Call 800-950-6553 or complete our online form to schedule your no-obligation case evaluation.
Hallandale Beach Financial Advisor’s Troubling History of Customer Complaints
Leonard Jay Suskind (CRD# 1140599), a financial advisor currently registered with UBS Financial Services in Hallandale Beach, Florida, has a concerning history of customer disputes that raise serious red flags for investors. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Suskind has been the subject of five customer complaints throughout his career, including a substantial arbitration award of over $900,000 against his firm.
If you’ve invested with Leonard Suskind, particularly at UBS Financial Services where he’s worked since February 2013, you may have grounds to recover investment losses through FINRA arbitration. Our investment fraud attorneys are currently investigating allegations of unsuitable investment recommendations, overconcentration in risky assets, and failure to follow client instructions.
Leonard Jay Suskind: Professional Background and Regulatory History
Leonard Suskind is a veteran financial professional with a career spanning more than four decades in the securities industry. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, his professional background includes:
- Current position: Financial Advisor at UBS Financial Services (since February 2013)
- Previous employment: Morgan Stanley (2009-2013), Citigroup Global Markets (1993-2009), and Lehman Brothers (1983-1993)
- Licenses: Series 7 (General Securities Representative), Series 15 (Foreign Currency Options), Series 63 (Uniform Securities Agent State Law), and Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) examination
- Registrations: Currently registered in 26 U.S. states and territories, including Florida, California, New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania
- CRD Number: 1140599 (unique identifier in FINRA’s Central Registration Depository)
- Branch location: 1010 S. Federal Highway, Suite 2601, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Suskind’s BrokerCheck report reveals a pattern of customer disputes that span decades, raising serious concerns about his investment practices and potential harm to investors:
Significant Arbitration Award: $904,249.17
One of the most concerning aspects of Suskind’s record is a substantial arbitration award against his firm. While at Shearson, Suskind was involved in a case that resulted in NASD arbitrators awarding a customer $745,036 plus 12% interest from April 1991 to January 1993 (an additional $159,213.17), totaling $904,249.17.
The allegations in this case included:
- Unauthorized trading
- Unsuitability
- Failure to follow instructions
- Improper liquidation
The size of this award is particularly troubling as it suggests potentially severe misconduct that significantly harmed at least one investor.
Pattern of Customer Complaints
Beyond the substantial arbitration award, Suskind’s record shows multiple other customer disputes:
- MLP and REIT Overconcentration (2016): While at UBS Financial Services, a customer alleged Suskind over-concentrated their portfolio in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and failed to timely follow instructions to sell an MLP. This complaint resulted in a settlement of $220,000.
- Improper Bond Recommendations (1992): While at Shearson, Suskind was alleged to have improperly recommended America West convertible bonds, resulting in customer losses of $32,554. This complaint was settled for $16,277, with Suskind personally contributing $3,173.82.
- Failed Instructions and Unsuitable Asset Allocation (2002): A customer alleged Suskind failed to follow instructions and implemented unsuitable asset allocation between 2001-2002 while at Salomon Smith Barney. This complaint was denied.
- Outside Investment Allegations (2024): A recent complaint alleged that representations regarding an outside investment were “untrue and deceptive.” This complaint was denied by the firm.
This pattern of complaints spanning multiple decades and firms raises significant concerns about Suskind’s investment practices and adherence to securities regulations designed to protect investors.
Understanding the MLP and REIT Concerns
The 2016 complaint against Suskind specifically cited overconcentration in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which is particularly concerning as these investments carry specific risks that make them inappropriate for many investors, especially when comprising too large a portion of a portfolio.
Risks of MLP Overconcentration
Master Limited Partnerships are publicly traded partnerships primarily in the energy sector that offer tax advantages but come with significant risks:
- Sector concentration risk: MLPs are heavily concentrated in the energy sector, particularly oil and gas pipelines, making them vulnerable to sector-specific downturns.
- Interest rate sensitivity: MLPs typically decline in value when interest rates rise, as investors seek safer fixed-income alternatives.
- Complex tax consequences: MLPs issue K-1 tax forms rather than 1099-DIV forms, creating additional tax filing complexity for investors.
- Regulatory risk: Changes in tax law or energy regulations can significantly impact MLP valuations.
- Liquidity constraints: Some MLPs have lower trading volumes, making them difficult to sell quickly without price concessions.
REIT Investment Concerns
Real Estate Investment Trusts also present specific risks, particularly when they comprise too large a portion of an investment portfolio:
- Interest rate sensitivity: Like MLPs, REITs generally perform poorly in rising interest rate environments.
- Sector-specific risks: Different types of REITs (residential, commercial, healthcare) face different market risks that can be amplified through overconcentration.
- Liquidity issues: Non-traded REITs in particular can be highly illiquid, locking up investor capital for extended periods.
- High fee structures: Many REITs carry significant management fees that can erode investor returns.
- Valuation complexity: Determining the true value of underlying real estate assets can be difficult, creating potential for overvaluation.
The settlement amount of $220,000 in the 2016 complaint suggests substantial investor losses, likely exacerbated by the oil price collapse in 2014-2015 that severely impacted many energy-focused MLPs.
Failure to Follow Instructions: A Recurring Allegation
A particularly troubling pattern in Suskind’s complaint history is the repeated allegation of failure to follow client instructions, which appears in multiple complaints across different firms and time periods. This raises serious concerns about whether client interests were prioritized.
When a broker fails to follow a client’s instructions to sell a security, the consequences can be severe:
- Amplified losses: Delays in executing sell orders during market downturns can significantly increase losses.
- Missed opportunities: Capital remains tied up in underperforming investments rather than being redeployed to better opportunities.
- Liquidity problems: Clients may be unable to access needed funds when brokers delay or ignore sell instructions.
- Breach of fiduciary duty: Ignoring client instructions represents a fundamental breach of the broker’s obligation to act in the client’s best interest.
In Suskind’s case, the 2016 complaint specifically alleged that UBS did not “timely comply with his instruction to sell an MLP,” coinciding with a period of significant turbulence in the MLP market that saw many such investments lose substantial value.
Unauthorized Trading Concerns
The substantial arbitration award against Shearson related to Suskind’s activities included allegations of unauthorized trading, one of the most serious violations in the securities industry. Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker executes transactions without proper client approval, effectively taking control of the client’s account without permission.
According to Suskind’s broker statement in this case, the dispute involved commodity futures trading, specifically foreign currency futures, which are particularly volatile instruments. The size of the arbitration award suggests the unauthorized trading caused substantial harm to the investor involved.
Red flags for unauthorized trading include:
- Transactions appearing in your account that you didn’t approve
- Excessive or unexpected trading activity
- Trades in securities or strategies you don’t recognize or understand
- Verbal rather than written confirmation of transactions
- Resistance to providing clear documentation of trades and authorizations
Legal Remedies for Investors
If you’ve invested with Leonard Jay Suskind and experienced losses, particularly through unsuitable recommendations, unauthorized trading, or failure to follow instructions, you may have several options for seeking recovery:
FINRA Arbitration Process
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) provides a specialized forum for resolving disputes between investors and their brokers. This process offers several advantages:
- Efficiency: FINRA arbitration typically concludes more quickly than court litigation, often within 12-18 months.
- Expertise: FINRA arbitrators generally have securities industry knowledge and understand the applicable regulations.
- Lower costs: The arbitration process is typically less expensive than traditional litigation.
- Binding decisions: Arbitration awards are final and binding with limited grounds for appeal.
Potential Legal Claims
Investors who have suffered losses while working with Suskind may have valid claims under several legal theories:
- Unsuitability: Brokers must recommend only investments and strategies that align with a client’s investment objectives, risk tolerance, financial situation, and needs.
- Breach of fiduciary duty: Financial advisors often have a fiduciary duty to place client interests ahead of their own.
- Negligence: Brokers must exercise reasonable care when providing investment advice and managing client accounts.
- Overconcentration: Excessive concentration in particular securities or sectors may violate the duty to recommend diversified portfolios appropriate to the client’s risk profile.
- Failure to supervise: Brokerage firms like UBS have a duty to supervise their representatives and may be liable for failing to prevent misconduct.
Acting Promptly: Statute of Limitations
It’s crucial to understand that time limitations apply to investment fraud claims:
- FINRA arbitration claims generally must be filed within six years of the event giving rise to the claim.
- Some claims may be subject to shorter statutes of limitations, potentially as brief as two years from when the investor knew or should have known about the potential misconduct.
For investors who worked with Suskind at UBS (2013-present) or Morgan Stanley (2009-2013), the clock may already be ticking on potential claims.
Warning Signs of Broker Misconduct
Investors who have worked with Leonard Suskind or any financial advisor should be alert to these potential warning signs of misconduct:
- Unexpected losses: Significant losses that seem out of line with market conditions or your stated risk tolerance.
- Account churning: Excessive trading generating commissions without improving your position.
- Unauthorized transactions: Trades executed without your explicit approval.
- Lack of diversification: Overconcentration in particular sectors or security types.
- Resistance to questions: Defensiveness or vague responses when you inquire about investment performance or strategy.
- Pressure tactics: Pushing for quick decisions without allowing time for due diligence.
- Guaranteed returns: Promises of specific returns or “guaranteed” performance.
- Unexplained fees: Charges that appear on statements without clear explanation.
Choosing Experienced Investment Fraud Attorneys
Recovering losses from broker misconduct requires specialized legal knowledge. When selecting an attorney to evaluate potential claims against Suskind or UBS Financial Services, consider these factors:
- Securities law specialization: Look for attorneys who focus specifically on securities law and FINRA arbitration rather than general practice firms.
- Track record with similar cases: Seek attorneys with experience handling claims involving overconcentration, unsuitable recommendations, and unauthorized trading.
- Resources for complex litigation: Securities cases often require expert witnesses and extensive document analysis.
- Contingency fee structure: Many reputable securities attorneys work on contingency, meaning they only collect fees if they recover money for you.
- Clear communication: Choose attorneys who explain complex legal and financial concepts in understandable terms.
Additional Red Flags in Suskind’s Record
Beyond the disclosed complaints, Suskind’s BrokerCheck report shows other areas of concern for potential investors:
- Multiple firm changes: Suskind has changed firms several times during his career, moving from Lehman Brothers to Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney to Morgan Stanley to UBS. While not uncommon in the industry, frequent moves can sometimes indicate underlying issues.
- Outside business activities: Suskind reports involvement with several outside business activities, including “Venture for America” and “L&L Suskind LLC,” described as “for personal investments.” Such activities can sometimes create conflicts of interest that merit additional scrutiny.
- Client testimonial: In his defense against the major arbitration claim, Suskind noted that the client “had traded commodity futures aggressively” and “accumulated foreign currency futures,” indicating involvement with highly speculative investments that carry substantial risk.
Protecting Your Financial Future
While pursuing recovery for investment losses is important, taking steps to protect your financial future is equally crucial:
- Conduct thorough due diligence: Before working with any financial advisor, check their background through FINRA BrokerCheck (brokercheck.finra.org).
- Understand your investments: Never invest in products or strategies you don’t fully understand, regardless of who recommends them.
- Document everything: Keep records of all communications with your advisor, including recommendations, instructions, and concerns.
- Review statements promptly: Examine monthly statements as soon as they arrive to identify unauthorized transactions or unexpected losses.
- Diversify appropriately: Ensure your portfolio is properly diversified across different asset classes and sectors based on your specific needs.
- Ask about compensation: Understand exactly how your advisor is compensated to identify potential conflicts of interest.
- Establish clear expectations: Put investment objectives, risk tolerance, and specific restrictions in writing.
Take Action Today
If you invested with Leonard Jay Suskind at UBS Financial Services, Morgan Stanley, or any other firm and experienced significant losses, particularly from MLP investments, unauthorized trading, or unsuitable recommendations, it’s critical to have your situation evaluated promptly by experienced securities attorneys.
The initial consultation is free and confidential, and comes with no obligation. Given the time limitations for filing claims, delaying could jeopardize your ability to recover losses.
Call 800-950-6553 or complete our online form to schedule your no-obligation case evaluation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations described have not been proven in a court of law, and Leonard Jay Suskind is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless and until proven otherwise through legal proceedings. Individual cases require unique analysis, and recovery outcomes depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
