FINRA Broker notices: Kim Dee Isaacson, Anthony Tony Cantone and Christine Cantone – Cantone Research Real Estate Investment Fraud Investigation

Our law firm is currently looking for investors who may have been victims of the alleged 10B5 violations and securities material omissions and misrepresentations by Cantone Research and Anthony Tony Cantone and Christine Cantone related to an investment in real estate developer certificates. This matter is still under review by FINRA, and this is only a broker investigation of fraud at this point, described by FINRA as below. If you have lost significant part of your investment as a result of this, please contact us:

According to FINRA’s record of discipline:

Cantone Research Inc. (CRD #26314, Tinton Falls, New Jersey), Anthony Joseph Cantone (CRD #1066139, Cape Coral, Florida) and Christine Louise Cantone (CRD #2687618, Cape Coral, Florida)
June 6, 2017 – An OHO Decision was appealed to the NAC by the firm, Anthony Cantone and Christine Cantone, and also by FINRA. The firm and Anthony Cantone were fined a total of $150,000, jointly and severally. Anthony Cantone was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for a total of 15 months. The firm and Christine Cantone were fined $75,000, jointly and severally. Christine Cantone was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. The sanctions were based on findings that the firm and Anthony Cantone made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with the offer and sale of a real estate developer’s related certificates of participation (COPs) in private placement offerings to investors for more than $8 million, earning more than $1 million in fees, commissions and other payments.

The findings stated that the firm and Anthony Cantone willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and FINRA Rule 2020. The findings also stated that the firm and Anthony Cantone negligently made additional material omissions in connection with the sales of securities, in violation of Sections 17(a)(2)

and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The firm and Anthony Cantone’s failure to inform prospective investors in offerings—to whom he proposed extending the maturity dates
of their notes—of the changes in the interest rate and other fees assessed against the
real estate developer, a central figure in the offerings, and Anthony Cantone’s failure to inform prospective investors of the developer’s late interest payments and missed principal payments in earlier offerings, constituted material omissions.

The findings also included that the firm, through Christine Cantone, failed to reasonably supervise Anthony Cantone, to accurately and completely disclose all material facts concerning COPs in private placement offerings to investors and prospective investors including customers. Christine Cantone should have exercised her supervisory authority by directing Anthony Cantone to inform investors appropriately. By not doing so, Christine Cantone failed her supervisory obligations as CCO of the firm and Anthony Cantone’s supervisor. It was determined that FINRA failed to establish that the firm and Anthony Cantone made improper use of customer funds and recommended an unsuitable investment. The causes of action alleging these violations were dismissed.

The sanctions are not in effect pending review. (FINRA Case #2013035130101)

 

 

 

 

Also see FINRA’s Notice about the following:

 

Complaints Filed

FINRA issued the following complaints. Issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents FINRA’s initiation of a formal proceeding in which findings as to the allegations in
the complaint have not been made and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Because these complaints are unadjudicated, you may wish to contact the respondents before drawing any conclusions regarding these allegations in the complaint.

Kim Dee Isaacson (CRD #855618, Farmington, Utah)
June 9, 2017 – Isaacson was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to a customer at his member firm regarding the customer’s account values and Isaacson’s purchases and sales of securities in the customer’s accounts. The complaint alleges that on telephone calls Isaacson conducted with the customer, he intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented the actual daily value of the customer’s firm accounts such that, by January 2014, the customer believed his accounts to be worth $3.1 million more than their actual value. Isaacson made the misrepresentations in order to conceal losses and that the customer’s accounts were not achieving the four percent to six percent return that Isaacson promised. Prior to January 10, 2014, Isaacson never corrected his misrepresentations about the value of the customer’s accounts and never told the customer that he had continued to purchase shares of a security and longer-term bonds despite the customer’s explicit instructions to the contrary. As a result of his misconduct, Isaacson willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and violated FINRA Rule 2020.

The complaint also alleges that Isaacson effected approximately 360 unauthorized trades in the customer’s accounts, including transactions in certain securities the customer had expressly prohibited Isaacson from purchasing. Isaacson failed to discuss these trades
with the customer and made additional misrepresentations to the customer regarding certain transactions, effectively concealing his unauthorized trades. Isaacson did not inform the customer of or seek the customer’s approval for the transactions he effected
in the customer’s non-discretionary firm accounts. The complaint also alleges that when the customer discovered Isaacson’s misconduct in January 2014, Isaacson attempted to settle the customer’s complaint away from his firm. Isaacson offered to pay the customer $100,000 a year, or to invest money the customer had available through a line of credit with the firm. In the event the customer selected the latter option, Isaacson offered to make interest payments due on the customer’s line of credit until his trading generated sufficient funds to repay both the line of the credit and the $3.1 million the customer believed

his accounts had earned based on Isaacson’s misrepresentations. Isaacson’s proposed settlement with the customer was made without the firm’s knowledge or approval. (FINRA Case #2014040199101)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s