David Albert Ross — Accepting Customer Loans without Disclosure & Undisclosed Outside Business Activities

David Albert Ross Allegedly Accepted Customer Loans, Totaling $89,000, without Disclosure and also Allegedly Engaged in Two Undisclosed Outside Business Activities

David Albert Ross, beginning in 2008 and up to his termination in 2016, and during his employment with two member firms (Signator Investors, Inc. and Woodbury Financial Services, Inc.), allegedly engaged in a pattern of misconduct, according to a recent Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) presently being reviewed by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to David Albert Ross’s alleged acceptance of customer loans and outside business activities are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers are currently investigating David Albert Ross’s alleged acceptance of customer loans and outside business activities.

David Albert Ross’s alleged pattern of misconduct allegedly included taking loans from firm customers, engaging in undisclosed outside business activities, and making false attestations in firm compliance questionnaires, according to the aforementioned AWC.

Ross, specifically, from 2008 until 2016, allegedly accepted five loans from four firm customers totaling $89,000 in violation of NASD and FINRA Rules and also allegedly engaged in two undisclosed outside business activities, the AWC notes.

Said allegations allegedly also included serving as board director of a firm customer in violation of NASD and F1NRA Rules, the AWC states.

David Albert Ross Suspended by FINRA

David Albert Ross, through the aforementioned alleged violations, allegedly violated NASD and FINRA Rules, according to the aforementioned AWC presently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Ross, in addition, on eight compliance questionnaires, allegedly falsely attested that he was aware of, and complied with, Signator’s and Woodbury’s policies and procedures concerning OBAs and loans. Therefore, Ross also allegedly violated NASD and FINRA Rules for this additional reason, the AWC notes.

On April 15, 2016, Woodbury reportedly filed a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Registration with FINRA disclosing that it terminated Ross on April 15, 2016 for “failing to disclose an outside business activity, accepting loans from firm clients and other violations of firm policies and procedures”, the AWC reports.

Finally one should also note that, according to the AWC, David Albert Ross neither admitted nor denied the FINRA findings.

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of investment-related fraud or misconduct and are currently investigating David Albert Ross’s alleged acceptance of customer loans and outside business activities. They take most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance the case costs, and only get paid for their fees and costs out of money they recover for their clients.

Investors who believe they lost money as a result of David Albert Ross’s alleged acceptance of customer loans and outside business activities may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Alan Rosca or James Booker, for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0520 or via e-mail at arosca@prwlegal.com or jbooker@prwlegal.com.

Alan Rosca (1252 Posts)

Alan is a securities lawyer. He also teaches Securities Regulation at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He focuses his legal practice on complex commercial and financial litigation and arbitration, particularly in the areas of securities and investment fraud. His office is in Cleveland, Ohio.


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.