Our firm is investigating PlanMember Securities Corporation financial advisor and broker David T. Kuga (CRD# 4433896) of Campbell, California for potential investment-related misconduct.
David T. Kuga’s Financial Advisor Career History
David T. Kuga has worked in the securities industry since 2001. Over his career, he has been registered with several brokerage firms and has held both broker and investment adviser registrations.
Since August 19, 2011, Kuga has been registered with PlanMember Securities Corporation (CRD# 11869). He is currently based out of a PlanMember branch office located at 901 Campisi Way, Suite 240, Campbell, California.
Before joining PlanMember Securities Corporation, Kuga was associated with:
- Financial Network Investment Corporation (CRD# 13572) in Campbell, California, from August 2008 to August 2011.
- Pension Planners Securities, Inc. (CRD# 14068) in San Jose, California, from March 2005 to August 2008.
- American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. (CRD# 6363) in California from September 2001 to February 2005.
- IDS Life Insurance Company (CRD# 6321) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from September 2001 to February 2005.
In addition to his brokerage work, Kuga has reported a concurrent role with Employee Benefits Services Group / Daybright Financial in Campbell, California, where he engages in insurance product sales, including life, health, long-term care, disability, and fixed indexed annuity products.
David T. Kuga Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, David T. Kuga has one pending customer dispute involving mutual fund investments and ongoing account fees.
The disclosure describes a client who claims that Kuga:
- Did not adequately explain that a less expensive option was available for her account, and
- Collected ongoing fees that she believes were not justified by the services provided.
The complaint involves a mutual fund product, and the client is seeking approximately $41,980 in damages, representing the total fees she paid between November 2011 and September 2025. The complaint was received on October 2, 2025, and is currently marked as pending, with no reported settlement or adjudicated outcome.
Key Allegations and Disclosure Details
- Type of disclosure: Customer dispute (pending)
- Reporting source: Broker (self-reported)
- Product involved: Mutual fund
- Alleged misconduct: Failure to discuss or recommend a lower-cost option and charging fees that the customer believes were not earned
- Alleged damages: $41,980 (the total of fees paid over roughly 14 years)
- Time period at issue: November 2011 – September 2025
- Status: Complaint pending; no settlement or final decision reported as of the most recent update
What This Means for Investors
This kind of allegation can raise serious concerns about:
- Whether the advisor recommended higher-cost mutual fund share classes or account structures when a cheaper alternative was reasonably available;
- Whether the ongoing advisory or brokerage fees were excessive relative to the services actually provided; and
- Whether the investor received full and fair disclosure about all available options and associated costs over the life of the account.
It is important to remember that a pending FINRA complaint is an allegation only. The matter may ultimately be dismissed, resolved in Kuga’s favor, or settled without any admission of wrongdoing. However, the size of the alleged fee damages and the long time period involved are factors investors and counsel typically evaluate when considering potential claims.
To obtain a copy of David T. Kuga’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
In many excessive-fee or higher-cost-option cases, FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) plays a central role. Rule 2111 requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommendation is suitable for the customer based on the customer’s investment profile, including financial situation, risk tolerance, investment objectives, time horizon, and cost considerations. When an advisor keeps a client in a mutual fund or account structure with higher internal expenses or advisory fees while cheaper alternatives with similar exposure and objectives are available, regulators and arbitrators may view that as a suitability problem.
Applied to the allegations against David T. Kuga, an investor could argue that continuing to recommend or maintain a higher-cost mutual fund or fee structure over many years, without explaining a cheaper option, failed to satisfy the duty to consider costs as part of suitability. If proven, this may support claims that Kuga’s recommendations did not meet the requirements of Rule 2111 in light of the client’s best interest and long-term fee burden.
Another key standard in these cases is FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade). Rule 2010 broadly requires brokers to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Even when conduct is not tied to a specific technical rule violation, behavior that appears unfair, deceptive, or inconsistent with basic industry ethics can still be challenged under Rule 2010.
In the context of the pending complaint against Kuga, investors might assert that collecting nearly $42,000 in fees over roughly 14 years while allegedly failing to highlight a cheaper option violates this ethical standard. If an advisor continues to charge fees that a reasonable investor would not agree to if fully informed of alternatives, a panel could find that the conduct falls short of Rule 2010’s expectations, especially if the services provided were minimal compared to the fees charged.
While it is primarily directed at firms, FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) is often important in disputes involving fee overcharges and higher-cost investment options. Rule 3110 requires member firms to establish and maintain a system of supervision reasonably designed to ensure that their associated persons, including brokers like Kuga, comply with FINRA rules and federal securities laws. That supervisory system should cover, among other things, reviewing account fees, monitoring share-class usage, and flagging patterns where clients pay unusually high or long-running charges.
In a matter like the one alleged here, investors may contend that PlanMember Securities Corporation failed to design or enforce adequate supervisory procedures to detect that a client was paying substantial fees over many years without being offered a lower-cost alternative. Even though Rule 3110 focuses on the firm, the same set of facts—prolonged, potentially excessive fees and lack of lower-cost options—can support related claims against the individual advisor for participating in or benefiting from conduct that should have been prevented by effective supervision.
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.