March, 2025 | Based in Red Bank, NJ
Are you concerned about your investments managed by Christopher Charles Laffey? Have you experienced unexplained losses or questionable transactions? We’re here to help you understand your rights and recovery options. Call 800-950-6553 or submit our online form today for a confidential, no-cost evaluation of your potential claim.
Critical Information About Christopher Charles Laffey
- Full Name: Christopher Charles Laffey
- CRD Number: 859962
- Current Location: Red Bank, NJ
- Current Employer: Alexander Capital, L.P.
- Office Address: 10 DRS James Parker Blvd, Suite 202, Red Bank, NJ 07701
- Registration Status: Currently registered with 1 Self-Regulatory Organization and 28 U.S. states and territories
- Experience: In the securities industry since 1978 (over 45 years)
- FINRA BrokerCheck: 6 Customer Disputes (4 settled, 2 pending) and 1 Tax Judgment/Lien
- Previous Employers: Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. (10/2015-12/2015), Gilford Securities Incorporated (11/2001-10/2015), H.C. Wainwright & Co., Inc. (06/2001-10/2001)
- Outstanding Tax Lien: $248,417.73 filed by the IRS on 03/16/2023
A Long History of Customer Disputes
Christopher Charles Laffey has been a financial advisor for over four decades, currently working with Alexander Capital, L.P. in Red Bank, New Jersey. While his lengthy career suggests extensive experience in the securities industry, a careful review of his FINRA BrokerCheck report reveals a troubling pattern of customer complaints and allegations of misconduct spanning multiple decades and firms.
Since the beginning of his career, Laffey has been the subject of six customer disputes, with four resulting in settlements and two currently pending arbitration. These complaints involve serious allegations including unauthorized trading, churning (excessive trading), unsuitable recommendations, and breach of fiduciary duty. The consistency of these allegations across different time periods and brokerage firms raises significant concerns about his trading practices and relationship with clients.
Recent Pending Arbitration Cases
Of particular concern are two pending FINRA arbitration cases against Laffey:
- Case #24-02230 (Filed October 2024): This recent arbitration claim alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, negligence, breach of contract, and violation of FINRA Rule 2010 in connection with private equity investments. The client is seeking $1,694,000 in damages, indicating the substantial nature of the alleged misconduct.
- Case #22-02061 (Filed September 2022): In this case, customers allege breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and negligence related to promissory note investments beginning in November 2019. While no specific damages amount is listed, the claimants are seeking recovery of losses, interest, punitive damages, and various fees.
These pending matters suggest that concerns about Laffey’s business practices continue to the present day, despite his decades of experience in the industry.
Previous Settled Complaints and Their Significance
Examining Laffey’s history of settled complaints reveals a pattern of alleged misconduct:
- In May 1992, a customer alleged unauthorized trades and failure to disclose risks of short-selling. This matter was settled for $200,000, a substantial sum that suggests serious concerns about the underlying conduct.
- In another complaint from May 1992, a client alleged churning (excessive trading) and improper account handling. This case was settled for $48,000, with Laffey personally contributing $5,000 toward the settlement.
- A more significant case involved allegations of churning an account, which resulted in a $65,000 settlement in July 1999. The customer had initially claimed damages of $270,000.
- In a much earlier case from 1980, a client claimed that Laffey failed to use stop-loss orders, resulting in losses of approximately $100,000. This matter was settled for $15,000.
The consistent theme across these complaints—unauthorized trading, excessive trading, and failure to implement risk management strategies—suggests a pattern of conduct that prioritized generating commissions over client interests.
Understanding the Allegations: Red Flags for Investors
The allegations against Laffey encompass several serious forms of broker misconduct that all investors should be aware of:
1. Unauthorized Trading
Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker makes transactions in a client’s account without proper approval. This violation undermines a fundamental principle of the broker-client relationship: that clients maintain control over their investment decisions unless they’ve explicitly granted discretionary authority.
Several of Laffey’s complaints specifically mention unauthorized trading, suggesting he may have executed trades without obtaining proper client approval. This type of conduct not only violates FINRA rules but also breaches the trust relationship between advisor and client.
2. Churning (Excessive Trading)
Churning is a particularly harmful practice where a broker engages in excessive trading primarily to generate commissions rather than to benefit the client. To establish churning, regulators typically look at:
- High turnover ratio: The rate at which securities in an account are replaced with new securities
- Cost-to-equity ratio: The percentage of return an account would need to generate just to cover trading costs
- Control over the account: Whether the broker exercised de facto control over trading decisions
Multiple complaints against Laffey specifically allege churning, most notably a case that resulted in a $65,000 settlement after allegations that he churned a customer’s account between 1992 and 1995.
3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Investment professionals have a fiduciary duty to act in their clients’ best interests. This includes:
- Making suitable recommendations based on the client’s objectives and risk tolerance
- Disclosing all material information about investments
- Avoiding conflicts of interest
- Handling accounts with care and diligence
Both of Laffey’s current pending arbitrations specifically allege breach of fiduciary duty, suggesting that clients believe he placed his own interests ahead of theirs.
4. Misrepresentation and Omission
Several complaints against Laffey involve allegations that he failed to disclose important information or misrepresented material facts about investments. For example, an early complaint specifically cited “failure to disclose risks of short-selling,” which resulted in a $200,000 settlement.
Proper disclosure of risks is not merely a courtesy—it’s a fundamental obligation of financial advisors under securities laws and regulations.
Outstanding Tax Lien
Adding to the concerns about Laffey’s conduct is a substantial outstanding tax lien. According to FINRA records, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a $248,417.73 tax lien against him on March 16, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
This significant financial obligation raises additional questions about Laffey’s personal financial management and potential conflicts of interest. Financial professionals experiencing substantial personal financial pressure may have heightened incentives to generate commissions through practices like excessive trading or recommending high-commission products.
Regulatory Framework and Investor Protections
Financial advisors like Christopher Charles Laffey operate within a complex regulatory framework designed to protect investors. Key regulations relevant to the allegations against him include:
- FINRA Rule 2010: Requires brokers to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade—the foundational ethical standard for the industry.
- FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability): Requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer, based on the customer’s investment profile.
- FINRA Rule 2020: Prohibits any manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance.
- FINRA Rule 3260: Requires written authorization before a broker can exercise discretion in a customer’s account.
- SEC Regulation Best Interest: Establishes a “best interest” standard of conduct for broker-dealers when making recommendations to retail customers.
The repeated allegations against Laffey suggest potential violations of these fundamental rules designed to protect investors.
Alexander Capital’s Supervisory Responsibilities
Brokerage firms have a legal obligation to supervise their registered representatives properly. Alexander Capital, L.P., Laffey’s current employer, has a duty to implement supervisory procedures to monitor their brokers’ activities and ensure compliance with securities regulations.
When brokers engage in misconduct, their employing firms may be held liable under a legal doctrine known as “respondeat superior” or through claims of negligent supervision. This means that investors who have suffered losses due to Laffey’s alleged misconduct may have claims not only against him personally but potentially against Alexander Capital as well.
Notably, both pending arbitrations name Alexander Capital as a respondent alongside Laffey, indicating that customers believe the firm failed in its supervisory duties.
Red Flags for Current and Prospective Clients
If you are currently a client of Christopher Charles Laffey or are considering working with him, be alert to these warning signs that could indicate potential problems:
- High-frequency trading: Receiving numerous trade confirmations or noticing frequent buying and selling in your account.
- Concentration in high-commission products: A portfolio heavily weighted toward products that generate significant commissions for the broker.
- Unauthorized transactions: Trades in your account that you don’t recall approving.
- Underperformance relative to benchmarks: Account performance that consistently lags behind relevant market indices despite active trading.
- Pressure tactics: Being rushed to make investment decisions without adequate time to consider alternatives or review documentation.
- Lack of transparency: Difficulty obtaining clear explanations about investment strategies, costs, or account performance.
- Account statements that are difficult to understand: Complex or confusing statements that obscure the true performance of your investments.
- Recommendations that don’t align with your goals: Investment suggestions that seem inconsistent with your stated financial objectives or risk tolerance.
Steps for Concerned Investors
If you’re a current or former client of Christopher Charles Laffey and have concerns about how your investments have been handled, consider taking these steps:
- Review your account statements and trade confirmations: Look for unusual activity, unauthorized transactions, or evidence of excessive trading.
- Calculate your investment performance: Determine whether your account has underperformed relevant benchmarks despite active trading.
- Assess the commissions and fees: Analyze how much you’ve paid in commissions and fees relative to your account value.
- Request a complete account history: Ask for detailed records of all transactions in your account.
- Document all communications: Keep records of all communications with Laffey and Alexander Capital.
- Consult with a securities attorney: Speak with an attorney who specializes in investment fraud and FINRA arbitration to understand your options.
- File a complaint with regulators: Consider submitting complaints to FINRA, the SEC, or your state securities regulator.
How Our Investment Fraud Attorneys Can Help
Our law firm specializes in representing investors who have suffered losses due to broker misconduct. If you’ve experienced problems with Christopher Charles Laffey or Alexander Capital, our experienced securities attorneys can:
- Conduct a comprehensive review: We’ll analyze your account statements, trade confirmations, and other documents to identify potential misconduct.
- Calculate your damages: Our experts can determine the extent of your losses attributable to alleged misconduct.
- Explain your legal options: We’ll help you understand whether you have grounds for a FINRA arbitration claim and what to expect from the process.
- Represent you in FINRA arbitration: Our attorneys have extensive experience handling FINRA arbitration cases against brokers and brokerage firms.
- Negotiate on your behalf: We’ll work to achieve the most favorable resolution possible, whether through settlement or arbitration.
- Provide peace of mind: We’ll handle the complex legal process so you can focus on your financial future.
Our firm handles investment fraud cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we recover money for you. This arrangement allows investors to pursue legitimate claims regardless of their financial circumstances.
Don’t delay in seeking advice if you believe you’ve been harmed by broker misconduct. FINRA arbitration claims must typically be filed within six years of the events giving rise to the claim, and waiting too long could affect your right to recovery.
Protect your financial future by calling our experienced investment fraud attorneys today. We understand the devastating impact that broker misconduct can have on your savings and retirement plans, and we’re committed to helping you seek the recovery you deserve. Call 800-950-6553 now or complete our online form to schedule your confidential, no-obligation consultation.
