Our firm is investigating LPL Financial LLC broker and investment adviser Danielle Rae Scodellaro (CRD# 6131256) of Scottsdale, Arizona, for potential investment-related misconduct arising from a settled customer dispute involving an alleged misrepresentation of a variable annuity contract.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to her FINRA BrokerCheck report, Danielle Rae Scodellaro first entered the securities industry in 2012 with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in Madison, Wisconsin, where she was registered as a general securities representative. She then moved to Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. in Madison, Wisconsin, from April 2014 through December 2014.
In February 2015, Ms. Scodellaro joined CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc. in Scottsdale, Arizona, where she was registered both as a broker and, beginning in July 2015, as an investment adviser representative. She remained there until May 2022, during which time the conduct underlying the customer dispute described below allegedly occurred.
Since May 18, 2022, Ms. Scodellaro has been registered with LPL Financial LLC (CRD# 6413). Her BrokerCheck report lists a branch office in Scottsdale, Arizona, and indicates that she is licensed in more than 20 U.S. states and territories. She has passed the Series 6, 7, 63, and 66 examinations and has reported the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) designations.
Danielle Rae Scodellaro Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explaine
BrokerCheck discloses one settled customer dispute involving Danielle Rae Scodellaro. The complaint arises from her prior association with CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc. and centers on an allegedly misrepresented variable annuity contract.
According to the disclosure, a customer alleged that the variable annuity contract was misrepresented and sought to have the contract rescinded. The complaint, received on December 21, 2022, claimed damages of $233,512.83. Following a secondary review completed on February 24, 2023, the firm concluded that Ms. Scodellaro did not make any misrepresentation, but nonetheless acknowledged that the customer apparently did not fully understand the product and determined that a settlement was appropriate.
The employer agreed to pay the difference between the current contract value and the original principal investment, resulting in a settlement of $233,512.83, with no reported contribution from Ms. Scodellaro personally. The dispute is now reported as “settled” on BrokerCheck.
For context, the disclosed customer dispute can be summarized as follows:
- Type of event: Customer dispute – settled
- Firm at time of events: CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc.
- Product involved: variable annuity
- Allegation: Variable annuity contract was misrepresented; customer sought rescission
- Date complaint received: December 21, 2022
- Alleged damages: $233,512.83
- Status: Settled on February 24, 2023
- Settlement amount: $233,512.83
- Individual contribution: $0.00 (paid by the firm)
While the firm’s internal review concluded that Ms. Scodellaro did not misrepresent the annuity, the size of the payout and the customer’s allegation that they did not understand the product raise important suitability, disclosure, and supervision questions that may support claims in FINRA arbitration for other affected investors.
In conclusion, investors should understand that even a single settled customer dispute involving a complex, long-term product like a variable annuity can be a red flag—especially when the customer alleges misrepresentation and a large monetary settlement follows.
To obtain a copy of Danielle Rae Scodellaro’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)
FINRA Rule 2111, the Suitability Rule, requires that a broker or firm have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs.
In a case where an investor alleges that a variable annuity was misrepresented and that they did not understand the product, regulators and arbitrators may examine:
- Whether the broker understood the annuity’s key features, including surrender charges, fees, riders, and market risk, and conducted proper due diligence before recommending it.
- Whether the customer’s investment profile supported locking up a large principal amount in a long-term, fee-heavy annuity product.
- Whether the broker adequately explained the annuity’s complex features so the investor could make an informed decision.
If the customer’s financial situation, risk tolerance, or need for liquidity did not align with the long-term nature and fee structure of the annuity, or if the explanations were so unclear that the customer could not reasonably understand what they were buying, those facts may support a finding that the recommendations violated FINRA Rule 2111.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 requires that firms and their associated persons “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in the conduct of their business. This is a broad ethics rule that can apply whenever a broker’s conduct falls short of fair dealing, even if no more specific rule is clearly violated.
In the context of the misrepresentation-style allegations made against Ms. Scodellaro, Rule 2010 may be implicated if:
- The overall pattern of communications created a misleading impression about the annuity’s guarantees, risks, or fees, even if no single statement was technically false.
- The broker or firm failed to correct misunderstandings once it became clear that the customer did not fully understand the product, particularly given the large principal amount at stake.
- Internal reviews or supervision did not detect and address gaps in disclosure or education about complex products like variable annuities.
Even where a firm later concludes that a broker did not make an intentional misrepresentation, Rule 2010 allows regulators or arbitrators to scrutinize whether the broker’s conduct as a whole met the “high standards of commercial honor” required when recommending complex, long-term investments to retail customers.
FINRA Rule 2330 (Members’ Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities)
FINRA Rule 2330 sets out specific sales-practice standards for recommended purchases and exchanges of deferred variable annuities. Among other things, the rule requires that a broker:
- Have a reasonable basis to believe the customer has been informed of key annuity features, including surrender charges, tax penalties for early withdrawals, mortality and expense fees, rider costs, and market risk.
- Make reasonable efforts to obtain detailed information about the customer’s age, income, investment experience, objectives, time horizon, existing assets, and risk tolerance before recommending the annuity.
- Determine that the customer would genuinely benefit from the annuity’s features, such as tax deferral, annuitization, or death and living benefits.
In a dispute like the one reported on Ms. Scodellaro’s BrokerCheck report—where the customer claimed the variable annuity contract was misrepresented and later received a substantial settlement—regulators or arbitrators may focus on whether:
- The broker adequately educated the customer about the annuity’s complex features, fees, and risks as required under Rule 2330.
- The firm’s supervisory review of the annuity sale satisfied Rule 2330’s requirements for principal approval and written supervisory procedures.
- The recommendation and resulting concentration in the annuity were suitable given the customer’s overall financial profile.
A failure to meet these standards can support claims that the firm and broker did not comply with FINRA Rule 2330, even if the firm later asserts that no deliberate misrepresentation occurred.
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.