Investment Architects: 1 Regulatory Complaint

Investment ArchitectsPublic records published by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and accessed on June 12, 2019 indicate that California-based brokerage firm Investment Architects has received a regulatory sanction in connection to alleged rule violations. Fitapelli Kurta is interested in hearing from investors who have complaints regarding Investment Architects (CRD# 17774).

Established in California in 1984, Investment Architects is headquartered in Petaluma, California and registered with 19 US states and territories: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The firm conducts nine types of business: broker or dealer retailing corporate equity securities on an over-the-counter basis; retailer of mutual funds; broker of municipal securities; broker or dealer selling variable life insurance policies or variable annuity policies; put and call broker or dealer or option writer; investment adviser; broker or dealer making sales of tax shelters or limited partnerships in primary distributions; broker/dealer making sales of tax shelters or limited partnerships in secondary markets; and private placements.  According to its BrokerCheck report, the firm has received one regulatory sanction.

In 2004 the National Association of Securities Dealers sanctioned Investment Architects in connection to allegations that under the direction and control of an employee, it participated in a contingency offering for which investor funds were raised but not transmitted to a separate bank escrow account, as per SEC requirements. According to NASD’s findings, the funds were instead transferred to an account at a bank controlled by PPS, which the NASD notes was not a bank, and “had entered into an agreement with the issuer” providing that it would deposit funds into an escrow account held by a bank; per that agreement, the funds in question “would not be released unless the contingency was met.” The NASD’s complaint also stated that the offering’s prospectus represented that investors would receive there funds should the offering sell “less than 2,500 membership interest,” and that it would expire on December 31, 2001, unless the issuer extended it; per the NASD, however, these terms were not compliant with SEC rules because they afforded the offering’s issuer “sole discretion to extend the offering for an indefinite period.” The complaint goes on to state that the $2.5 million contingency was in fact not met by December 31, 2001—by which point the firm had raised almost $526,000 in funds from a total of eight investors—and that the issuer extended the offering to March 1, 2002. According to the NASD, “a reconfirmation offer was not sent to the eight investors… who had invested funds,” and the complaint alleged that the firm failed to establish and enforce a supervisory system that ensured compliance with applicable SEC rules. In connection with these findings, the firm was issued a fine of $7,500, and was additionally ordered to pay approximately $1,100 in costs.

If you have complaints regarding Investment Architects, call Fitapelli Kurta at 877-238-4175 for a free consultation. You may be entitled to recoup your losses. All cases are taken on contingency: we only receive payment if and when you recover money. You may have a limited window to file your complaint, so we encourage you to avoid delay. Call 877-238-4175 now to speak to an attorney for free.