Flower Mound, TX | January 14, 2026 — Texas financial advisor William Charles Burks II (CRD# 2944992) was suspended by FINRA for four months and fined $10,000 in August 2025 for recommending unsuitably high concentrations of alternative investments to three customers with low to moderate risk tolerances. According to his BrokerCheck record, Burks has also settled three customer arbitration claims totaling $811,500 since 2023, with his firm Centaurus Financial, Inc. paying the entire settlement amount.
The FINRA disciplinary action, which concluded on August 21, 2025, found that Burks recommended that three customers invest unsuitably high concentrations in illiquid or limited-liquidity alternative investments, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), business development companies (BDCs), and interval funds. The investments subjected customers to substantial risk of loss and were inconsistent with their stated risk tolerances and investment objectives.
Burks served his four-month suspension from September 15, 2025, through January 14, 2026, and paid the $10,000 fine in October 2025. He also faces two pending arbitration claims seeking an additional $280,000 in damages for similar allegations of recommending unsuitable, illiquid, speculative investments and breaching his fiduciary duty.
The FINRA Regulatory Action: Over-Concentration in Alternative Investments
The findings in FINRA’s disciplinary action reveal a troubling pattern of conduct involving multiple customers over an extended period. According to the Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) agreement:
The Core Violations:
Unsuitably High Concentration: Burks recommended that three customers invest an unsuitably high percentage of their accounts in alternative investments that were illiquid or had limited liquidity.
Risk Mismatch: Each of the three customers had a low or moderate risk tolerance, making the concentrated alternative investment strategy fundamentally unsuitable.
Investment Objective Discrepancy: Two of the customers had investment objectives of preserving capital and generating income—conservative goals that are incompatible with aggressive alternative investment strategies.
Paperwork Misrepresentation: The customers’ actual risk tolerance and investment objectives “were not reflected on the transaction paperwork submitted to the firm,” suggesting documentation issues that prevented proper supervisory oversight.
The Product Mix:
The unsuitable recommendations involved three categories of alternative investments:
Non-Traded REITs: Illiquid real estate investment trusts that cannot be easily sold and often have holding periods of 5-10 years or longer. These products typically pay high commissions (7-10%) to brokers but offer no secondary market for investors who need liquidity.
Business Development Companies (BDCs): Investment vehicles that provide capital to small and mid-sized businesses. While they may offer attractive yields, BDCs carry significant credit risk, limited liquidity, and complex fee structures.
Interval Funds: Closed-end funds that offer limited liquidity through periodic redemption windows (typically quarterly) but restrict the percentage of assets that can be redeemed. These funds often invest in illiquid assets like private equity, real estate, or distressed debt.
The Consequences:
Two of the three customers referenced in the FINRA action reached settlements of their claims—likely the $287,500 and $299,000 settlements detailed elsewhere in Burks’ disclosure record. The regulatory action states that customers “have filed an arbitration concerning the recommendations at issue,” confirming the connection between the disciplinary findings and the customer complaints.
A Pattern of Settlements: Over $811,000 Paid Since 2023
Beyond the FINRA suspension, Burks’ BrokerCheck record reveals a concerning pattern of customer complaints, all involving allegations of unsuitable, high-risk, illiquid investments:
Settled Complaint #1: $287,500 (August 2025)
Filed: February 12, 2024 (FINRA Case #24-00320)
Alleged Damages: $1,000,000
Settlement: $287,500 (paid entirely by Centaurus Financial)
Allegations: Unsuitable, high-risk, illiquid investments and breach of fiduciary duty
Products: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests, Real Estate Security
Burks’ Statement: “I vehemently denied any wrongdoing and assert that the customer’s allegations were completely without merit. Notwithstanding, in an effort to avoid protracted proceedings, and the time and financial resources required, and in an effort to reach an expedited resolution with the customer, my broker/dealer unilaterally and without my agreement, settled with the customer, to which I made no monetary contribution.”
Settled Complaint #2: $299,000 (November 2024)
Filed: August 15, 2023 (FINRA Case #23-02233)
Alleged Damages: $580,000
Settlement: $299,000 (paid entirely by Centaurus Financial)
Time Period: August 2017 through February 2019
Allegations: Unsuitable, high-risk, illiquid investments and breach of fiduciary duty
Products: Direct Investment – DPP & LP Interests, Real Estate Security
Burks’ Statement: Identical language denying wrongdoing but noting the firm settled unilaterally without his agreement or monetary contribution.
Settled Complaint #3: $225,000 (September 2025)
Filed: May 15, 2023 (FINRA Case #23-01378)
Settlement: $225,000 (paid entirely by Centaurus Financial)
Allegations: Unsuitable, risky, low-value investments
Products: Equity-OTC, Penny Stock
Burks’ Statement: Again denying wrongdoing but acknowledging the firm’s unilateral settlement decision.
Total Settlements: $811,500
The three settlements, all paid by Centaurus Financial with zero contribution from Burks personally, total $811,500. This represents a substantial amount paid to resolve customer disputes, even if the broker maintains he did nothing wrong.
Two Pending Arbitration Claims: $280,000 in Additional Damages Sought
Burks currently faces two pending FINRA arbitration claims seeking combined damages of $280,000:
Pending Claim #1: $200,000
Filed: August 7, 2024 (FINRA Case #24-01693)
Alleged Damages: $200,000
Allegations: Unsuitable, illiquid, speculative investments and breach of fiduciary duty
Products: Claimants did not identify specific investments
Status: Pending
Pending Claim #2: $80,000
Filed: November 17, 2025 (FINRA Case #25-02519)
Alleged Damages: $80,000
Allegations: Speculative, illiquid investment
Products: Private Debt Fund
Status: Pending
In both pending cases, Burks provides more detailed defenses, stating the investments were suitable based on customers’ objectives and goals, that customers received and understood disclosure documents, and that he “put the customer’s interest first” and will “vigorously defend this matter to the fullest extent of the law.”
Understanding Alternative Investment Concentration Risk
The core issue in Burks’ FINRA disciplinary action—and the common thread through his customer complaints—is over-concentration in alternative investments. This is one of the most frequently cited violations in securities arbitration cases.
What Is Over-Concentration?
Over-concentration occurs when too much of an investor’s portfolio is allocated to a single investment, asset class, or investment type. While diversification is a fundamental principle of prudent investing, over-concentration violates this principle and exposes investors to unnecessary and unsuitable risk.
For alternative investments specifically, industry guidelines and regulatory guidance suggest:
10-15% Maximum for Alternatives: Conservative investors should generally limit alternative investments to 10-15% of their total investable assets.
Lower for Conservative Investors: Investors with low to moderate risk tolerance, capital preservation goals, or liquidity needs should have even lower concentrations—often 5-10% or less.
Zero for Some Investors: Retirees, those approaching retirement, or investors who may need access to their capital should often have little to no exposure to illiquid alternatives.
Why Alternative Investment Concentration Is Problematic:
Illiquidity: Many alternative investments cannot be easily sold. Non-traded REITs, BDCs, and private funds often have holding periods of 5-10 years with no secondary market. If an investor needs money due to medical emergencies, job loss, or other life events, they may be unable to access their capital.
High Fees: Alternative investments typically charge substantially higher fees than traditional investments. Non-traded REITs often have upfront fees of 10-15%, plus ongoing management fees of 1-2% annually. These fees create significant breakeven hurdles.
Limited Transparency: Unlike publicly traded securities, many alternative investments provide limited information about holdings, valuations, and risks.
Concentration Risk: Placing 30%, 40%, or 50% of a portfolio into illiquid alternatives concentrates risk in products that may be difficult to value, impossible to sell, and subject to limited regulatory oversight.
Misleading Yields: Alternative investments often advertise attractive yields, but these may be partially funded by return of investor capital rather than genuine investment returns.
The Broker Commission Incentive:
One reason over-concentration in alternatives is so common is the commission structure. While a broker might earn 1-2% selling a mutual fund, they can earn 7-10% selling a non-traded REIT or private placement. On a $100,000 investment:
- Mutual fund commission: $1,000-$2,000
- Non-traded REIT commission: $7,000-$10,000
This creates a powerful financial incentive to recommend alternatives even when they’re not suitable for the client’s needs, risk tolerance, or investment objectives.
The “Transaction Paperwork” Problem
A particularly troubling aspect of the FINRA findings is the statement that customers’ actual risk tolerance and investment objectives “were not reflected on the transaction paperwork submitted to the firm.”
This raises several concerning possibilities:
Falsified Paperwork: The broker may have indicated higher risk tolerances or more aggressive investment objectives on transaction paperwork than customers actually possessed or authorized.
Lack of Client Review: Customers may have signed paperwork without understanding what risk tolerance or investment objectives were being represented to the firm.
Circumventing Supervision: By misrepresenting customer profiles on transaction paperwork, a broker can evade firm supervisory systems designed to flag unsuitable recommendations.
Pattern and Practice: FINRA’s reference to this issue involving “each of the three customers” suggests this was not an isolated error but a systematic practice.
William Burks’ Background and Career
According to FINRA records, William Charles Burks II has been in the securities industry since 1997—approximately 28 years.
Current Registrations:
- Centaurus Financial, Inc. – Registered Representative (since August 29, 2000)
- Centaurus Financial, Inc. – Investment Adviser Representative (since November 8, 2011)
- Branch office: 6021 Morriss Road, Suite #114, Flower Mound, TX 75028
Licenses and Qualifications:
- Series 6 (Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts) – passed September 1997
- Series 7 (General Securities Representative) – passed February 2009
- Series 26 (Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts Principal) – passed December 2003
- Series 63 (Uniform Securities Agent State Law) – passed September 1997
- Series 65 (Uniform Investment Adviser Law) – passed March 2009
- Securities Industry Essentials Examination (SIE) – passed October 2018
Burks holds supervisory qualifications (Series 26), meaning he can supervise other brokers selling investment company products and variable contracts. This makes his own suitability violations particularly concerning.
He is currently licensed to do business in 8 U.S. states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Previous Employment:
- PFS Investments Inc. (September 1997 – August 2000)
Outside Business Activities: Burks reports involvement in several fintech ventures:
- The Burks Financial Group, Inc. – President (DBA for branding purposes only, non-investment related)
- Eyeballs Financial – Senior Consultant (fintech platform, 10 hours per week)
- Finntalk – Consultant (fintech platform, 40 hours per week, 1 hour during trading hours)
- Eyeballs Technology – Consultant (fintech app, 40 hours per week, 1 hour during trading hours)
The combination of fintech consulting (totaling significant hours per week) alongside securities business raises questions about divided attention and focus.
The Criminal Disclosure: A 1982 Theft Charge
Burks’ record includes a 1982 criminal charge for theft (misdemeanor) in Dallas County, Texas. He pled not guilty, and the charge was ultimately dismissed on March 12, 1984. He received 12 months probation starting January 3, 1983, and paid a fine of $175 plus $63 in costs.
While this incident occurred over 40 years ago when Burks was likely quite young (before his securities career began in 1997), it remains a required disclosure on his BrokerCheck record. The charge was dismissed, suggesting it was either resolved favorably or the prosecution declined to proceed.
Can You Recover Losses from Alternative Investment Over-Concentration?
If you suffered losses due to over-concentration in non-traded REITs, BDCs, interval funds, or other alternative investments that were unsuitable for your risk tolerance and investment objectives, you may be entitled to recover your losses through FINRA arbitration.
Alternative investment concentration cases often involve:
- Investors with low to moderate risk tolerance placed in high-risk alternatives
- Retirees or near-retirees who need liquidity but were sold illiquid investments
- Conservative investors seeking capital preservation placed in speculative products
- Misrepresentation of risk tolerance or investment objectives on paperwork
- Breach of fiduciary duty by investment adviser representatives
- Failure to adequately disclose risks, fees, and liquidity constraints
Patil Law, P.C. represents investors nationwide who have been harmed by unsuitable alternative investments, over-concentration, and broker misconduct. We have over 15 years of experience in securities law and have recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases.
Our Experience with Alternative Investment Cases
Alternative investment cases require attorneys who understand both the legal standards governing suitability and the unique characteristics and risks of non-traded REITs, BDCs, interval funds, and other illiquid products. Attorney Chetan Patil founded Patil Law in 2018 to focus exclusively on representing investors harmed by securities misconduct. Our legal team—including attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera—has extensive experience handling cases involving:
- Non-traded REIT losses
- Business development companies (BDCs)
- Interval funds and closed-end funds
- Private placement investments
- Direct participation programs
- Over-concentration and failure to diversify
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Misrepresentation and omission of material facts
- Failure to supervise
We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we recover money for you. Your consultation is completely free and confidential.
Red Flags: Warning Signs of Alternative Investment Problems
Burks’ case highlights several warning signs investors should watch for when working with financial advisors:
Portfolio Composition Issues
High Alternative Allocation: If alternative investments (non-traded REITs, BDCs, private placements) represent more than 15-20% of your portfolio, especially if you’re a conservative investor, this may be unsuitable.
Illiquidity: If you cannot access a significant portion of your invested capital when needed due to redemption restrictions, holding periods, or lack of secondary markets.
Yield Chasing: If your advisor emphasizes high yields or distributions while downplaying risks and liquidity constraints.
Documentation Concerns
Risk Tolerance Mismatches: If paperwork indicates you have a higher risk tolerance or more aggressive investment objectives than you actually expressed to your advisor.
Rushed Signatures: Being asked to sign documents quickly without adequate time to review and understand them.
Missing Disclosures: Not receiving private placement memorandums, prospectuses, or other disclosure documents before investing.
Advisor Behavior
Commission-Driven Recommendations: An advisor who seems to recommend products that generate the highest commissions rather than products best suited to your needs.
Dismissing Concerns: An advisor who minimizes your questions about liquidity, fees, or risks.
Multiple Settled Complaints: Checking BrokerCheck and discovering your advisor has multiple customer complaints or regulatory actions involving similar allegations.
Time Limits Apply to Securities Claims
FINRA arbitration claims generally must be filed within six years of the alleged misconduct. If you were over-concentrated in alternative investments recommended by William Burks or another financial advisor, time may be running out to protect your rights.
Don’t let the statute of limitations expire on your claim.
What Should You Do If You’re Over-Concentrated in Alternative Investments?
If you believe you were unsuitably concentrated in non-traded REITs, BDCs, interval funds, or other alternative investments, take these steps:
- Review Your Portfolio: Calculate what percentage of your total investable assets is in alternative investments and assess whether this aligns with your risk tolerance and liquidity needs.
- Gather Documentation: Collect account statements, private placement memorandums, subscription agreements, and any written correspondence with your advisor about these investments.
- Check Risk Tolerance Paperwork: Review new account documents and investment paperwork to see if your stated risk tolerance and investment objectives match what you actually told your advisor.
- Research Your Advisor: Use FINRA BrokerCheck to review your advisor’s complaint history, regulatory actions, and employment history.
- Calculate Your Losses: Determine how much you invested in alternatives versus current values, including any distributions received.
- Consult with a Securities Attorney: A qualified securities attorney can evaluate whether your alternative investment concentration was suitable and explain your options for recovery through FINRA arbitration.
Contact Patil Law for a Free Consultation
If you invested with William Burks and suffered losses from over-concentration in non-traded REITs, BDCs, interval funds, or other alternative investments, or if you experienced similar issues with any financial advisor, contact Patil Law today for a free, confidential consultation.
Call: 800-950-6553
Email: info@patillaw.com
Website: investmentlosslawyer.com
There is no cost and no obligation. We’re here to help.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was William Burks sanctioned for?
FINRA suspended William Burks for four months and fined him $10,000 for recommending that three customers invest unsuitably high concentrations of their accounts in illiquid alternative investments, including non-traded REITs, business development companies, and interval funds. The customers had low to moderate risk tolerances and investment objectives of preserving capital and generating income, which did not match the aggressive alternative investment strategy. Their actual risk profiles were not reflected on transaction paperwork submitted to the firm.
How much has been paid to settle claims against William Burks?
Centaurus Financial has paid $811,500 to settle three customer arbitration claims against William Burks since 2023. The settlements include: $287,500 (August 2025), $299,000 (November 2024), and $225,000 (September 2025). Burks personally contributed nothing to these settlements. He also faces two pending claims seeking an additional $280,000 in damages.
What is FINRA arbitration?
FINRA arbitration is a streamlined dispute resolution process specifically designed for securities-related claims between investors and brokers or brokerage firms. It offers a faster, more cost-effective alternative to traditional court litigation. Most cases are resolved within 12-16 months. Claims generally must be filed within six years of the incident.
What is over-concentration in alternative investments?
Over-concentration occurs when too much of an investor’s portfolio is allocated to alternative investments like non-traded REITs, BDCs, or interval funds. These products are typically illiquid, high-fee, and high-risk. Conservative investors should generally limit alternatives to 10-15% of their portfolio, with even lower concentrations for retirees or those with capital preservation goals. Concentrations of 30%, 40%, or 50% in alternatives are typically unsuitable and expose investors to excessive risk.
Can investors recover losses from Centaurus Financial advisors?
Yes. Investors who suffered losses due to unsuitable alternative investment recommendations, over-concentration, breach of fiduciary duty, or misrepresentation by Centaurus Financial advisors may be entitled to recover their losses through FINRA arbitration. Centaurus Financial, like all FINRA member firms, is subject to industry rules requiring suitability in investment recommendations and fair dealing with customers.
What should I do if I’m over-concentrated in alternative investments?
First, review your portfolio to calculate what percentage is in alternative investments. Gather all documentation including account statements, private placement memorandums, and subscription agreements. Check whether risk tolerance paperwork matches what you actually told your advisor. Research your advisor’s BrokerCheck record for complaints and regulatory actions. Calculate your losses from alternative investments. Then consult with a securities attorney who can evaluate whether your concentration was suitable and explain your recovery options through FINRA arbitration.
About Patil Law, P.C.
Patil Law, P.C. is a securities litigation firm dedicated to representing investors who have suffered losses due to broker misconduct, unsuitable recommendations, and securities fraud. Founded in 2018 by attorney Chetan Patil, the firm focuses exclusively on FINRA arbitration and investment loss recovery.
With over 15 years of combined experience in securities law, Patil Law has successfully recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases. Attorney Chetan Patil earned his law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera earned their law degrees from University of Miami. The firm handles cases nationwide involving unauthorized trading, churning, unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to supervise.
Patil Law works on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm successfully recovers money on their behalf. All consultations are free and confidential.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is based on FINRA BrokerCheck records and public regulatory filings. Mr. Burks consented to the FINRA sanctions without admitting or denying the findings. Pending allegations are unproven. All investors are entitled to fair treatment under securities laws. This is attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This communication is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.