Glenn Robert King—Excessive Trading of Customer Accounts

investment fraud attorney ClevelandGlenn Robert King Allegedly Engaged in Excessive Trading of Customer Accounts and Exercised Discretion in Customer Accounts without Written Consent or Approval

Glenn Robert King allegedly engaged in excessive trading of customer accounts and exercised discretion in customer accounts without written consent or approval, according to a Complaint from FINRA’s Department of Enforcement currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities practice lawyers are investigating Glenn Robert King’s alleged excessive trading of customer accounts.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Glenn Robert King’s alleged excessive trading of customer accounts 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 aforementioned Complaint goes on to allege that King purportedly made willful misrepresentations and omitted material facts when he sold 44 unit investment trusts (UIT’s) to seven customers.

What is more, King allegedly excessively traded the accounts of four customers when he traded the customers’ UITs and closed-end funds (CEF’s) on a short-term basis, the Complaint notes. King also allegedly made unsuitable recommendations to the same four customers when he recommended that they purchase UITs and CEFs as short-term trading vehicles, the Complaint states.

Glenn Robert King Barred by FINRA; King Exercised Discretion in the Accounts of Four Customers without Written Consent or Approval

King also allegedly exercised discretion in the accounts of the four aforementioned customers without written consent or approval, according to the aforementioned Complaint from FINRA’s Department of Enforcement presently being reviewed by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

As a result of the aforementioned behavior, Glenn Robert King allegedly violated NASD and FINRA Rules and thus has been barred by FINRA, the Complaint notes.

From April 2008 to March 2011, the relevant periods to the conduct in this case, King was registered with Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. and Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc., respectively, and in January 2012, King registered with Buckman Reid as general securities representative, and King voluntarily left Buckman Reid in June 2015, the Complaint reports.

Finally, the Complaint notes that UITs typically will make a one-time “public offering” of only a specific, fixed number of units. Many UIT sponsors, however, will maintain a secondary market, which allows owners of UIT units to sell them back to the sponsors and allows other investors to buy UIT units from the sponsors.

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of alleged investment fraud and are currently investigating Glenn Robert King’s alleged excessive trading of customer accounts. 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 Glenn Robert King’s alleged excessive trading of customer accounts 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 (1214 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.