Richard William Lunn Martin—Unsuitable Recommendations

Ponzi scheme attorneysRichard William Lunn Martin Allegedly Made Recommendations for Long-term Holding, Non-traditional Exchange Traded Funds (ETF’s) to All of His Customers; Martin Allegedly Made Claims that the Global Economy was on the Precipice of Catastrophe

Richard William Lunn Martin allegedly made recommendations for long-term holding, non-traditional exchange traded funds (ETF’s) to all of his 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 Richard William Lunn Martin’s alleged unsuitable recommendations.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Richard William Lunn Martin’s alleged unsuitable recommendations are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

Martin allegedly made claims to believe that the global economy was on the brink of catastrophe and that a pair of his customers should invest in and hold Non-traditional ETFs to make hedges against the impending disaster, according the aforementioned Complaint.

Martin, from at least March 2011 through July 2015, and as a result of the aforementioned view, allegedly recommended to virtually all of his customers that they invest almost exclusively in and hold non-traditional ETF’s for extended periods of time, the Complaint reports.

It should be noted that non-traditional ETF’s hold enormous risks when held more than one trading session, the Complaint reports.

Richard William Lunn Martin Barred by FINRA after Allegedly Having no Reasonable Basis to Recommend Non-traditional ETF’s

Richard William Lunn Martin allegedly had no reasonable basis to recommend non-traditional ETF’s to his customers and, as a result, allegedly violated NASD and FINRA Rules, according to the aforementioned Complaint currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

What is more, from June 7, 2014 through October 10, 2014, Martin allegedly sent communications to the public that failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts, were also misleading, and also contained exaggerated and unwarranted language, promissory statements, and projections of future performance, the Complaint notes.

Finally, between 2009 and 2011, Martin solicited and recommended to his 44 customers approximately 334 Non-traditional ETF transactions in approximately 15 Non-traditional ETFs, the Complaint reports.

As a result of the aforementioned behavior, Martin has been barred by FINRA, the Complaint states.

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 Richard William Lunn Martin’s unsuitable recommendations. 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 Richard William Lunn Martin’s unsuitable recommendations 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 (1159 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.