In the Matter of Department of Enforcement v. Alan Jay Davidofsky

Complaint No. 2008015934801 (2013)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In the Matter of Department of Enforcement v. Alan Jay Davidofsky

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority National Adjudicatory Council
Complaint No. 2008015934801 (2013)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

Alan Davidofsky (defendant) was a registered representative associated with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer), a broker-dealer and member firm of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Oppenheimer had given Davidofsky a signing bonus of a five-year forgivable loan, a portion of which was forgiven each month that Davidofsky remained with Oppenheimer. After two years, Davidofsky began to have financial problems. Oppenheimer agreed to approve Davidofsky’s bankruptcy plan and continue Davidofsky’s employment if Davidofsy maintained certain commission levels and did not seek to discharge Oppenheimer’s loan. Davidofsky began managing JL’s retirement account. JL had limited investment experience, annual income of $50,000, and a total net worth of about $300,000. JL’s account-information form described her investment objectives as conservative with respect to current income and capital appreciation. JL’s account had minimal activity and an average monthly balance of $127,000 and held positions in mutual funds, corporate bonds, and one individual stock. Davidofsky reviewed the account activity and implemented a revised trading strategy. Davidofsky discussed the revised strategy with JL, but JL did not authorize him to implement it. Over a 10-month period, Davidofsky executed 104 transactions in 38 different securities in JL’s account and traded in and out of various securities. A sales assistant changed the investment objectives on JL’s account-information form to aggressive with respect to current income and capital appreciation and indicated that JL had approved the use of short-term trading. JL did not initiate or approve the changes. Davidofsky’s transactions in JL’s account amounted to over $1.4 million. The account lost 90 percent of its value. The annualized turnover ratio was 10.89, and the annualized cost-to-equity ratio was 44.86 percent. Davidofsky earned nearly $12,000 in commissions from the account. After the market declined, JL reviewed her account statements and filed a complaint with Oppenheimer. FINRA’s enforcement department filed a complaint against Davidofsky, and a hearing panel found that Davidofsky engaged in unauthorized trading, excessive trading, and churning in violation of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules and the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. Davidofsky appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership