William Gennity, Rocco Roveccio and Laurence Torres— Alleged Unsuitable Recommendations

Cleveland stockbroker fraud lawyerWilliam C. Gennity, Rocco Roveccio and Laurence M. Torres, Three New York-based Brokers Allegedly Made Unsuitable Recommendations Purportedly Resulting in Heavy Commissions for the Brokers

William Gennity, Rocco Roveccio and Laurence Torres, three New York-based brokers, allegedly made unsuitable recommendations which purportedly resulted in huge commissions for the aforementioned brokers, according to an SEC Complaint currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to William Gennity, Laurence Torres, and Rocco Roveccio’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.

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers are currently investigating William Gennity, Laurence Torres, and Rocco Roveccio’s alleged unsuitable recommendations.

An SEC examination of Alexander Capital L.P. has detected alleged potential misconduct among certain brokers, and the related investigation purportedly led to the filing of an SEC complaint against William C. Gennity and Rocco Roveccio and an SEC order against Laurence M. Torres, according to the aforementioned Complaint.

William Gennity and Rocco Roveccio Allegedly Made Recommendations of Investments Involving Frequent Buying and Selling of Securities Lacking a Sound Basis to Believe Customers would Make a Profit

William Gennity and Rocco Roveccio allegedly recommended investments involving frequent buying and selling of securities without a sound basis to believe their customers would profit, according to the aforementioned SEC Complaint presently being reviewed by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

As clients incur costs with every transaction a broker makes, the price of the security must rise significantly during the short period it is held in an account for even a tiny profit to come to realization, the Complaint notes.

Customer losses allegedly totaled $683,038 whilst Gennity and Roveccio purportedly took in approximately $280,000 and $206,000, respectively, in commissions and fees, the Complaint reports.

Finally, the SEC Complaint further alleges that Gennity and Roveccio churned customer accounts, took part in unauthorized trading, and also purportedly hid material information from their customers – mainly that the transaction costs associated with their recommendations (commissions, markups, markdowns, postage, fees, and margin interest) would almost certainly take away any potential monetary gains in the accounts.

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 William Gennity, Laurence Torres, and Rocco Roveccio’s alleged 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 William Gennity, Laurence Torres, and Rocco Roveccio’s alleged 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 (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.