Our firm is investigating American Trust Investment Services, Inc. broker and Quiver Financial investment adviser representative Justin Michael Singletary (CRD# 6325695) of San Clemente, California for potential investment-related misconduct involving allegedly misrepresented and unsuitable recommendations of GWG L Bonds sold to a retail customer through his former brokerage firm WestPark Capital, Inc.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Justin Michael Singletary entered the securities industry in 2016 and has been affiliated with several brokerage and investment advisory firms over the course of his career. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, he is currently dually registered with:
- American Trust Investment Services, Inc. (CRD# 3001) – Registered as a General Securities Representative with FINRA and Nasdaq since August 28, 2025, and licensed as an agent in California (since September 29, 2025) and Texas (since September 30, 2025). He is based out of a branch office at 910 S El Camino Real, Suite 200, San Clemente, California.
- Quiver Financial Holdings LLC (CRD# 305224) – Registered as an investment adviser representative in California since May 22, 2021 and in Texas since January 12, 2024, working from offices in San Clemente, California and Katy, Texas.
Mr. Singletary’s prior securities-industry registrations include:
- WestPark Capital, Inc. (CRD# 39914) – General securities representative in Newport Beach, California from January 2017 to September 2020.
- Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (CRD# 16164) – Registered representative in Norco, California from May 2016 to December 2016.
His employment history also shows other investment-related and business roles, including positions with World Financial Group, Inc., JS Properties, and AR2 Capital Partners, LLC, before transitioning fully into his current advisory and brokerage roles in San Clemente, California.
Mr. Singletary has passed the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), the General Securities Representative Examination (Series 7), and state law exams including the Series 63 and Series 65, which qualify him to act as both a securities broker and an investment adviser representative.
Justin Michael Singletary Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck reveals one customer dispute involving Mr. Singletary that has been reported as a customer dispute – settled. The complaint relates to the sale of alternative investments known as GWG L Bonds while he was associated with WestPark Capital, Inc.
According to the disclosure:
- Filing forum: FINRA arbitration, Case No. 22-02057
- Firm when activity occurred: WestPark Capital, Inc.
- Product: Alternative investment – GWG L Bonds
- Allegations: The customer’s FINRA arbitration statement of claim alleges that GWG L Bonds were misrepresented and were not suitable for the client’s investment objectives.
- Filing date: September 8, 2022
- Date complaint received by the firm: September 13, 2022
- Alleged damages: Amount not specified, but alleged to be greater than $5,000
- Resolution: Settled on June 18, 2024 for $40,000, with no contribution reported from Mr. Singletary personally (individual contribution $0).
In plain terms, the customer claims that the GWG L Bond investments were presented in a misleading way and were unsuitable given the client’s risk tolerance and objectives. GWG L Bonds are complex, illiquid alternative investments that have been at the center of numerous investor complaints and lawsuits nationwide, often involving accusations of misrepresentation, inadequate due diligence, and unsuitable sales practices.
From an investor-protection perspective, allegations like these frequently raise concerns under FINRA’s suitability rules and standards governing how high-risk products are marketed to retail investors. When a customer claims that an advisor misrepresented risks or recommended an inappropriate concentration in speculative products, arbitrators often scrutinize whether the advisor properly understood both the customer’s profile and the inherent risks of the product before making the recommendation.
Summary of Disclosures Involving Justin Michael Singletary
- Customer Dispute – FINRA Arbitration (WestPark Capital, Inc.)
- Allegations: Misrepresentation and unsuitable recommendation of GWG L Bonds.
- Product Category: Alternative investment – GWG L Bonds.
- Filing Date: September 8, 2022.
- Status: Settled on June 18, 2024.
- Settlement Amount: $40,000 (no personal contribution).
Investors should understand that a settlement does not necessarily mean Mr. Singletary or his former firm admitted liability. Firms often choose to settle FINRA arbitration claims for business reasons, including the costs and risks of extended litigation. However, the existence of a settled customer dispute can still be an important data point for investors evaluating an advisor’s history and risk profile.
In addition, investors who have suffered losses in GWG L Bonds or other alternative investments may have potential claims for recovery through FINRA arbitration and should promptly seek a case review to determine their legal options.
To obtain a copy of Justin Michael Singletary’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link:
visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)
In disputes involving alleged misrepresentation and unsuitable recommendations of GWG L Bonds, FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) plays a central role. Rule 2111 requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on the investor’s age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and other profile information.
When a customer alleges that an advisor recommended illiquid, high-risk GWG L Bonds that did not align with conservative, income-oriented objectives or a need for capital preservation, arbitrators will typically examine whether the advisor:
- Performed adequate due diligence on GWG L Bonds, including their credit quality, business model, and liquidity risks;
- Understood the customer’s actual financial circumstances and risk tolerance; and
- Recommended an appropriate concentration level rather than over-weighting the account in speculative alternative investments.
If the evidence shows that Mr. Singletary recommended GWG L Bonds to a customer whose profile called for safer, more liquid investments, or failed to disclose the true risks of the product, a FINRA arbitration panel could find that such conduct violated FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). Investors and their counsel often point to this rule—available at FINRA Rule 2111—to argue that the broker and firm should be held responsible for the resulting losses.
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)
Allegations that GWG L Bonds were “misrepresented” also trigger concerns under FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public), which governs how broker-dealers and their representatives communicate with retail customers through sales literature, presentations, and other marketing materials. Rule 2210 requires that all communications be fair and balanced and prohibit the omission of material facts that would cause a statement to be misleading.
In a case like the one involving Mr. Singletary, investors and arbitrators may focus on whether:
- Sales presentations or written materials downplayed the credit risk, illiquidity, and bankruptcy risk associated with GWG Holdings and its L Bond program;
- Promotional descriptions overstated the safety, income potential, or diversification benefits of the bonds; and
- The advisor adequately explained that GWG L Bonds were speculative, thinly traded, and dependent on the issuer’s financial health.
If a panel determines that the way GWG L Bonds were described to customers was not fair and balanced, or omitted key risk information, it could conclude that the firm’s and broker’s communications violated FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)—accessible at FINRA Rule 2210—in addition to any suitability violations.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
Finally, many customer disputes and regulatory actions involving misrepresentation and unsuitable recommendations also implicate FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade). Rule 2010 is a broad “catch-all” provision requiring member firms and their associated persons to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their business.
Even if a broker’s conduct does not fit neatly into one specific rule, FINRA and arbitration panels frequently use Rule 2010 to address unethical or unfair practices—such as recommending speculative products without fully disclosing risks, ignoring red flags about an issuer’s financial condition, or putting the broker’s own compensation ahead of the customer’s best interests. In GWG L Bond cases, pattern-type evidence showing that a broker repeatedly sold the product to conservative or unsophisticated investors can support a finding that the broker failed to uphold the high ethical standard imposed by Rule 2010.
For investors pursuing claims related to GWG L Bonds or other unsuitable alternative investments, counsel often argues that the conduct at issue violated FINRA Rule 2010 in addition to the more specific suitability and communications rules, thereby reinforcing the case for compensatory damages and, in some instances, interest and costs.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused by broker fraud, negligence, and unsuitable recommendations. His firm, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., represents clients nationwide on a no-recovery, no-fee basis. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free case review with an experienced securities attorney.