Jay Dee Jordan—Recommendation and Execution of Hundreds of Unsuitable Purchases of Nontraditional ETF’s

Rochester stockbroker fraud attorneyJay Dee Jordan Allegedly Recommended and Executed Hundreds of Unsuitable Purchases of Nontraditional ETFs in His Customers’ Accounts; Jordan’s Unsuitable Recommendations in Nontraditional ETFs in the 79 Clients’ Accounts Resulted in Realized and Unrealized Customer Losses Exceeding $8.4 million

Jay Dee Jordan allegedly recommended and executed hundreds of unsuitable purchases of nontraditional ETFs in his customers’ accounts according to a recent Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Jay Dee Jordan’s alleged recommendation and execution of hundreds of unsuitable purchases of nontraditional ETF’s 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 Jay Dee Jordan’s alleged recommendation and execution of hundreds of unsuitable purchases of nontraditional ETF’s.

The aforementioned AWC also alleges that Jordan effected transactions in nontraditional ETFs in 84 of the 153 accounts for which he was purportedly the assigned registered representative. In sum, Jordan allegedly recommended that his clients made purchases over $22 million in nontraditional ETFs, the AWC notes.

In 79 of the aforementioned 84 accounts the positions were allegedly held longer than thirty days, and on many occasions, said positions were purportedly held for years, the AWC states.

Jordan’s unsuitable recommendations in nontraditional ETFs in the 79 clients’ accounts resulted in realized and unrealized customer losses exceeding $8.4 million for positions held longer than thirty days, while Jordan and the firm received gross commissions of approximately $810,000 from non-traditional ETF transactions

Jay Dee Jordan Barred by FINRA

Jay Dee Jordan received a letter from FINRA staff on December 1, 2016, and he allegedly failed to timely produce the requested information or to seek an extension by the specified deadline, according to the aforementioned AWC currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Jordan, by allegedly refusing to produce documents and information that were requested pursuant to FINRA Rules, allegedly violated FINRA Rules and hence has been barred from associating with any FINRA member in any capacity, the AWC states.

One should also note that, according to the AWC, Jay Dee Jordan 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 Jay Dee Jordan’s alleged recommendation and execution of hundreds of unsuitable purchases of nontraditional ETF’s. 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 Jay Dee Jordan’s alleged recommendation and execution of hundreds of unsuitable purchases of nontraditional ETF’s 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.