SIAMAK EGHLIDI Investment Fraud Investigation: Allegations of Unsuitable Recommendations and Disclosure Failures

Call 800-950-6553 or complete our online form to schedule your no-obligation case evaluation.

Recent Customer Complaints Reveal Troubling Pattern of Misconduct

Investors who worked with broker Siamak Eghlidi (CRD# 1596968) may have grounds to pursue financial recovery for investment losses. Currently registered with Calton & Associates, Inc. in Newburg, Oregon, Eghlidi has recently faced serious allegations regarding his investment recommendations and sales practices that raise significant concerns for investors.

According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, Eghlidi has been the subject of customer complaints alleging he failed to conduct proper due diligence and recommended unsuitable, high-risk investments. These accusations, combined with a history of regulatory disclosures, paint a concerning picture of potential securities fraud and misconduct.

Who is Siamak Eghlidi?

Siamak Eghlidi is a registered broker with over 35 years of experience in the financial industry. His career began in 1987 with Mutual of Omaha Investor Services, where he worked until 2000. He subsequently moved to United Heritage Financial Services (2000-2007) and Capital Financial Services (2007-2019) before joining his current firm, Calton & Associates, in July 2019.

Eghlidi operates from his branch office in Newburg, Oregon, and is licensed to sell securities in 16 states, including Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. His registration with FINRA allows him to sell investment company products and variable contracts, as he holds the Series 6 and Series 63 licenses.

Recent Customer Complaint Details

In January 2025, a customer filed a significant complaint against Eghlidi alleging multiple violations of securities industry standards. According to the FINRA BrokerCheck report, the specific allegations include:

1. Failure to conduct proper due diligence on recommended investments
2. Recommending unsuitable, high-risk investments that did not align with the client’s investment objectives
3. Failure to adequately discuss benefits and risks of the investments
4. Failure to disclose commissions received on fixed annuity products

The customer sought damages of $841,053.08 – a substantial sum indicating the severity of the alleged misconduct. While this complaint was ultimately denied, the nature and scope of the allegations warrant careful consideration by investors who have worked with Eghlidi.

Pattern of Disclosure Events

The recent complaint is not the only disclosure event in Eghlidi’s regulatory history. His record also shows a significant termination disclosure from his time at Mutual of Omaha Investor Services. According to FINRA documentation, Eghlidi was discharged in May 2000 for:

“VIOLATIONS OF INTERNAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BY SIGNING CUSTOMERS SIGNATURE OR NOTATING CUSTOMER INITIALS ON INSURANCE AND SECURITIES FORM.”

This termination raises serious concerns about ethical standards and regulatory compliance. While Eghlidi stated that he “completed some informational forms for about 10 out of 1,000 clients who lived a considerable distance away” after obtaining information from them, and claimed the forms were not applications or orders to buy or sell, the fact remains that signing documents on behalf of clients violates fundamental securities industry standards.

Fixed Annuity Concerns: The CB Life Case

The recent customer complaint specifically mentioned issues with a fixed annuity recommendation. According to Eghlidi’s broker statement, he offered the client multiple fixed annuity options, but the client selected a CB Life Fixed Annuity with a “fraction higher rate” than alternatives. Eghlidi claimed the product was suitable based on the client’s objectives and risk profile.

However, Eghlidi acknowledged that “at the time of purchase, I had no way of knowing fraud was occurring at CB Life and that as a result this product would go into rehabilitation.” This statement raises critical questions about the due diligence process:

1. What research did Eghlidi conduct on CB Life’s financial stability?
2. Were there warning signs about CB Life that proper due diligence might have uncovered?
3. Did Eghlidi adequately explain the risks of the annuity, including the possibility of insurer insolvency?
4. Was the slightly higher interest rate worth the apparently greater risk?

For investors who purchased CB Life annuities through Eghlidi, these questions are particularly relevant to potential recovery claims.

Understanding Unsuitable Investment Claims

When brokers like Siamak Eghlidi recommend investments, they have a legal and regulatory obligation to ensure those recommendations are suitable for their clients’ specific financial situations, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and needs. Unsuitable investment recommendations can take many forms:

• Recommending high-risk products to conservative investors
• Failing to diversify a portfolio appropriately
• Recommending illiquid investments to clients with short-term cash needs
• Recommending complex products without adequate explanation of risks
• Prioritizing high-commission products over more suitable alternatives

In Eghlidi’s case, the customer complaint specifically alleged he recommended an “unsuitable, high-risk investment” and failed to properly discuss the benefits and risks. This type of allegation is common in investment fraud cases, especially involving fixed annuity products that may appear safe but carry significant risks related to liquidity, surrender charges, and issuer stability.

The Fixed Annuity Disclosure Problem

One particularly troubling aspect of the complaint against Eghlidi involves the alleged failure to disclose commissions on fixed annuity products. Fixed annuities typically pay brokers substantial commissions – often 6-8% of the investment amount – yet many investors remain unaware of these payments.

While fixed annuity commissions don’t always require the same explicit disclosure as securities transactions, brokers still have an obligation to:

1. Act in their clients’ best interests
2. Disclose material conflicts of interest
3. Provide fair and balanced information about product costs and fees
4. Recommend only suitable products regardless of commission structure

The allegation that Eghlidi failed to disclose his commission suggests a possible conflict of interest that could have influenced his recommendation of the CB Life annuity over potentially more suitable alternatives.

Red Flags for Investors Working with Eghlidi

Investors who have worked with Siamak Eghlidi should be alert to the following potential red flags:

• Recommendations of fixed annuities with higher interest rates than competitors
• Minimal discussion of risks associated with recommended investments
• Limited or no disclosure about commissions and fees
• Emphasis on guaranteed returns without adequate explanation of limitations
• Recommendations to replace existing annuities or insurance products
• Pressure to make quick investment decisions
• Promises of returns that seem too good to be true
• Reluctance to provide written documentation about investment features

If you’ve experienced any of these warning signs in your dealings with Eghlidi, it may be worth having your investment portfolio and recommendations reviewed by an independent investment fraud attorney.

Regulatory Oversight and Firm Responsibility

Calton & Associates, Inc., Eghlidi’s current employer, has supervisory responsibilities for his activities as a registered representative. Brokerage firms must implement reasonable supervision systems to detect and prevent misconduct by their brokers. If a firm fails in these supervisory duties, it may share liability for investor losses caused by its representatives.

Questions about Calton & Associates’ supervision in this case might include:

1. What due diligence did the firm conduct on the CB Life fixed annuity before allowing its representatives to sell it?
2. What processes were in place to ensure suitable annuity recommendations?
3. How did the firm monitor commission-based recommendations for potential conflicts of interest?
4. What procedures were in place to verify that clients received complete disclosures about recommended products?

These supervisory obligations make it possible for investors to potentially recover from the brokerage firm even when individual broker misconduct is at issue.

Eghlidi’s Registration History and Professional Background

Understanding Eghlidi’s professional background provides important context for evaluating the recent allegations. His FINRA BrokerCheck report shows he has been in the securities industry since 1987, working for four different firms:

1. Mutual of Omaha Investor Services (1987-2000) – Terminated following allegations of signing customer signatures
2. United Heritage Financial Services (2000-2007)
3. Capital Financial Services (2007-2019)
4. Calton & Associates (2019-Present)

Eghlidi holds limited securities licenses, having passed:

• The Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts Representative Examination (Series 6) in 1987
• The Uniform Securities Agent State Law Examination (Series 63) in 1996
• The Securities Industry Essentials Examination (SIE) in 2018

Notably, he has not passed any principal or supervisory examinations and holds no professional designations, limiting the scope of products he is qualified to sell. His registration permits him to sell mutual funds, variable annuities, and similar investment company products, but not individual stocks, bonds, or more complex securities.

In addition to his securities business, Eghlidi reports one other business activity as a landlord, owning the office building at 2505 Portland Rd, Newberg, OR, where he conducts his securities business.

Legal Options for Recovery: FINRA Arbitration

Investors who believe they have suffered losses due to Siamak Eghlidi’s investment recommendations or practices may have legal recourse through FINRA arbitration. This process offers several advantages over traditional court litigation:

1. Faster resolution: FINRA arbitration typically concludes within 12-16 months, much quicker than court cases
2. Industry expertise: Arbitrators often have securities industry knowledge and experience
3. Lower costs: The process is generally less expensive than court litigation
4. Binding decisions: Arbitration awards are final and difficult to appeal
5. Privacy: Proceedings are not public court records

Claims against brokers and brokerage firms in FINRA arbitration can be based on various legal theories, including:

• Unsuitable investment recommendations
• Failure to conduct adequate due diligence
• Misrepresentation or omission of material facts
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Negligence
• Failure to supervise (against the brokerage firm)

For substantial losses related to Eghlidi’s recommendations, particularly involving CB Life fixed annuities, consultation with an experienced investment fraud attorney can help determine if pursuing FINRA arbitration is appropriate.

Statute of Limitations Concerns

Investors should be aware that FINRA arbitration claims must generally be filed within six years of the events giving rise to the dispute. However, various factors can affect these time limitations, including:

• When the investor discovered or should have discovered the misconduct
• Whether there was fraudulent concealment of relevant facts
• State laws that might apply to certain claims
• The continuing nature of some investment relationships

Given these time constraints, investors with concerns about Eghlidi’s recommendations should not delay in seeking legal advice, especially if the investments were made several years ago.

Protecting Yourself from Investment Fraud

While investigating potential claims against Siamak Eghlidi is important for affected investors, preventing future investment fraud is equally crucial. Consider these protective measures:

1. Verify broker credentials: Use FINRA BrokerCheck (brokercheck.finra.org) to research any financial professional before investing
2. Question recommendations thoroughly: Ask about risks, costs, commissions, and alternatives
3. Get it in writing: Request written documentation of all investment features and recommendations
4. Be wary of guarantees: Be skeptical of any investment promising both high returns and safety
5. Understand what you’re buying: Don’t invest in products you don’t understand
6. Watch for red flags: Be cautious if a broker is reluctant to explain costs or risks
7. Trust your instincts: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is

These precautions can help protect your financial future from potentially unsuitable investments and broker misconduct.

Next Steps for Concerned Investors

If you’ve invested with Siamak Eghlidi, particularly in fixed annuity products from CB Life, and have concerns about the suitability of those recommendations or the adequacy of disclosures provided, consider these steps:

1. Gather your documents: Collect all account statements, marketing materials, and correspondence related to your investments
2. Document your recollections: Write down your memories of conversations and representations made during the sales process
3. Request your client file: You have a right to obtain your client file from the brokerage firm
4. Consult with an attorney: Speak with an investment fraud attorney experienced in FINRA arbitration
5. Act promptly: Be mindful of time limitations that could affect your ability to recover

Investment losses due to broker misconduct can be devastating, particularly for retirees and those near retirement. However, with proper legal guidance, recovery is often possible through FINRA’s arbitration process.

Call 800-950-6553 or complete our online form to schedule your no-obligation case evaluation.

Chetan Patil

Chetan Patil is the founder and Managing Partner of the Patil Law. He brings over 15 years of extensive experience in diverse complex disputes and transactions, across the country. Mr. Patil specializes in litigations, trials, arbitrations, and appeals of complex securities, FINRA, financial and business disputes, with an emphasis in securities, financial services, and financial regulatory law.