Patrick Hudson—Private Securities Transactions

Cleveland stockbroker fraud lawyerPatrick M. Hudson Allegedly Participated in Private Securities Transactions in the Form of Promissory Notes without Having Provided Prior Written Notice to RBC; Hudson also Allegedly Participated in Several Outside Businesses while Failing to Follow RBC Procedures Regarding Verification of Customer Assets

Patrick Hudson, from March 2002 to June 2015, allegedly participated in private securities transactions in the form of promissory notes without having provided prior written notice, 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 Patrick Hudson’s alleged participation in private securities transactions 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 Patrick Hudson’s alleged participation in private securities transactions.

Hudson, former Maryland-based RBC Capital Markets broker/adviser, also allegedly participated in several outside businesses without providing prior written notice and also allegedly failed to follow RBC procedures regarding verification of customer assets, according to the aforementioned AWC.

Furthermore, Patrick Hudson was allegedly actively engaged in an outside real estate business in and around Baltimore, Maryland with several different business partners, the AWC states.

Patrick Hudson Suspended 6 Months and Fined $10,000 by FINRA

Hudson allegedly invested in real estate projects, including investments in single family homes, apartment complexes and other properties, for the purported purpose of receiving capital gains or rental income and some of his business partners and real estate investors purportedly later became his customers at RBC, the AWC notes.

In each purported case, the lender was allegedly a customer of RBC at the time and Hudson, either singly or in combination with a real estate investment company owned by Hudson and for which he purportedly acted as sole managing member, was the borrower or guarantor of the borrower, the AWC notes.

Finally, Patrick Hudson, from August 2010 to May 2015, on at least 21 occasions, allegedly sent letters, on his RBC letterhead, to various third-parties for the purpose of verifying the assets of certain RBC customers, according to the aforementioned AWC currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Patrick Hudson, based on the aforementioned behavior, allegedly violated FINRA Rules and hence has been suspended six months and fined $10,000 by FINRA, the AWC notes.

One should also note that, according to the AWC, Patrick Hudson 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 fraud and are currently investigating Patrick Hudson’s alleged participation in private securities. 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 Patrick Hudson’s alleged participation in private securities transactions 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.