Haselkorn & Thibaut, a preeminent national investment fraud law firm with an exceptional 98% success rate and over $100 million in client recoveries, has initiated a comprehensive investigation into William Lefkowitz, a financial advisor currently registered with B. Riley Wealth Management in Livingston, New Jersey. This investigation stems from concerning patterns in his regulatory history and multiple client disputes spanning over three decades in the securities industry.
If you’ve worked with William Lefkowitz and experienced investment losses, received unsuitable recommendations, or encountered questionable practices, you may be entitled to significant financial recovery through FINRA arbitration or other legal remedies.
📞 Call 1-888-885-7162 for your free, confidential consultation
✅ No recovery, no fee guarantee – We only get paid when you do
Executive Summary: Red Flags in a Long Career
Table of Contents
William Mitchell Lefkowitz’s nearly four-decade career in the securities industry presents a troubling pattern of regulatory violations, supervisory failures, and client disputes that may have put investor assets at significant risk. Despite his extensive licensing and current position as a registered principal, his FINRA record reveals systemic issues that warrant serious consideration by current and former clients.
Detailed Profile: William Lefkowitz (CRD #1170503)
William Mitchell Lefkowitz entered the securities industry in 1985 and has maintained registration as a financial advisor for nearly 40 years. Currently serving as a registered principal with B. Riley Wealth Management, Mr. Lefkowitz operates from their Livingston, New Jersey office and maintains securities licenses across 34 states and territories.
Professional Credentials and Licenses
- Series 7: General Securities Representative
- Series 24: General Securities Principal
- Series 63: Uniform Securities Agent State Law
- Licensed in: 34 states and territories
- Current Employer: B. Riley Wealth Management (615 W Mt Pleasant Ave, Livingston, NJ)
However, beneath this extensive credentialing lies a concerning regulatory record that includes:
- 6 customer disputes involving various allegations of misconduct
- 2 formal regulatory actions resulting in fines and suspensions
- 2 employment terminations following serious allegations
- Multiple settlements totaling thousands of dollars in client compensation
In-Depth Analysis of Regulatory Actions
2012 FINRA Suspension: Supervisory Failures at vFinance Investments
The most significant regulatory action against Mr. Lefkowitz occurred in 2012 when FINRA imposed substantial sanctions for supervisory failures while he served in a principal capacity at vFinance Investments. This case represents a textbook example of how inadequate supervision can expose client assets to unnecessary risk.
The Investigation Revealed:
Unauthorized Trading Activity: FINRA investigators discovered that trades were executed in a customer’s account without proper authorization procedures. This fundamental breach of fiduciary duty represents one of the most serious violations in the securities industry, as it directly violates the client’s right to control their investment decisions.
Margin Trading Violations: Trades were placed on margin without following proper payment and settlement procedures. Margin trading amplifies both potential gains and losses, making proper oversight critical for client protection. The failure to follow established procedures could have exposed clients to excessive risk and potential margin calls.
Regulation T Compliance Failures: Mr. Lefkowitz failed to request necessary Regulation T extensions when required. Regulation T, established by the Federal Reserve, governs the extension of credit by brokers and dealers. Non-compliance can result in forced liquidations and unexpected losses for clients.
Inadequate Authorization Verification: The investigation found no evidence that proper customer authorization was obtained or verified before executing controversial trades. This procedural failure undermines the fundamental principle of informed consent in investment management.
Repeated Supervisory Breakdowns: Perhaps most concerning, a second identical problematic trade was later approved without implementing any additional safeguards or corrective measures, suggesting systemic rather than isolated supervisory failures.
Sanctions Imposed:
- $5,000 monetary fine
- 30-day suspension from all principal functions (August-September 2012)
- Formal censure on permanent record
Implications for Clients: This case demonstrates how supervisory failures can cascade into direct harm to client portfolios through unauthorized activities, excessive risk exposure, and procedural violations that undermine investment security.
1991 NASD Violation: Restricted Securities Misconduct
Early in his career, Mr. Lefkowitz violated fundamental industry rules regarding restricted securities transactions. In 1991, he was fined $3,000 and formally censured for purchasing a “hot” IPO allocation through his wife’s account, directly violating NASD (now FINRA) regulations on free-riding and withholding.
Understanding the Violation: The free-riding and withholding rules exist to ensure fair distribution of new securities offerings and prevent industry professionals from taking advantage of their privileged position to secure profitable new issues for personal benefit. These rules are fundamental to maintaining market integrity and public trust in the securities distribution system.
Mr. Lefkowitz’s Defense: He claimed ignorance of the restriction, stating he was unaware that the security in question was subject to free-riding and withholding rules. However, NASD rejected this defense, noting that industry professionals are expected to understand and comply with fundamental regulations governing their conduct.
Long-term Implications: While this violation occurred early in his career, it established a pattern of regulatory compliance issues that would resurface in more serious forms decades later.
Comprehensive Review of Customer Disputes
Mr. Lefkowitz’s career has been marked by six formal customer disputes, representing a concerning frequency of client dissatisfaction and allegations of misconduct. Each dispute tells a story of potential advisory failures and client harm:
Recent and Pending Cases
2025 – Unsuitable Investment Recommendation (PLBY Stock) Status: Pending
Significance: This recent complaint involves allegations of unsuitable investment recommendations regarding PLBY (Playboy) stock. Suitability violations occur when advisors recommend investments that don’t align with a client’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, or financial situation. The fact that this complaint is recent and pending suggests ongoing issues with investment recommendation practices.
2005 – Major Securities Violation Claim ($1.5 Million) Status: Pending
Allegation: Rule 10b-5 violations
Significance: This represents the largest financial claim against Mr. Lefkowitz. Rule 10b-5 is one of the most important anti-fraud provisions in securities law, prohibiting the use of manipulative or deceptive practices in connection with securities transactions. A $1.5 million claim suggests substantial alleged misconduct and significant client losses.
Settled Disputes: Admissions of Liability?
2012 – Negligence and Misrepresentation Resolution: Settled for $9,000
Analysis: This settlement occurred in the same year as his FINRA suspension, suggesting a pattern of problematic conduct during this period. While settlements don’t constitute admissions of guilt, they often indicate that the advisor or firm believed the claims had merit and chose to compensate the client rather than risk a larger arbitration award.
2005 – Trade Execution Failure Resolution: Settled for $1,250
Analysis: Failure to execute trades as instructed can result in missed opportunities or unexpected losses for clients. While the settlement amount was relatively modest, it indicates acknowledgment of some responsibility for the alleged failure.
Denied and Withdrawn Claims
2007 – Negligence and Poor Investment Advice Resolution: Denied
Analysis: While this claim was denied, it adds to the overall pattern of client dissatisfaction and suggests ongoing issues with advisory practices during this period.
1999 – Unauthorized Trading Activity Resolution: Withdrawn
Analysis: Unauthorized trading allegations are among the most serious in the industry. While this complaint was withdrawn, it occurred in the same year as his termination from CIBC Oppenheimer, suggesting potential correlation between the events.
Employment History: Terminations and Red Flags
Mr. Lefkowitz’s employment history includes two significant terminations that raise questions about his professional conduct and compliance with industry standards.
CIBC Oppenheimer Termination (1999)
Allegations: The termination followed allegations of irregularities involving customer documentation and missing stock certificates.
Mr. Lefkowitz’s Response: He denied any wrongdoing and attributed the allegations to internal office politics.
Industry Context: Irregularities with customer documentation and missing securities represent serious compliance failures that can expose both clients and firms to significant liability. Stock certificates, while less common in today’s electronic environment, represent actual ownership of securities, and their disappearance or mishandling can result in substantial financial losses.
Timing Correlation: This termination occurred in the same year as the withdrawn unauthorized trading complaint, suggesting potential connections between the employment action and client concerns.
Merrill Lynch Discharge (1990)
Cause: Placing a restricted new issue in his wife’s account without proper disclosure.
Connection to Later Violations: This termination directly relates to the 1991 NASD violation for the same conduct, indicating that the compliance failure was serious enough to warrant both employment termination and regulatory action.
Pattern Recognition: The fact that similar conduct resulted in both job loss and regulatory sanctions demonstrates the seriousness of the violation and establishes an early pattern of compliance issues.
Current Business Operations and Client Exposure
B. Riley Wealth Management Platform
Mr. Lefkowitz currently operates through B. Riley Wealth Management, a subsidiary of B. Riley Financial (NASDAQ: RILY). B. Riley Wealth Management provides comprehensive wealth management services including:
- Investment advisory services
- Financial planning
- Portfolio management
- Retirement planning
- Estate planning services
Office Location: 615 W Mt Pleasant Ave, Livingston, NJ 07039
Scope of Practice and Client Exposure
With licenses in 34 states and territories, Mr. Lefkowitz has the ability to serve clients across most of the United States. His principal registration allows him to supervise other advisors, potentially multiplying the impact of any supervisory failures similar to those identified in 2012.
Licensed States Include: His broad licensing suggests a potentially large client base that may be affected by past or ongoing issues with investment advice, supervision, or compliance.
Understanding Your Rights as an Investor
FINRA Arbitration: Your Primary Remedy
Most investment accounts include mandatory arbitration clauses, meaning disputes must be resolved through FINRA’s arbitration process rather than traditional court litigation. However, this process can be highly effective for recovering investment losses:
Advantages of FINRA Arbitration:
- Specialized arbitrators with securities industry knowledge
- Streamlined procedures compared to court litigation
- Potential for significant damage awards
- Lower costs than traditional litigation
- Faster resolution than court cases
Types of Recoverable Damages:
- Direct investment losses
- Lost opportunity costs
- Interest and carrying charges
- Attorney fees (in appropriate cases)
- Punitive damages (in cases of egregious conduct)
Statute of Limitations Considerations
Investment fraud claims are subject to strict time limitations:
FINRA Arbitration: Generally 6 years from the occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim State Law Claims: Varying limitation periods depending on jurisdiction and claim type Discovery Rule: In some cases, the limitation period begins when the fraud is discovered rather than when it occurred
Critical Timing: Given that some of Mr. Lefkowitz’s client disputes date to 2005 and remain pending, time may be running out for certain claims. Immediate consultation is essential to preserve your rights.
Red Flags Every Investor Should Recognize
Suitability Violations
- Recommendations that don’t match your risk tolerance
- High-risk investments for conservative investors
- Excessive concentration in particular sectors or securities
- Age-inappropriate investment strategies
Supervision and Authorization Issues
- Trades executed without your approval
- Changes to account settings without consent
- Lack of trade confirmations or account statements
- Difficulty reaching your advisor for questions
Communication and Transparency Problems
- Reluctance to explain investment strategies
- Pressure to make quick investment decisions
- Failure to disclose risks or conflicts of interest
- Inadequate documentation of investment discussions
How Haselkorn & Thibaut Can Maximize Your Recovery
Our Comprehensive Approach
Initial Case Evaluation: We conduct thorough reviews of account statements, trade confirmations, and correspondence to identify potential violations and calculate damages.
Expert Analysis: Our team includes former securities industry professionals who understand the technical aspects of investment fraud and can effectively present your case.
Aggressive Representation: We have a proven track record of securing significant settlements and arbitration awards for clients who have been harmed by investment misconduct.
No Upfront Costs: We handle cases on a pure contingency basis – you pay nothing unless we recover money for you.
Our Track Record Speaks for Itself
- 98% Success Rate in investment fraud cases
- Over $100 Million recovered for clients
- 50+ Years of combined experience in securities law
- Nationwide Practice with offices coast to coast
Types of Cases We Handle
Unsuitable Investment Recommendations: When advisors recommend investments that don’t match your profile Unauthorized Trading: Trades made without your knowledge or consent
Failure to Supervise: When firms fail to properly oversee their advisors Churning: Excessive trading to generate commissions Misrepresentation: False or misleading statements about investments Omission of Material Facts: Failure to disclose important risks or conflicts
The Investigation Process: What Happens Next
Phase 1: Initial Consultation and Case Assessment
During your free consultation, we will:
- Review your account statements and trading history
- Analyze the appropriateness of investment recommendations
- Identify potential regulatory violations
- Calculate preliminary damage estimates
- Explain your legal options and likelihood of recovery
Phase 2: Comprehensive Case Development
If we accept your case, we will:
- Obtain complete account records and correspondence
- Research the advisor’s regulatory history and complaint record
- Consult with industry experts on technical issues
- Develop a comprehensive damages analysis
- Prepare your case for arbitration or settlement negotiations
Phase 3: Recovery Efforts
We pursue recovery through:
- Direct settlement negotiations with the advisor/firm
- FINRA arbitration proceedings
- State regulatory complaints where appropriate
- Coordination with other affected clients for maximum leverage
Taking Action: Your Next Steps
Time is Critical
Investment fraud claims are subject to strict deadlines. The longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes to:
- Preserve important evidence
- Meet statute of limitations requirements
- Maximize your potential recovery
- Hold the advisor accountable for misconduct
What You Should Do Now
Gather Your Documents:
- Account statements for the relevant time period
- Trade confirmations and correspondence
- Investment recommendations and marketing materials
- Records of phone calls or meetings with your advisor
Avoid Common Mistakes:
- Don’t continue following questionable advice
- Don’t accept explanations that don’t make sense
- Don’t assume losses are just “market conditions”
- Don’t wait for problems to resolve themselves
Contact Us Immediately: The sooner we can begin investigating your case, the better your chances of a successful recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What if my losses seem small compared to others? A: Every case of investment fraud is serious, regardless of the dollar amount. We have successfully recovered funds for clients with losses ranging from thousands to millions of dollars.
Q: What if I signed arbitration agreements? A: Arbitration agreements are standard in the industry and don’t prevent you from seeking recovery. In fact, FINRA arbitration can be more efficient than court litigation.
Q: How long does the process take? A: Timeline varies depending on case complexity, but most FINRA arbitrations are resolved within 12-18 months. Many cases settle earlier in the process.
Q: What if the advisor or firm claims they did nothing wrong? A: Investment professionals often deny wrongdoing initially. Our job is to present compelling evidence of violations and secure appropriate compensation regardless of their position.
Q: Can I still recover money if some of my complaints were denied? A: Absolutely. Previous complaint outcomes don’t prevent new claims based on different facts or legal theories. Each case is evaluated on its own merits.
Industry Context: Why This Matters
The securities industry operates on trust. When advisors violate that trust through unsuitable recommendations, unauthorized trading, or supervisory failures, it undermines the entire system and can cause devastating financial harm to individual investors.
Regulatory actions like those taken against Mr. Lefkowitz serve as important warnings to the investing public. They represent official findings of misconduct that can help other investors identify similar problems in their own accounts.
By pursuing legitimate claims against advisors who have violated industry rules, investors not only seek recovery for their own losses but also help maintain the integrity of the securities markets for all participants.
Conclusion: Protecting Your Financial Future
William Lefkowitz’s regulatory history and pattern of client disputes raise serious questions about the quality of advice and supervision provided to his clients over nearly four decades in the securities industry. The combination of FINRA sanctions, customer settlements, and employment terminations suggests systemic issues that may have harmed numerous investors.
If you have worked with William Lefkowitz and experienced investment losses, unsuitable recommendations, or other concerning practices, you owe it to yourself and your family to investigate your legal options. The experienced attorneys at Haselkorn & Thibaut are ready to help you understand your rights and pursue maximum recovery for any losses you may have suffered.
Don’t let investment fraud go unpunished. Take action today.
Contact Information
📞 Call Now: 1-888-885-7162
💻 Visit: www.InvestmentFraudLawyers.com
📧 Email: [email protected]
📝 Free Consultation – No Obligation – No Upfront Costs
Available 24/7 for urgent matters
Office Locations Nationwide:
- New York
- Florida
- California
- Texas
- Illinois
- And more
Protect your financial future with experienced legal representation you can trust.
