FINRA

GREEN WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HE MADE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO A DISABLED CUSTOMER, AND HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS TO RECOMMEND NON-TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE TRADED-FUNDS (NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS) TO HIS CUSTOMERS. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT GREEN CLAIMED TO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD ECONOMY WAS ON THE PRECIPICE OF CATASTROPHE AND THAT CERTAIN ASSET CLASSES WOULD RESPOND VERY POSITIVELY TO THE RESULTING "WORLD CHAOS." AS A RESULT OF HIS VIEW, GREEN RECOMMENDED TO VIRTUALLY ALL OF HIS CUSTOMERS THAT THEY INVEST ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN SECURITIES WITH EXPOSURE TO PRECIOUS METALS, NATURAL RESOURCES, COMMODITIES, AND ENERGY (THE INVESTMENT STRATEGY). GREEN REALIZED THAT SUCH A PORTFOLIO COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED FOR A CUSTOMER WHO IDENTIFIED A CONSERVATIVE, OR EVEN A MODERATE, INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE AND RISK TOLERANCE. GREEN TOLD HIS CUSTOMERS AND POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THAT AN AGGRESSIVE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION WAS NECESSARY IF THEY WANTED TO BECOME HIS CUSTOMER AND USE HIS INVESTMENT STRATEGY. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT GREEN'S RECOMMENDATION THAT HIS DISABLED CUSTOMER LIQUIDATE HER EXISTING VARIABLE ANNUITY AND EMPLOY HIS INVESTMENT STRATEGY RESULTED, OVER A THREE AND A HALF YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, IN MASSIVE LOSSES IN THE CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT, AND VIOLATED HIS OBLIGATION TO MAKE SUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CUSTOMER. THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT AS PART OF HIS INVESTMENT STRATEGY, GREEN FREQUENTLY RECOMMENDED NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS TO HIS CUSTOMERS. YET, GREEN LACKED SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THESE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS. AMONG OTHER THINGS, GREEN ROUTINELY RECOMMENDED THAT NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS BE HELD FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME DESPITE THE POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HOLDING NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS MORE THAN ONE TRADING SESSION. PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING THE PRODUCTS TO HIS CUSTOMERS, GREEN ALSO FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE TO HIS CUSTOMERS THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS.

Decision

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

9/1/2015

DEFAULT DECISION RENDERED AUGUST 4, 2015. THE SANCTION WAS BASED ON FINDINGS THAT GREEN RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE SECURITIES TO A DISABLED CUSTOMER WITH LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT GREEN HAD AN UNUSUAL WORLDVIEW AS IT RELATED TO INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, WHICH RESULTED IN HIS RECOMMENDING UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS FOR THE CUSTOMER. GREEN BELIEVED THAT THE WORLD ECONOMY WAS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE AND THAT CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF ASSETS WOULD INCREASE IN VALUE IN THE RESULTING DISORDER. THESE BELIEFS LED GREEN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CUSTOMER THAT SHE PURCHASE SECURITIES INVOLVING INVESTMENTS IN PRECIOUS METALS, COMMODITIES, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND ENERGY. GREEN DID NOT PROVIDE THE CUSTOMER WITH OTHER INVESTMENT SUGGESTIONS. TO PURSUE THIS INVESTMENT STRATEGY, GREEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE CUSTOMER LIQUIDATE HER EXISTING ANNUITY. SHE FOLLOWED GREEN'S ADVICE AND SOLD THE ANNUITY, INCURRING A SURRENDER CHARGE OF $59,583. HENCEFORTH, GREEN'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGGRESSIVE GROWTH CAUSED THE CUSTOMER TO LOSE AT LEAST $193,165 NOT COUNTING THE $59,583 ANNUITY SURRENDER CHARGE OVER A THREE-AND-A-HALF-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. FINRA DISPUTES GREEN'S CLAIM THAT THE CUSTOMER WITHDREW A TOTAL OF $532,600 FROM THE ACCOUNT OVER THE THREE AND A HALF YEARS HE WAS HER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE. FINRA STATES THAT IT DID NOT CALCULATE THE CUSTOMER'S WITHDRAWALS WITH SPECIFICITY BECAUSE IT IS NOT SEEKING RESTITUTION FROM GREEN BECAUSE OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION HE FILED. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT GREEN DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS TO RECOMMEND NON-TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE TRADED FUNDS (ETFS) TO HIS RETAIL CUSTOMERS. GREEN FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS OPERATED AND THE INHERENT RISKS THEY POSED TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS. AS A RESULT, GREEN FAILED TO LEARN IMPORTANT FACTS RELATING TO THE SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCTS AS INVESTMENTS FOR HIS CUSTOMERS. DURING FINRA'S INVESTIGATION, GREEN EXHIBITED A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS WORKED. FOR ABOUT A TWO-AND-A-HALF-YEAR PERIOD, GREEN RECOMMENDED INVESTMENTS IN NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS TO 40 RETAIL CUSTOMERS. GREEN ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT HIS CUSTOMERS HOLD THE INVESTMENT FOR LONGER THAN A DAY, CONTRARY TO THE DISCLOSURES CONTAINED IN THE FUNDS' PROSPECTUSES. GREEN'S CUSTOMERS TYPICALLY HELD THE NON-TRADITIONAL ETFS FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, AND SOMETIMES FOR LONGER THAN ONE YEAR. AS A RESULT, GREEN'S CUSTOMERS LOST MONEY. THE DECISION BECAME FINAL SEPTEMBER 1, 2015.

FINRA

RESPONDENT GREEN 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

ANY CAPACITY

N/A

7/2/2013

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3 OF FINRA BY-LAWS, AND FINRA RULE 9554, RESPONDENT GREEN IS SUSPENDED JULY 2, 2013 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.

CLAIMANT CLAIMS ALLEN GREEN MADE UNSUITABLE STOCK RECOMMENDATIONS DURING 2007 CAUSING SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF VALUE

$800,000.00

$425,000.00

On December 18, 2014, a Consent Judgment was rendered against Respondent Allen M. Green by the U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., Eastern District of Michigan; Southern Division, for Case # 14-40407 ordering that a discharged with respect to Debtor Allen M. Green was Denied.

CASE IS PENDING.