Brogdon Bond Investor News: Lawson Financial and Its Underwriter’s Counsel Settle SEC Charges Stemming from Failed Brogdon Bonds

Rochester stockbroker fraud attorneyApril 5, 2017 – The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a settlement with Lawson Financial Corporation (“Lawson”), Robert Lawson, and former underwriter’s counsel John T. Lynch in a case stemming from Lawson’s offering of fraudulent bonds managed by Christopher Brogdon. The SEC order which memorializes the settlement specifically finds that Lawson and the named individuals failed in their duty to act as a gatekeeper – to perform adequate due diligence – when underwriting the Brogdon bonds. Lawson must pay $200,000 in penalties for itself and $80,000 for Robert Lawson himself, as well as disgorge $200,000 in profits from the bond sales. Lynch, the former underwriter’s counsel, will pay a separate penalty of $45,000.

The root of the SEC’s complaint against Lawson was that the company failed to confirm that the Brogdon borrowers were following the ongoing disclosure requirements mandated by Rule 15c2-12. Lynch also failed to disclose that he was not authorized to practice law at the time of the offerings, despite being represented as such in the offering documents. This failure of due diligence abdicated the gatekeeper role that underwriters perform, and left investors high and dry while making Lawson and Brogdon substantial amounts of money.

The securities litigators at the Peiffer Wolf law firm are investigating the Brogdon products sold by Lawson, and are currently prosecuting a case on behalf of certain Brogdon investors. If you lost money by purchasing bonds managed by Brogdon, we want to hear from you. Contact attorney Joe Peiffer or James Booker at 216.589.9280, or via email at for an evaluation of your possible recourse regarding Brogdon bonds.

Peiffer Wolf (1311 Posts)

In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent blogs regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases.