David Michael Miller Accused of Recommending and Selling Unsuitable Investments in Unit Investment Trusts (UIT’s)

investors rights attorneysDavid Michael Miller Allegedly Lacked a Reasonable Basis for Recommending UIT Investments

David Michael Miller allegedly recommended 141 UIT purchases between August 2012 and May 2013, totaling approximately $5.4 million in 129 customer accounts, according to the complaint filed by the Financial Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) Department of Enforcement, and currently under review by the investment fraud attorneys of Peiffer Rosca Wolf.

The FINRA complaint alleges that that David Michael Miller recommended UITs to his customers without having a reasonable basis for the recommendation. The complaint also alleges David Michael Miller did not conduct sufficient research or undertake other reasonable diligence to ensure he adequately understood the features and risks of the UITs prior to recommending UITs.

David Michael Miller allegedly did not understand certain key features and risks of the UITs, such as their composition, basis for distribution payments, volatility, liquidity, use of leverage, and valuation at termination, FINRA charged. Miller, therefore, allegedly did not have a reasonable basis to recommend the UITs. According to the FINRA complaint, because of Miller’s alleged failure to understand key features and risks of the UITs, Miller allegedly negligently misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts about the UITs to investors in connection with their purchases.

David Michael Miller Allegedly Made Negligent Misrepresentations to His Customers and Omitted Material Facts

David Michael Miller allegedly negligently misrepresented and omitted to disclose certain material facts to investors.  According to the FINRA complaint currently under review, Miller allegedly made misrepresented to investors regarding the UIT’s composition, basis for distribution payments, volatility, liquidity, use of leverage, and valuation at termination.

Miller allegedly acted negligently in misrepresenting and omitting the foregoing materials facts because he allegedly failed to conduct reasonable diligence on the UIT’s, which would have uncovered the falsity of his misrepresentations and the existence of the material facts he allegedly failed to disclose, according to the FINRA complaint. As a result of Miller’s alleged misconduct, FINRA alleges that Miller recommended 141 unsuitable UIT purchases totaling approximately $5.4 million in 129 customer accounts.

Investor Rights Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities attorneys often represent investors who lose money as a result of Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, or stockbroker misconduct. They are currently investigating the possibility of assisting investors with the recovery of their losses in connection with unsuitable investments recommended to investors by David Michael Miller. 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 recommendations of unsuitable investments made by their financial professionals may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Alan Rosca or Joe Peiffer, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0520.

Broker: David Michael Miller
Status: INVESTIGATED by Peiffer Rosca.

For brokercheck report and additional info click here!

Alan Rosca (1141 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.