Our firm is investigating Morgan Stanley broker and investment adviser representative Megan E. Hassett (CRD# 7584024) of New York, New York for potential investment-related misconduct involving alleged unauthorized liquidation of a customer’s equity positions.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Megan E. Hassett (CRD# 7584024) has been registered as a General Securities Representative with Morgan Stanley (CRD# 149777) since January 19, 2023, and as an investment adviser representative with the firm since May 11, 2023. She works out of Morgan Stanley’s New York, New York branch office located at 1585 Broadway, 21st Floor.
According to her BrokerCheck report, Hassett has been employed by Morgan Stanley as a Branch Analyst since June 2022, following prior roles as a student and a short-term assurance intern at RSM US LLP. She has passed the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) exam, the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, and the Series 66 Uniform Combined State Law Examination, and is licensed in numerous U.S. states and territories through Morgan Stanley.
Megan E. Hassett Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck shows one settled customer dispute reported for Megan E. Hassett. The disclosure involves a 2025 customer complaint concerning alleged unauthorized trading and liquidation activity in a Morgan Stanley customer account.
According to the report, a Morgan Stanley client alleged that she did not give instructions to liquidate the remaining positions in her account. The account held listed equities (common and/or preferred stock), and the complaint was received on October 2, 2025. Although the customer’s claimed damages were listed as “unspecified,” the firm chose to resolve the matter quickly: the complaint was marked settled as of October 3, 2025, with a reported settlement of $7,356.95. The disclosure indicates that Hassett personally contributed $0.00 to the settlement, meaning the payment was made entirely by the firm.
At this time, there are no other customer disputes, regulatory actions, criminal disclosures, or employment termination events reported for Hassett on her BrokerCheck record.
For context, the key details of the customer dispute disclosure are:
- Type of action: Customer dispute – written complaint alleging unauthorized liquidation of remaining positions in a Morgan Stanley account.
- Date complaint received: October 2, 2025.
- Product type involved: Listed equities (common and preferred stock).
- Alleged damages: Unspecified.
- Settlement amount: $7,356.95.
- Individual contribution: $0.00 (firm-only payment).
- Disposition: Complaint settled on or about October 3, 2025.
Investors who experience unauthorized liquidations, unauthorized trading, or other account activity they did not approve may have claims for recovery through FINRA arbitration or other legal avenues, even if a broker or firm characterizes the issue as “resolved” with a modest settlement.
To obtain a copy of Megan E. Hassett’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
How Our Stockbroker Fraud Lawyers Can Help
The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has more than four decades of experience representing investors in cases involving broker misconduct at major Wall Street firms, including Morgan Stanley. Our stockbroker fraud lawyers represent investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration and other forums when brokers engage in misconduct such as unauthorized trading, mishandling customer instructions, or failing to follow a client’s stated objectives and risk tolerance.
Evaluating Claims Involving Unauthorized Liquidations at Major Brokerage Firms
When a customer’s positions are liquidated without clear, documented authorization, the consequences can include unexpected tax liabilities, deviation from long-term investment plans, and realized losses that could have been avoided. If you believe your broker liquidated positions in your account without your consent, our team can review your account statements, internal notes, emails, and other communications to determine whether we can help with unauthorized trading claims and pursue recovery against the responsible firm.
We also analyze key deadlines under the FINRA statute of limitations and related time-bar rules to ensure your claims are filed in a timely manner, preserving your ability to seek compensation for unauthorized liquidations or other sales practice violations.
FINRA Rule 2111, the suitability rule, requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on the client’s overall investment profile, including tax status. In the context of the allegations against Lester Iseri, recommending that a customer transfer non-qualified assets into a mutual fund account without clearly explaining the tax impact can be viewed as a suitability violation. If the tax consequences materially changed the investor’s after-tax return or conflicted with the customer’s objectives, an arbitration panel could find that Iseri failed to make a suitable recommendation under Rule 2111 because the client was not fully informed about how the transaction would affect their financial situation.
FINRA Rule 2010 requires registered representatives to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their business. Even if an investment appears facially consistent with a client’s profile, a broker who omits or downplays significant tax consequences may be acting unfairly or dishonestly. In a case like the Iseri complaint, where the core allegation is that the broker did not disclose tax consequences associated with a mutual fund transfer, arbitrators can conclude that failing to provide this critical information violated the ethical standards embodied in Rule 2010, because the customer could not make an informed decision about the recommendation.
FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications with the public and requires that all broker-dealer communications be fair and balanced and not omit material information necessary to make the communication not misleading. When a broker discusses or “pitches” a mutual fund transaction to a client moving non-qualified assets, the explanation should present both potential benefits and material risks, including foreseeable tax liabilities. In the Iseri matter, if any oral explanations or related communications about the mutual fund transfer failed to mention, or inadequately described, the tax consequences, those communications could be deemed misleading under Rule 2210. An arbitration panel could therefore determine that the way the transaction was presented to the customer violated FINRA’s standards for fair and balanced communications.
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.