Lawyers for Investors Review Unsuitability Allegations Against Chicago Broker John Hoidas
Based in Chicago, Illinois, investment adviser and registered broker John Hoidas is the subject of a pending customer dispute instituted against him on the allegation of inapplicable investment recommendation an investigation by lawyer for investors Alan Rosca shows. Investors who believe they suffered losses as a result of investment recommendations made by John James Hoidas are encouraged to discuss their case at 888-998-0530, via electronic mail at arosca @ rscounsel.law, or through the contact form on this page .
Lawyers for investors at Rosca Scarlato LLC jurisprudence firm are investigating the unsuitability allegations brought against Hoidas in the latest pending customer challenge. populace records reveal that agent John Hoidas is presently registered as a agent with American Trust Investment Services, Inc. He became register with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ( FINRA ) member firm on 24th April 2020. He is besides registered as an investing adviser with Chicago Capital Management Advisors, LLC. He has been registered with the tauten since 24th July, 2020 .
Invested with John Hoidas?
John Hoidas Customer Alleged Unsuitability of Franklin Square Investments
Lawyer for investors Alan Rosca reviewed publicly available information and found that John Hoidas is the subject of a pending customer quarrel initiated against him on the allegation of unsuitable investment recommendation in summation to other customer challenge he had previously settled.
According to the reports on his FINRA brokercheck page, the pending customer challenge was instituted on 17th August 2020. According to the reports, the client alleged that broke John Hoidas made investment recommendations that were inapplicable to them as the investments exceeded their risk tolerance and fiscal edification. The node alleged that the investments were connected with the Franklin Square investments ; which have been allegedly deemed to be undesirable to many investors .
The customer alleged that they initially requested income oriented investments and that they had a time horizon of 12 years as they had no contiguous motivation for liquidity. It was besides alleged that the customer sent a letter to the branch of the investment tauten, demanding $ 30,000 to settle the challenge before commencing a FINRA arbitration .
Previously Settled Customer Disputes Involving Broker John Hoidas
The lawyer for investors besides found that John Hoidas has settled some customer disputes anterior to the pending customer dispute, as reported on his FINRA brokercheck page. In a customer dispute shown as settled on 14th November, 2019, the node made allegations relating to the unsuitability of the GPB Holdings II which were held by the clients and which they seek to rescind. The client in this dispute agreed to $ 26,470.59 as damages in liquidation of the quarrel .
broadly speaking, GPB Holdings II is part of the portfolio of investments held and controlled by GPB Capital Holdings, a tauten headquartered in New York. Some of the other investments held by the firm include GPB Automotive Portfolio LP, GPB Cold Storage LP, GPB Holdings III LP, and GPB Waste Management Fund LP among others. The jurisprudence fast of Rosca Scarlato LLC presently represents clients who have been affected by the GPB investments. If you invested money with John James Hoidas and are concerned about your investing, contact your experience lawyers for investors, for a free evaluation of recovery options. Call 888-998-0530, electronic mail arosca @ rscounsel.law, or leave a message through a contact shape on this page .
Another quarrel settled a calendar month to the matchless mentioned above alleges misrepresentation. The quarrel which was settled on 3rd October 2019 was initiated on the allegation that John Hoidas made misrepresentation on investments between September 2013 and July 2019. The challenge was settled for $ 158,823.59.
In a dispute shown as settled on 4th September 2019, the client alleged that the investments recommended by agent John Hoidas between May 2017 and July 2019 were undesirable for her. As a consequence, the dispute was settled for $ 26,470.59. A like dispute was settled on 1st July 2019. The node in this end dispute alleged that their investments between March 2017 and March 2019 were besides unsuitable. The dispute was settled for $ 238,235.29 ,
Believe You Suffered Losses in GPB Investments?
Contact us last, it is important to note that, as of the date of this article, there has not been a find of liability as to the complaints or allegations mentioned in this article, unless differently indicated. Any lector should besides read the original sources hyperlinked in this blog for accuracy, including any BrokerCheck report and/or read of any disciplinary or regulative carry through. Those sources are incorporated by citation into the textbook of this blog, and are the governing materials in case of any inconsistencies or misprint in this blog .
What John Hoidas Investors Can Do
Lawyers for investors at Rosca Scarlato LLC law firm often represent investors in assorted cases alleging investment-related imposter or broke misbehave and are presently investigating unsuitability allegations involving broker John Hoidas brought against him though multiple customer disputes .
typically, cases like this are taken on a contingency fee basis, which means that the investors pay for fees or costs only if there ’ s a win*. A securities lawyer and accessory professor of securities rule, lawyer Alan Rosca has represented thousands of victimize investors across the state and around the world in cases ranging from arbitrations to class actions.
Investors who believe they lost money as a consequence of John James Hoidas alleged undesirable investment recommendations, may contact lawyer Alan Rosca for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0530, via e-mail at arosca @ rscounsel.law, or through the contact mannequin on this web page .
In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of police or a court. Whenever we reference “ allegations ” or charges that are “ alleged, ” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow matters about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent updates regarding assorted developments that may occur in such matters. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such matters and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such matters. besides, the Brokercheck report linked to some of our blogs is the up-to-date version as of the date of accessing by the proofreader. The information in our blogs is current as of the go steady of the draft of the web log, and given that sometimes sealed past complaints may nobelium farseeing be listed in newer Brokercheck reports, some of the events referenced in some of our blogs may later on be removed from newer Brokercheck reports. Visitors may check the most holocene adaptation of each brokercheck report at www.finra.org, and may contact FINRA for the earlier interpretation of the Brokercheck report upon which assorted blogs may be based .