Kim Dee Isaacson– Fraudulent Misrepresentations and Omissions of Material Facts

Rochester stockbroker fraud attorneyKim Dee Isaacson Allegedly Made Fraudulent Misrepresentations and Omissions of Material Facts to Morgan Stanley Customers

Kim Dee Isaacson allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to Morgan Stanley customers, 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 investment recovery options on behalf of investors in issues related to Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

Isaacson, from May 2010 through January 2014, on telephone calls conducted with a customer known only as HM, allegedly made intentional and repeated misrepresentations regarding the actual daily value of HM’s Morgan Stanley accounts so that, by January 2014, HM was purportedly led to believe that his accounts were worth $3.1 million more than their actual value, according to the aforementioned Complaint.

Isaacson also allegedly made said misrepresentations in order to hide losses and that HM’s accounts were actually not achieving the supposed four to six percent returns that Isaacson had promised his customers, the Complaint states.

Isaacdon Allegedly Effected Approximately 360 Unauthorized Trade in HM’s Accounts Including Transactions HM had Purportedly Prohibited Isaacson from Buying

Isaacson, from May 2010 through January 2014, allegedly effected approximately 360 unauthorized trades in HM’s accounts which included transactions which HM had purportedly prohibited Isaacson from purchasing, according to the aforementioned Complaint currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

What is more, Isaacson also allegedly failed to discuss the aforementioned trades with HM and implemented additional misrepresentations to HM regarding certain transactions which essentially allegedly hid his unauthorized trades, the Complaint states.

As HM reportedly discovered Isaacson‘s alleged misconduct in January 2014, Isaacson then allegedly attempted to settle HM’s Complaint away from, and without the knowledge of, Morgan Stanley, the Complaint states.

Isaacson, as a result of the alleged aforementioned misconduct, allegedly violated FINRA Rules, and therefore FINRA asks that monetary sanctions be imposed and ordered that Isaacson bear such costs of proceeding as are deemed fair and appropriate under the circumstances in accordance with FINRA Rules, the Complaint reports.

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 Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. 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 Kim Dee Isaacson’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts 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 (1225 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.