an arbitration award or settlement agreement or to satisfactorily respond to a FINRA request to provide information concerning the status of compliance.

New Jersey Bureau of Securities

CODY IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ORDER OF A SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATION EXPELLING HIM FROM A SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATION.

Order

Revocation

The agent and investment adviser registrations of Richard G. Cody be REVOKED; and further Cody is denied all exemptions contained in N.J.S.A. 49:3-50 subsections (a) paragraph 9, 10, and 11 and subsection (b); and further the exemptions to the registration requirements provided by N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(b), N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(c) and N.J.S.A. 49:3-56(g) are hereby revoked.

15 U.S.C. 80b-6 and 80b-17 INVESTMENT ADVISOR FRAUD

Convicted

18 U.S.C. 1623(a) MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION UNDER OATH

Convicted

Client is alleging fraud and unauthorized trading relating to activities occurring from 2013 to 2016.

$56,000.00

The client alleges fraud, deceit, and mismanagement of accounts.

$5,000.00

$62,500.00

Clients are alleging mismanagement, fraud, deceit, and unauthorized trading in relation to investments made between 2011 and 2016.

$165,000.00

The client alleges unsuitable recommendations, fraud, misrepresentation and deceit.

$5,000.00

$125,000.00

The client alleges fraud, deceit, and mismanagement of accounts.

$5,000.00

$286,096.00

This award has not been paid by or on behalf of Richard Cody as of March 28, 2019.

Client is alleging unauthorized trades relating to the sale of existing bonds and the purchase of a note. Activity occurred from March 2016 through July 2016.

Client alleges misrepresentation of account balances.

$164,358.00

FINRA

Cody was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that during the course of FINRA's investigation into whether he engaged in securities business while suspended, Cody provided false and misleading information in response to FINRA's requests for information and during on-the-record testimony. The complaint alleges that FINRA opened an investigation into Cody's activities after a former customer of his contacted it. The customer informed FINRA that, among other things, she recently had learned that Cody had been suspended for most of 2013, but that Cody had continued to serve as her broker during that year. The customer forwarded to FINRA staff emails that were written between the customer and Cody's personal email account in 2013, while Cody was suspended. The customer also forwarded to FINRA staff an email that was written by the customer in 2013 to a business email account that Cody used prior to (and following) his suspension. The forwarded emails discussed, among other things, investment strategy and potential trades in one or more of the customer's accounts. During the investigation, FINRA reviewed emails associated with Cody's personal email account and the business email account, as well as those associated with business email account of his wife, during the period that Cody was suspended. FINRA also spoke with a number of Cody's and his wife's former customers. Based, in part, on those sources, FINRA learned that Cody, with his wife's assistance, repeatedly violated the terms of his suspension by, among other things, communicating with customers, making securities recommendations to them, and placing trades on their behalf. The complaint also alleges that Cody failed to provide documents and information in response to FINRA's requests for information and failed to appear for on-the-record testimony.

Decision

Bar (Permanent)

all capacities

indefinite

9/5/2017

Default Decision rendered August 7, 2017. The sanction was based on findings that Cody provided false and misleading information to FINRA, failed to provide documents and information to FINRA, and failed to appear and provide testimony, in connection with FINRA's investigation. The findings stated that FINRA was attempting to determine if Cody had violated the terms of his FINRA suspension by participating in securities activities. FINRA was also investigating Cody's relationship with his customers and his participation in his customers' private investments during his one-year suspension. The decision became final on September 5, 2017.

Clients are alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, suitability and churning, for activities occurring 2013 to 2016.

$75,000.00

Client is alleging misappropriation/forgery in relation to investment made in October of 2015.

$25,000.00

$50,670.00

Client is alleging misappropriation and forgery in relation to investment made in December of 2015.

$150,000.00

$12,500.00

Customer has stated that the investment purchased in October of 2015 was not authorized.

Client is alleging that funds belonging to the client were taken by representative. Time period is unclear but we believe it covers 2013 to present.

Client is alleging misappropriation and forgery in relation to investment made in July of 2016.

$50,000.00

$56,818.00

Client is alleging fraud, misrepresentation and negligence, in relation to investments made from 2012 to 2016.

$190,000.00

Client is alleging that funds belonging to the client were taken by representative. Time period is unclear but we believe it covers 2012 to present.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Litigation Release 23702 / December 13, 2016: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint, on December 12, 2016, in federal court in Boston charging investment adviser and broker representative Richard G. Cody, a former resident of Massachusetts and current resident of New Jersey, with defrauding his retired clients. The Commission has asked the court to consider whether to impose certain preliminary relief against Cody and the legal entity through which Cody holds out his investment adviser and brokerage services business, Boston Investment Partners, LLC, including an asset freeze. The SEC alleges that Cody, an investment adviser and broker representative, defrauded at least three of his clients for years by concealing the fact that their retirement accounts had suffered extensive losses and that the monthly payments they were receiving were exhausting their retirement savings. Cody concealed their substantial losses by making materially misleading statements, leading the clients to believe that their investments were maintaining steady value and that their monthly withdrawals were being financed by investment gains. All the while, Cody concealed the material fact that the clients' account values were actually being rapidly depleted. By mid-2014, two of these clients' accounts had essentially run out of funds. To prevent his clients from detecting his longstanding fraud, Cody continued his scheme by engaging in various deceptive acts aimed at concealing from the clients that their money was gone. These acts included: (1) making wire transfers of monthly deposits to his defrauded clients' bank accounts from sources other than their own retirement accounts so that they would not know their retirement funds had run out; (2) responding to requests from a client for a withdrawal of retirement funds by falsely representing that the client's funds had been invested in an annuity and then sending the client a fraudulent document to create the appearance that a well-known financial firm held an annuity for that client; and (3) sending clients fabricated tax forms which purported to show retirement account distributions and tax withholding in order to disguise the fact that the clients' accounts were essentially empty. As recently as March 2016, Cody lied to a third client by telling a husband and wife that they had $1.28 million remaining in their investment accounts when, in fact, their retirement accounts held only approximately $162,560. Cody's deceptions caused these clients to believe that their retirement savings were secure when, in fact, they were not. The sheer duration of Cody's deception deprived these clients of any opportunity to take measures to decrease or to stop their losses or even to work longer to make up those losses. With their prime working years now well behind them, Cody's deceptive scheme has irreparably damaged their financial security, causing immense anxiety and fear and creating the real possibility that they may suffer further dire consequences. By virtue of his fraudulent conduct, Cody has engaged and is still engaged in: (i) fraudulent or deceptive conduct upon an advisory client in violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 ("Advisors Act"); and (ii) fraudulent or deceptive conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Judgment Rendered

Disgorgement

$14,171.00

Monetary Penalty other than Fines

Injunction

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Fraud, misrepresentation, and theft in relation to various investments made between 2004 and 2016

Clients are alleging that forgery, fraud, and negligence in relation to investments made from 2011 to 2016.

$125,000.00

Failure to supervise in relation to unauthorized wire transfers in Pershing account. Activities occurred June 2016-October 2016.

$545,000.00

$426,500.00

IFS Securities, Inc

Discharged

Selling away, forgery

Registered Reps Rich and [other firm employee] received inaccurate information from Lincoln Financial. That information was passed unknowingly on to the client. However, the client received corrected information from Lincoln in time to correct any mistake but took no action to remedy the problem. Rich and [other firm employee] did not receive the corrected information until weeks after the client did and as a result did not have the opportunity themselves to fix the issue as the 30 day window had expired. Activities occurred from 2013-2015.

$160,000.00

$77,500.00

[customer] requested that annuity funds be distributed immediately due to a financial emergency. Rich or [other firm employee] were not agents of record on the annuity. However, in the interest of helping a client, they helped [customer] facilitate the withdrawal. The [customers] were informed by the Annuity company that they violated a condition of a Rider on their policy. They were also informed they had 30 days from the time of withdrawal to fix the error and restore the policy. The [customers] did nothing. The annuity company never informed Rich or [other firm employee] of the violation prior to the distribution. Although they were already aware of the violation, The [customers] did not inform Rich or [other firm employee] of the violation until after the 30 day period expired. Although the [customers] feel that Rich or [other firm employee] should have known about the rider rule prior to the withdrawal, there was no way for them to know without information from the annuity company or the [customers] as they did not sell the [customers] the policy. That information was never provided. The [customers] had invested in the policy in 2007.

$16,775.00

Tax

THIS LIEN IS PERTAINING TO 2010 ON THE STATE LEVEL. THE MASS DOR DID NOT REALIZE I FILED A CORPORATE RETURN AS WELL AS AN INDIVIDUAL RETURN IN 2010. AS A RESULT THEY FELT I UNDERSTATED MY INCOME ON MY INDIVIDUAL RETURN BASED UPON MY 2010 1099. THE MASS DOR CURRENTLY HAS COPIES OF BOTH RETURNS AND IS REVIEWING THE INFORMATION. I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM AS WELL AND ONCE THE RETURNS ARE RECONCILED THEY WILL SEE THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING TAX AND THE LIEN WILL BE REMOVED/RELEASED.

FINRA

NASD RULES 2110, 2310, INTERPRETIVE MATERIAL-1000-1 AND INTERPRETATIVE MATERIAL-2310-2: RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN UNSUITABLE AND EXCESSIVE TRADING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF CUSTOMERS, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT COMMISSION INCOME FOR HIM AND LOSSES FOR HIS CUSTOMERS. HE ALSO SENT A SERIES OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF HIS MEMBER FIRM. THESE STATEMENTS WERE FALSE OR MISLEADING, IN THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SUBSTANTIALLY OVERSTATED THE TRUE VALUE OF THE CUSTOMERS' ACCOUNTS AND/OR LISTED SECURITIES POSITIONS THAT IN FACT DID NOT EXIST. HE ALSO RECOMMENDED TO CUSTOMERS THE PURCHASE OF A SECURITY, WHICH WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS IN LIGHT OF THEIR INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, RISK TOLERANCE, AGE AND INCOME. RESPONDENT WILLFULLY FAILED TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 TO DISCLOSE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HE ENTERED INTO WITH ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM. HE FAILED TO AMEND HIS FORM U4 TO DISCLOSE SETTLEMENTS WITH CUSTOMERS.

Order

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$27,500.00

Monetary Penalty other than Fines

$8,711.25

Suspension

ANY CAPACITY

ONE YEAR

1/7/2013

1/6/2014

AMENDED HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED JANUARY 29, 2009 WHEREIN CODY WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED: NASD RULES 2110 AND 2310 BY RECOMMENDING QUANTITATIVELY AND QUALITATIVELY UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS IN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE IS FINED $20,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR THREE MONTHS; NASD RULE 2110 BY SENDING CUSTOMERS MISLEADING AND UNAPPROVED ACCOUNT SUMMARIES AND IS THEREFORE FINED $5,000; AND NASD RULE 2110 BY FAILING TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 IN A TIMELY MANNER TO DISCLOSE SETTLEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS AND IS THEREFORE FINED $2,500. THE PANEL DID NOT FIND CODY'S FAILURE TO BE WILLFUL. IN ADDITION, CODY IS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,087.50. THE CHARGE THAT CODY VIOLATED NASD RULE 2110 BY FAILING TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 TO DISCLOSE A COMPROMISE WITH CREDITORS IS DISMISSED. ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009, FINRA'S DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL (NAC). NAC DECISION RENDERED MAY 10, 2010 WHEREIN THE FINDINGS MADE ARE AFFIRMED AND THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE HEARING PANEL ARE MODIFIED; THEREFORE, CODY IS FINED $20,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE SUITABILITY VIOLATIONS. FOR THE MISLEADING ACCOUNT SUMMARIES, HE IS FINED $5,000. FOR THE FORM U4 VIOLATIONS, HE IS FINED $2,500. THE NAC AFFIRMS THE REQUIREMENT THAT CODY PAY HEARING COSTS OF $7,087.50 AND IMPOSES APPEAL COSTS OF $1,623.75. ON JUNE 9, 2010, CODY APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC). SEC DECISION RENDERED MAY 27, 2011 WHEREIN THE SEC ORDERED THAT THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AND COSTS IMPOSED BY FINRA ARE SUSTAINED. CODY FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE SEC ON JUNE 20, 2011. THE SEC DENIED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON AUGUST 31, 2011. ON OCTOBER 25, 2011, CODY APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2012, THE U.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE SEC'S DECISION; THEREFORE CODY IS FINED A TOTAL OF $27,500, SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR, AND MUST PAY HEARING COSTS OF $7,087.50 AND APPEAL COSTS OF $1,623.75. THE DECISION IS FINAL DECEMBER 7, 2012. THE SUSPENSION IS IN EFFECT JANUARY 7, 2013 THROUGH JANUARY 6, 2014. FINE AND COSTS PAID IN FULL 3/5/13.

HEARING PANEL DECISION RENDERED JANUARY 29, 2009 WHEREIN RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED: RULES 2110 AND 2310 BY RECOMMENDING QUANTITATIVELY AND QUALITATIVELY UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS IN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE IS FINED $20,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR THREE MONTHS; RULE 2110 BY SENDING CUSTOMERS MISLEADING AND UNAPPROVED ACCOUNT SUMMARIES AND IS THEREFORE FINED $5,000; AND RULE 2110 BY FAILING TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 IN A TIMELY MANNER TO DISCLOSE SETTLEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS AND IS THEREFORE FINED $2,500. IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,087.50. THE CHARGE THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 2110 BY FAILING TO UPDATE HIS FORM U4 TO DISCLOSE A COMPROMISE WITH CREDITORS IS DISMISSED. FINRA APPEALED THIS DECISION ON FEBRUARY 23, 2009. NAC DECISION RENDERED MAY 10, 2010 WHEREIN THE FINDINGS MADE ARE AFFIRMED AND THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE HEARING PANEL ARE MODIFIED; THEREFORE, RESPONDENT IS FINED $20,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE SUITABILITY VIOLATIONS. FOR THE MISLEADING ACCOUNT SUMMARIES, HE IS FINED $5,000. FOR THE FORM U4 VIOLATIONS, HE IS FINED $2,500. THE NAC AFFIRMS THE REQUIREMENT THAT CODY PAY HEARING COSTS OF $7,087.50 AND IMPOSES APPEAL COSTS OF $1,623.75. APPEALED TO THE SEC ON JUNE 9, 2010. SEC DECISION RENDERED MAY 27 2011 WHERIN THE SEC ORDERED THAT THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AND COSTS IMPOSED BY FINRA ARE SUSTAINED. IF NO FURTHER ACTION, DECISION IS FINAL JULY 26, 2011. CODY FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE SEC ON JUNE 20, 2011. THE SEC DENIED THE MOTION FOR RCONSIDERATION ON AUGUST 31, 2011. APPEALED TO THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUT ON OCTOBER 25, 2011. ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 THE U S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE SEC'S DECISION: THEREFORE CODY IS FINED A TOTAL OF $27,500, SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR, AND MUST PAY HEARING COSTS OF $7,087.50 AND APPEAL COSTS OF $1,623.75. IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN, THE DECISION IS FINAL DECEMBER 7, 2012. THE SUSPENSION IS IN EFFECT JANUARY 7 2013 THROUGH JANUARY 6, 2014.

CLIENTS' STATEMENT OF CLAIM ALLEGES UNAUTHORIZED AND UNSUITABLE TRADES.

$100,000.00

$15,000.00

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED PURCHASE OF CMO UNSUITABLE

$56,000.00

$56,000.00

I ENTERED INTO THE SETTLEMENT CONTRARY TO THE ADVISE OF COUNSEL. I HAD A LONG STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLIENT AND I DESIRED TO PUT ANY CLIENT ISSUE, RELATING TO TIME AT A FORMER EMPLOYER, BEHIND ME.

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED PURCHASE OF CMO UNSUITABLE

$20,000.00

$20,000.00

I ENTERED INTO THE SETTLEMENT CONTRARY TO THE ADVISE OF COUNSEL. I HAD A LONG STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLIENT AND I DESIRED TO PUT ANY CLIENT ISSUE, RELATING TO TIME AT A FORMER EMPLOYER, BEHIND ME.