Calvin Georges Zara of Ojai California a stockbroker formerly employed by Pruco Securities LLC has been discharged by the firm on March 6, 2017 supported by allegations that (1) Zara engaged in outside business activities that had not been approved by Pruco Securities LLC (2) Zara neglected to complete the appropriate suitability forms for customers who effected transactions through the firm (3) Zara neglected to follow the firm mandated suitability guidelines and (4) Zara failed to make deliveries of life insurance and annuity contracts to customers who purchase those products.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Public Disclosure confirms that Zara is referenced in seven customer initiated investment related disputes containing accusations of Zara’s misconduct during the time that he was associated with Pruco Securities. Specifically, on December 13, 2004, a customer filed an investment related complaint involving Zara’s activities where the customer requested damages estimated to exceed $5,000.00 founded on allegations that misrepresentations had been made to the customer pertaining to a variable life insurance policy which had been purchased by the customer.
Then, on December 2, 2009, a customer filed an investment related complaint concerning Zara’s conduct in which the customer sought unspecified damages supported by allegations that the customer had been provided misleading information in reference to the amount of time that premium payments would have to be made on an insurance policy to keep the policy in force. On July 15, 2010, another customer initiated investment related complaint regarding Zara’s activities was settled for $113,064.64 in damages based upon accusations that unauthorized trades were executed in the customer’s account, and the customer had been provided false or misleading information in reference to the securities transaction.
Additionally, on December 27, 2011, a customer filed an investment related complaint involving Zara’s activities where the customer requested unspecified damages founded on accusations that Zara made omissions in regard to the terms and conditions of a variable annuity. Another customer initiated investment related arbitration claim regarding Zara’s conduct was resolved for $750,000.00 in damages based upon allegations that Zara, inter alia: borrowed a customer’s funds in violation of FINRA rules; forged a customer’s signature on documentation to establish an investment account; breached a fiduciary obligation to the customer; engaged in unpermitted outside business activities involving the customer’s assets; and converted the customer’s assets. FINRA Arbitration No. 15-02108 (Dec. 6, 2016).
Then, on April 19, 2016, a customer filed an investment related complaint regarding Zara’s conduct in which the customer sought unspecified damages supported by accusations that Zara failed to inform the customer about the surrender charges pertaining to insurance products that the customer purchased. On June 29, 2016, another customer filed an investment related complaint concerning Zara’s activities where the customer requested unspecified damages founded on allegations against Zara of making omissions about the customer’s insurance products.
