Former American Capital Partners registered representative Mark Christopher Hotton was the subject of two filed complaints, which allege fraudulent activity and industry violations in connection with his sales practice while employed with the firm. One complaint alleged that Mr. Hotton transferred $365,000 of his client's cash without his client's authorization. Although American Capital Partners denied all the claims, it settled the case without hesitation attributing their decision to the cost of defending the case. Another complaint filed alleges that a client invested in two real estate development projects and an initial public offering (IPO) based on Mr. Hotton's misrepresentations about the investments. The case is currently pending resolution in New York. Unfortunately, these were not the first set complaints filed against Mr. Hotton for misconduct while acting as a registered representative. Numerous complaints alleging similar misconduct that go as far back as 1997 were filed against Mr. Hutton while he was employed by Oppenheimer, Ladenburg Thalmann, and M.S. Farrell.
In fact, Mr. Hotton was recently named in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) complaint alleging that he improperly used and converted $5,932,000 of customer funds, without his customers knowledge or consent, for his own use and benefit, and caused at least an additional $2,584,078 to be wired from his customers' Oppenheimer accounts to his outside business activities and individual affiliates. The complaint alleges that while Mr. Hotton was employed by Oppenheimer, he was either employed by or accepted compensation from outside business entities, which were outside the scope of his relationship with Oppenheimer. Also, the complaint alleges that Mr. Hotton submitted various U4 Forms but failed to disclose his engagement in a number of entities while employed by Oppenheimer. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Hotton forged and falsified numerous documents and made numerous misrepresentations, verbal and written, to his customers, his firm, and others to further his fraudulent scheme. In addition, the complaint alleges that Hotton provided customers with fabricated statements for a non-existent account at an entity and false written statements about the value of their investments with him. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Hotton exercised control over customers' accounts; recommended and executed transactions that were excessive and unsuitable in light of customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation; loaned $250,000 to firm customers with notifying and receiving written authorization from the firm; and acted with intent to defraud or with reckless disregard for the customers' interests and for the purpose of generating commissions.
FINRA also alleged that during Hotton's on-the-record testimony, he falsely testified about numerous topics in response to FINRA's questions. Hotton also allegedly provided FINRA with false statements and claims after authorities made a request for information and documents. Regarding Hotton's U4, the complaint alleges that he willfully failed to make any disclosure on his U4 of several legal actions against him, or the settlement of those actions - he failed to disclose that information even after the NASD instructed him to do so; he failed to timely amend his U4 to disclose the commencement of a federal action against him, or the temporary restraining order granted in that action; and when he finally amended his Form U4 to disclose the federal action, he falsely described the action as a business dispute between business partners.
Mr. Hotton also allegedly committed numerous acts of misconduct in clients' accounts and violated his customer-specific suitability obligations. FINRA's complaint states that Hotton executed hundreds of unauthorized trades in customers' accounts without his customers' knowledge, consent, or authorization. FINRA claims that Hotton's customers neither gave Hotton prior written authorization to exercise discretionary powers in their accounts, nor did they give Hotton verbal discretionary power. One of Hotton's customers specifically stated that he was not interested in risky or speculative trading, but Hutton still recommended investments that were contrary to the customer's investment objectives and financial situation. Some of the risky investments recommended were leveraged on inverse exchange traded funds or ETFs, which Hotton did not completely understand. In particular, Hotton did not understand or explain to his clients that the long-term return of a leveraged or inverse ETF can substantially deviate from the underlying index. Therefore, Hotton failed to satisfy the reasonable basis suitability requirement in connection with his investment recommendations.
Have you suffered losses in your American Capital Partners brokerage account or anywhere else? Was Mr. Hutton your stockbroker at any firm? If so, call Robert Pearce at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. for a free consultation and account review. Mr. Pearce is actively investigating and accepting clients with valid claims against American Capital Partners stockbrokers, including Mr. Hotton, who may have engaged in misconduct and caused investors losses.
The most important of investors' rights is the right to be informed! This Investors' Rights blog post is by the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida. For over 30 years, Attorney Pearce has tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of disputes involving complex securities, commodities and investment law issues. The lawyers at our law firm are devoted to protecting investors' rights throughout the United States and internationally! Please visit our website, www.secatty.com, post a comment, call (800) 732-2889, or email Mr. Pearce at email@example.com for answers to any of your questions about this blog post and/or any related matter.