Our firm is investigating Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC broker and investment advisor Marvin Gene Strozier (CRD# 6636395) of Union Point, Georgia for potential investment-related misconduct involving an alleged unauthorized variable annuity application and other disclosure concerns.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Marvin Gene Strozier is currently registered with Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC (CRD# 141238). He has been registered as a broker with FINRA through Dempsey Lord Smith since October 26, 2022, and as an investment adviser representative since December 2, 2022. His current branch office is listed at 4810 Lamb Avenue, Union Point, Georgia, with the firm’s main office in Rome, Georgia.
Strozier’s prior registration history includes positions with multiple brokerage firms in Georgia. From approximately April 2020 through October 2022, he was registered with State Farm VP Management Corp (CRD# 43036) in Jackson, Georgia, and from February 2022 through October 2022 he was also registered with State Farm Investment Management Corp (CRD# 3487). Before that, he was associated with MML Investors Services, LLC (CRD# 10409) in Peachtree Corners, Georgia (2019–2020), BB&T Securities, LLC (CRD# 142785) and BB&T Investment Services, Inc. (CRD# 33856) in Warner Robins, Georgia (2016–2019), and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (CRD# 19616) in Greensboro, Georgia in 2016.
In addition to his brokerage and advisory roles, BrokerCheck shows that Strozier has been active in related insurance and financial businesses, including work as an insurance agent and owner of a real-estate and rental-property business.
Marvin Gene Strozier Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck for Marvin Gene Strozier reflects one customer dispute disclosure and one employment separation after allegations. While every disclosure is an allegation—not a finding of wrongdoing—they provide important information for investors evaluating his conduct.
2024 Variable Annuity Customer Dispute Involving State Farm VP Management Corp.
In a customer dispute reported by State Farm VP Management Corp., the customer alleged that he “did not sign the VA application” for a variable annuity product. The product type is identified as “Annuity-Variable,” and the matter was filed as a FINRA arbitration under docket number 22-02988 on January 7, 2024.
The BrokerCheck report indicates:
- Allegations: Customer states he did not sign the variable annuity application.
- Product type: Variable annuity.
- Forum: FINRA arbitration, docket/case #22-02988.
- Filing date: January 7, 2024.
- Settlement amount: $28,500.00 (paid by the firm).
- Individual contribution: $0.00 by Strozier.
- Disposition: “No Action” as to the individual; firm statement notes that a particular internal coding (“7E4A”) was marked in error.
Although the disclosure is recorded as “closed–no action/withdrawn/dismissed/denied” with no monetary contribution attributed to Strozier personally, the underlying allegation—that the customer did not sign the application for a variable annuity—raises concerns typically associated with unauthorized transactions, documentation irregularities, and possible signature issues. Investors reviewing this history should consider how carefully their own paperwork was handled, whether they fully understood what they were signing, and whether they received clear explanations about the annuity’s features, fees, and risks.
2016 Wells Fargo Termination After Allegations About Account Paperwork
BrokerCheck also reports that Strozier was discharged by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in 2016 for conduct described as “employment separation after allegations.” The disclosure explains that the termination was “for reasons unrelated to the business of Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC,” but still directly involved account paperwork and disclosures.
According to the filing:
- Employer: Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC / Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Termination type: Discharged.
- Termination date: September 1, 2016.
- Allegations: Strozier allegedly emailed new bank account paperwork and disclosures to his Wells Fargo email address instead of to customers.
- Representative’s response: Strozier contends that he printed and hand delivered the paperwork and disclosures to the customers.
While this disclosure concerns bank products rather than securities, it reflects a dispute over how required disclosures and account documents were delivered. Such issues are relevant to investors because they can affect whether clients receive timely, accurate information about their accounts and have a fair opportunity to review and understand the documents they are asked to sign.
Summary of Disclosures
For context, Strozier’s current BrokerCheck profile lists the following types of disclosure events:
- Customer Dispute (Final – No Action):
- Action: FINRA arbitration relating to a variable annuity purchased while Strozier was with State Farm VP Management Corp., alleging the customer did not sign the application.
- Disposition: Matter resolved with a $28,500 payment from the firm; no individual contribution by Strozier; disclosure coded as “no action” as to the individual representative and accompanied by a firm explanation that an internal code entry was made in error.
- Employment Separation After Allegations (Final):
- Action: Discharge from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in 2016 based on alleged improper handling of new account paperwork and disclosures (emailing them to his Wells Fargo address instead of customers).
- Disposition: Termination reported; Strozier disputes the allegation and maintains that he printed and hand-delivered the paperwork and disclosures to the customers.
Investors should understand that the existence of disclosures does not, by itself, prove wrongdoing. However, allegations about variable annuity paperwork and delivery of account disclosures can signal potential concerns about suitability, authorization, and the quality of information provided to clients.
To obtain a copy of Marvin Gene Strozier’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 requires that a broker or advisor have a reasonable basis to believe a recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile—including age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs. In variable annuity cases, suitability analysis is especially important because these products often carry long surrender periods, complex fee structures, and market risk in the underlying subaccounts.
In the customer dispute involving the variable annuity application at State Farm VP Management Corp., the allegation that the client “did not sign the VA application” raises questions about whether the transaction was properly authorized and whether the customer’s true investment profile was accurately captured in the paperwork. Even though the arbitration was resolved without any personal payment by Strozier and coded as “no action” against him, the firm’s decision to pay $28,500 to settle the matter suggests there was at least a contested issue about how the annuity transaction was handled.
From a Rule 2111 perspective, potential concerns in similar situations include:
- Whether the advisor actually discussed the variable annuity’s features, risks, surrender charges, and costs before submitting the application.
- Whether the client’s stated objectives and risk tolerance support placing retirement assets into a long-term, illiquid product.
- Whether any information on the application (income, net worth, objectives) was completed by the advisor without the client’s review or approval.
If a broker submits or facilitates an annuity application that the customer did not knowingly authorize, it is difficult to show that the recommendation was ever thoughtfully evaluated against the client’s investment profile, which may lead arbitrators to view the transaction as inconsistent with Rule 2111’s suitability requirements.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 is a broad ethical standard requiring associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Even when a specific product might arguably be suitable, conduct that undermines fair dealing with customers—such as mishandling account paperwork, failing to deliver disclosures, or processing transactions without clear consent—can violate Rule 2010.
The customer’s allegation that he did not sign the variable annuity application, coupled with the earlier Wells Fargo termination involving how new account paperwork and disclosures were emailed and delivered, highlights the type of record-handling and communication issues that often draw scrutiny under Rule 2010. In these kinds of cases, arbitrators and regulators may ask:
- Did the advisor handle client documents in a manner that ensured the customer actually saw and understood them?
- Were disclosures about important terms and risks provided in a timely, clear, and accurate way?
- Did the advisor’s conduct—taken as a whole—meet the “high standards of commercial honor” expected in the securities industry?
Even if a firm characterizes a termination as “unrelated to the business” of the broker-dealer, investors are entitled to consider whether alleged lapses in document handling or communication reflect broader concerns about the advisor’s adherence to ethical and procedural standards embodied in Rule 2010.
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) and Related Disclosure Obligations
FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications with the public and requires that all broker communications be fair and balanced and provide a sound basis for evaluating an investment, while prohibiting misleading statements or omissions of material facts. Although Rule 2210 is often applied to marketing materials and advertisements, its principles align closely with the obligation to ensure that customers receive proper disclosures and complete documents in connection with account openings and product purchases.
In a scenario where a customer later claims not to have signed an application for a variable annuity, or where a bank employer asserts that disclosures and new account forms were not sent or delivered in the prescribed manner, questions arise about whether communications with the customer were complete and not misleading. If an investor never actually receives the paperwork that explains the product’s costs, risks, and features—or if that paperwork is routed only to an internal address and not to the client—regulators and arbitrators may view the communication process as inconsistent with Rule 2210’s requirement that communications not omit material information necessary to make them fair and balanced.
Where investors can show that they were deprived of key written disclosures, pressured to sign documents they did not fully understand, or never given an opportunity to review what was submitted in their name, those facts can support claims under FINRA rules and state securities laws seeking recovery of losses caused by misleading or incomplete communications.
For over 45 years, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has focused on representing investors in FINRA arbitration and securities industry disputes—many of which involve variable annuities, complex products, and irregularities in account documentation. If you believe you were harmed by similar conduct, you should consult with counsel promptly, as deadlines may apply to your claims.
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.