CFP Board Imposes Public Sanctions on 16 Individuals

WASHINGTON, July 14, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) announced today public sanctions against 16 current or former CFP® professionals, effective immediately or on the date noted in each case. Public sanctions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include Public Censures, Suspensions, Temporary Bars, Permanent Bars and Revocations of the right to use the CFP® marks.

CFP Board’s Enforcement Process
As part of their certification, CFP® professionals make a commitment to CFP Board to abide by CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (Code and Standards) or its predecessor, the Standards of Professional Conduct (Standards), which included the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards. Individuals on the pathway to CFP® certification make a commitment to abide by CFP Board’s Pathway to CFP® Certification Agreement (Pathway Agreement). 

CFP Board’s Procedural Rules set forth the process for investigating matters and imposing sanctions where violations have been found.

CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating alleged violations and, where there is probable cause to believe there are grounds for sanction, presents a Complaint containing the alleged violations to CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission meets at least six times a year to review any matter in which CFP Board has alleged that a CFP® professional has violated CFP Board’s Code and Standards or its predecessor Standards, or an individual pursuing initial CFP® certification has violated the Pathway Agreement. The Commission functions in accordance with the Procedural Rules and reviews all matters on a case-by-case basis, considering the details specific to an individual case. If the Commission determines there are grounds for sanction, then it may impose a sanction. Commission orders may be appealed by a Respondent or CFP Board pursuant to the Procedural Rules.

In certain circumstances, such as when a CFP® professional is in default due to failure to acknowledge receipt of a Notice of Investigation or file an Answer, CFP Board staff must deliver an Administrative Order of Suspension, Temporary Bar, Revocation or Permanent Bar. Administrative Orders are subject to appeal.

More information on CFP Board’s enforcement process can be found at CFP.net/enforcement. In addition, at CFP.net/verify, CFP Board provides the public with:

• An individual’s CFP Board disciplinary history and CFP® certification status.
• Links to other sources of information about CFP® professionals that may be more recent or that may contain information that has not led to CFP Board discipline and does not appear on CFP Board’s website. This information may include customer disputes, disciplinary actions taken by a regulator or employer, certain criminal matters and certain financial matters (such as bankruptcy proceedings and unpaid judgments or liens).
• Links to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA’s) BrokerCheck and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Investment Adviser Public Disclosure databases for individuals who are subject to FINRA or SEC oversight. 

The Public Sanctions on 16 Individuals
A short summary of each sanction can be found below.

PUBLIC CENSURE

ARIZONA

Levi Earhart, CFP® (Scottsdale, Arizona): In May 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Mr. Earhart received a Public Censure. The Commission determined that Mr. Earhart violated Standard E.2.a. of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (Code and Standards), which provides that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession, when he was convicted of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, and DUI-impaired, a class 1 misdemeanor, in the Gila County Superior Court of the State of Arizona. Pursuant to his convictions, the court sentenced Mr. Earhart to probation for a period of 24 months, beginning on May 5, 2022. The Commission issued Mr. Earhart an Order of Public Censure.

MINNESOTA

Thomas Starkey, CFP® (Arden Hills, Minnesota): In June 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Starkey entered into a Consent Order in which Mr. Starkey agreed that CFP Board would issue a Public Censure. In the Consent Order, Mr. Starkey consented to findings that he provided material elements of financial planning to a recently divorced client, which included advice on exchanging two existing insurance policies, one of which provided long-term care (LTC) benefits, for a new insurance policy with new LTC benefits. During this transaction, Mr. Starkey did not comply with certain provisions of the Financial Planning Practice Standards (Practice Standards) and therefore did not act in a manner which was in the best interest of his client. Specifically, Mr. Starkey did not: (1) define his client’s goals, needs and priorities with respect to her insurance and LTC needs, as required by Practice Standard 200-1; (2) obtain sufficient information — including whether the costs in the new insurance policy were more or less than the costs in the old insurance policies — prior to recommending the exchange, as required by Practice Standard 200-2; (3) analyze whether his client had a continuing need for life insurance and could satisfy her LTC needs using her existing assets and resources, as required by Practice Standard 300-1; and (4) select appropriate products that were consistent with his client’s goals, needs and priorities, as required by Practice Standard 500-2, because he did not analyze whether the client needed the LTC benefits offered by the new insurance policy and compare the internal costs of the policies. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Mr. Starkey also consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 1.4 and 4.4 of the Rules of Conduct, which require a CFP® professional providing material elements of financial planning to act with the duty of care of a fiduciary, and in all instances to exercise reasonable and prudent professional judgement in providing professional services. The Commission issued Mr. Starkey a Public Censure.

SUSPENSION

MARYLAND

Cedric V. Alexander (Bowie, Maryland): In June 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Alexander entered into a Consent Order in which Mr. Alexander agreed that CFP Board would issue a one-year-and-one-day suspension of his right to use the CFP Board certification marks. In the Consent Order, Mr. Alexander consented to findings that he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in June 2022, which demonstrated an inability to manage responsibly his financial affairs. This was his second bankruptcy filing, as he had previously filed for Chapter 13 (later converted to a Chapter 7) bankruptcy protection in March 2008. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Mr. Alexander also consented to findings that his conduct violated Standard E.2 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, which provides that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, conduct that results in a personal bankruptcy or business bankruptcy filing. The Commission issued to Mr. Alexander a suspension for one year and one day. Mr. Alexander’s suspension is effective from June 13, 2023, through June 14, 2024.

MINNESOTA

Naomi Anne Kowalik (Sauk Rapids, Minnesota): In June 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. Kowalik entered into a Consent Order in which Ms. Kowalik agreed that CFP Board would issue a one-year-and-one-day suspension of her right to use the CFP Board certification marks. In the Consent Order, Ms. Kowalik consented to findings that she failed to timely pay taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 11 years between 2008 and 2020, demonstrating an inability to manage her personal finances. This resulted in tax debts of approximately $959,974.21 and the IRS filing multiple federal tax liens. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Ms. Kowalik also consented to findings that her conduct violated Standard E.2.d. of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct and Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, which provide that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, conduct that results in a federal tax lien on property owned by the CFP® professional. The Commission issued to Ms. Kowalik a suspension for one year and one day. Ms. Kowalik’s suspension is effective from June 13, 2023, through June 14, 2024.

OREGON

Wayne von Borstel (The Dalles, Oregon): In May 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Mr. von Borstel received a three-month suspension of his certification and right to use the CFP Board certification marks. The Commission issued its order after determining that Mr. von Borstel was permitted to resign from his firm for failing to promptly report written customer grievances and failing to adhere to firm policy regarding the use of mutual fund C-shares, violated firm policy by failing to immediately report a client death, and entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which found that he failed to identify the intended beneficiaries on new account forms, causing his firm’s books and records to be inaccurate in violation of Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rule G-8. The Commission determined that Mr. von Borstel’s conduct violated Rule 4.3 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a certificant shall be in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements governing professional services to the client, and Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a CFP® professional shall perform professional services with dedication to the lawful objectives of the employer/principal. The Commission issued to Mr. von Borstel a suspension for three months. Mr. von Borstel’s suspension is effective from June 5, 2023, through September 5, 2023.

PENNSYLVANIA

Adrian E. Young (Lititz, Pennsylvania): In June 2023, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Mr. Young received a one-year-and-one-day suspension of his certification and right to use the CFP Board certification marks. In September 2022, following a jury trial in a civil action brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Court) entered a final judgment against Mr. Young, his partners and his firm, finding they violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) at least recklessly when they collected additional revenue through investing clients’ money in mutual fund share classes that charged 12b-1 fees when their clients were eligible for identical share classes that did not charge these fees. The Court found that the mutual funds in which Mr. Young, his partners and his firm invested would collect these 12b-1 fees and then distribute the fees to their brokers. One of the brokers would then pass 95% of the 12b-1 fees it received by way of the trades back to Mr. Young, his partners or his firm. The Court found that, as a result, Mr. Young, his partners and his firm received two streams of income — advisory fees and 12b-1 fees. The Court found this “scheme” to run counter to their fiduciary duty under Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act because Mr. Young, his partners and his firm failed to act in their clients’ best interest, failed to achieve best execution and failed to adequately disclose the conflict of interest inherent in the 12b-1 scheme to their clients. The Court ordered Mr. Young to pay disgorgement in the amount of $136,627, prejudgment interest of $35,275 and a civil penalty of $136,627. The Commission determined that this conduct violated: (1) Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a CFP® professional shall disclose to a prospective client or client an accurate and understandable description of the compensation arrangements being offered, including the terms under which the certificant and/or the certificant’s employer may receive any other sources of compensation, and if so, what the sources of these payments are and on what they are based; and (2) Rule 4.3 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a certificant shall be in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements governing professional services provided to the client. The Commission issued to Mr. Young a suspension of one year and one day. The suspension is effective from June 14, 2023, through June 15, 2024.

TEMPORARY BAR

TEXAS

Ronald Addison Caldwell Jr. (San Antonio, Texas): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order temporarily barring Mr. Caldwell from applying for or obtaining the CFP Board certification marks for one year and one day. This sanction followed Mr. Caldwell’s relinquishment of his certification and failure to acknowledge receipt of CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation, as required by Article 1.1 of the Procedural Rules. CFP Board sought to investigate Mr. Caldwell’s petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Mr. Caldwell’s conduct may have violated Standard E.2 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, which provides that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession. Under Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Caldwell has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Temporary Bar. Mr. Caldwell’s administrative temporary bar was effective as of June 20, 2023.

Eddy Gomar (Spring, Texas): In January 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order temporarily barring Mr. Gomar from applying for or obtaining the CFP Board certification marks for one year and one day. This sanction followed Mr. Gomar’s relinquishment of his certification and failure to acknowledge receipt of CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation, as required by Article 1.1 of the Procedural Rules. CFP Board sought to investigate allegations contained in a client complaint filed with CFP Board alleging that between 2017 and 2020, Mr. Gomar effected certain investments in the client’s account without authorization. Mr. Gomar’s conduct may have violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Conduct, in place at the time of the conduct at issue, which provided that when providing financial planning or material elements of financial planning, a CFP® professional owes the client a duty of care of a fiduciary. Under Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Gomar has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Temporary Bar. In March 2023, Mr. Gomar sought to appeal the Administrative Order of Temporary Bar. In April 2023, the Appeals Commission of CFP Board dismissed Mr. Gomar’s appeal, finding that he had not timely filed the appeal. Pursuant to the decision of the Appeals Commission, Mr. Gomar’s administrative temporary bar was effective as of April 20, 2023.

REVOCATION

CALIFORNIA

Matthew J. Fannin (Santa Rosa, California): In April 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Fannin’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Fannin’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. CFP Board alleged that Mr. Fannin failed to meet his federal and state tax obligations resulting in the Internal Revenue Service and the State of California filing multiple tax liens against him. As set forth in the Complaint, Mr. Fannin has accrued an outstanding tax balance of approximately $847,199.70, thus demonstrating an inability to manage his personal finances. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Fannin’s conduct violated Standard E.2.d. of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct and Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, which provide that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, conduct that results in a federal tax lien on property owned by the CFP® professional. Mr. Fannin failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Fannin has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Fannin’s administrative revocation was effective as of May 19, 2023.

John N. Matson (El Segundo, California): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Matson’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Matson’s failure to acknowledge receipt of CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation and deliver proof of compliance with CFP Board’s Interim Suspension order as required by Articles 1.1 and 2.3 of the Procedural Rules, respectively. On January 11, 2023, CFP Board issued Mr. Matson an Interim Suspension Order after receiving evidence that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) permanently barred him from associating with a member firm in any capacity. In CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation, CFP Board sought to fully investigate the FINRA bar and Mr. Matson’s termination from his firm for participating in investments without notice or approval from his firm. Mr. Matson’s conduct may have violated Standard A.8 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (Code and Standards), which provides that a CFP® professional must comply with the laws, rules and regulations governing Professional Services, and Standard D.2 of the Code and Standards, which requires a CFP® professional to comply with the lawful objectives of his or her firm. Under Articles 4.1.a. and 4.1.c. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Matson has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Matson’s administrative revocation was effective as of June 19, 2023.

GEORGIA

Kevin L. Taylor (Roswell, Georgia): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Taylor’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Taylor’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. CFP Board alleged in its Complaint that Mr. Taylor was the subject of an order of final judgment entered by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Superior Court) on June 18, 2020. As set forth in CFP Board’s Complaint, the Superior Court found that in overseeing trusts and companies that were entrusted to him, Mr. Taylor implemented a scheme to enrich himself. According to the Superior Court’s order, Mr. Taylor manipulated and misrepresented a company’s financial status to manufacture losses and took other steps to obfuscate the company’s financials and profits so that he could siphon money from trusts into the company and ultimately to himself. The Superior Court found that Mr. Taylor paid himself a significant salary to which he was not entitled and that Mr. Taylor used the money from the company and trusts to pay for personal monthly expenses and discretionary purchases for himself. The Superior Court concluded that Mr. Taylor engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and engaged in acts consisting of theft by taking by a fiduciary, theft by deception by a fiduciary, theft by conversion by a fiduciary and false statements. The Superior Court found that, through a pattern of racketeering activity, Mr. Taylor acquired and maintained an interest in and control of personal property, including money to which he was not entitled. The Superior Court also found that Mr. Taylor breached fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries of the trusts by using one company to divert funds to himself instead of the rightful beneficiaries. The Superior Court awarded damages totaling more than $12 million. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment of the Superior Court. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Taylor’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a CFP® professional may not engage in conduct which reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® marks or upon the profession. Mr. Taylor failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Taylor has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Taylor’s administrative revocation was effective as of June 5, 2023.

INDIANA

Michael C. Lloyd (Indianapolis, Indiana): In March 2023, CFP Board issued an order in which Mr. Lloyd received a permanent revocation of his right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed an appeal of a July 2022 Administrative Order of Revocation issued by CFP Board. The Appeals Commission of CFP Board affirmed CFP Board’s finding that Mr. Lloyd failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. The Appeals Commission also affirmed that CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Lloyd violated Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct when he failed to satisfy his Duty of Cooperation by refusing to respond to CFP Board’s requests for information and a Notice of Failure to Cooperate. The Appeals Commission further affirmed that CFP Board sought to investigate several federal tax liens filed in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2019 against Mr. Lloyd for tax deficiencies accrued since Tax Year 2004. In addition, the Appeals Commission affirmed that Mr. Lloyd failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. The Appeals Commission affirmed that under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Lloyd has been deemed in default and affirmed CFP Board’s issuance of an Administrative Order of Revocation. Pursuant to the decision of the Appeals Commission, Mr. Lloyd’s administrative revocation was effective as of March 22, 2023.

IOWA

Dave Becker (Waterloo, Iowa): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Becker’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Becker’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. CFP Board alleged that Mr. Becker violated Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct when he failed to satisfy his Duty of Cooperation. As set forth in the Complaint, in August 2022, one of Mr. Becker’s former clients filed a grievance with CFP Board alleging that Mr. Becker had a conflict of interest stemming from the divorce of his clients and breached his fiduciary duties to the complaining client. In connection with the investigation into the client’s grievance, CFP Board sent Mr. Becker a Request for Oral Examination. Mr. Becker specifically and intentionally chose not to appear for oral examination and did not cure his failure to appear after CFP Board provided notice of his failure to cooperate and the opportunity to cure his failure to cooperate. Mr. Becker then failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Becker has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Becker’s administrative revocation was effective as of May 22, 2023.

OHIO

Daniel J. Lauletta (Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio): In April 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Lauletta’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Lauletta’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. CFP Board alleged that Mr. Lauletta entered into a consent order with the state of Arkansas (Consent Order) in which he consented to findings that he: (1) breached his fiduciary duty to two financial planning clients, senior married couples, by failing to place their interests ahead of his own when he advised them to liquidate securities invested for retirement to purchase unsuitable insurance products and annuities; (2) provided false and misleading information to customers and omitted risks associated with recommended transactions; and (3) made unsuitable recommendations to clients. These allegations were in connection with multiple multimillion-dollar life insurance policies that he recommended to his clients, despite their inability to afford the premiums for such large policies. The Complaint further alleged that Mr. Lauletta advised these clients to pay for these policies with premium finance loans and the liquidation of retirement assets. CFP Board also alleged that Mr. Lauletta violated Arkansas regulatory requirements as evidenced by his entrance into a Consent Order with state of Arkansas. Per the terms of the Consent Order, Mr. Lauletta’s registration as a broker-dealer agent in Arkansas was revoked, and he was fined $10,000. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Lauletta’s conduct violated Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a certificant shall at all times place the interest of the client ahead of his or her own. When the certificant provides financial planning or material elements of financial planning, the certificant owes to the client the duty of care of a fiduciary as defined by CFP Board. CFP Board’s Complaint further alleged that Mr. Lauletta’s conduct violated Rules 2.1, 4.3 and 4.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Lauletta failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Lauletta has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Lauletta’s administrative revocation was effective as of May 25, 2023.

PENNSYLVANIA

Kenwyn J. Belkot (Wexford, Pennsylvania): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Belkot’s right to use the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Belkot’s failure to deliver proof of compliance with CFP Board’s Interim Suspension Order as required by Article 2.3 of the Procedural Rules. On February 1, 2023, CFP Board issued Mr. Belkot an Interim Suspension Order after receiving evidence that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) permanently barred him from associating with a member firm in any capacity. FINRA issued the bar after Mr. Belkot failed to request termination of a suspension that FINRA had imposed on him for failing to respond to FINRA’s requests for information. Under Article 4.1.c. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Belkot has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Belkot’s administrative revocation was effective as of June 20, 2023.

PERMANENT BAR

MAINE

Odias A. Bachelder II (Portland, Maine): In May 2023, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently barring Mr. Bachelder from applying for or obtaining the CFP Board certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Bachelder’s relinquishment of his certification and failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time frame. CFP Board alleged that Mr. Bachelder violated Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct when he failed to satisfy his Duty of Cooperation by refusing to respond to CFP Board’s requests for information and a Notice of Failure to Cooperate. As set forth in the Compliant, CFP Board sought to investigate a consent order issued by the Maine Bureau of Insurance alleging that Mr. Bachelder failed to report two past regulatory events and a requalification order issued by the Maine Office of Securities. Mr. Bachelder failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Bachelder has been deemed in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar. Mr. Bachelder’s administrative permanent bar was effective as of June 20, 2023. 

ABOUT CFP BOARD
CFP Board is the professional body for personal financial planners in the U.S. CFP Board consists of two affiliated organizations focused on advancing the financial planning profession for the public’s benefit. CFP Board of Standards sets and upholds standards for financial planning and administers the prestigious CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification — widely recognized by the public, advisors and firms as the standard for financial planners — so that the public has access to the benefits of competent and ethical financial planning. CFP® certification is held by more than 95,000 people in the U.S. CFP Board Center for Financial Planning addresses diversity and workforce development challenges and conducts and publishes research that adds to the financial planning profession’s body of knowledge.

Twitter: @CFPBoard

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cfp-board-imposes-public-sanctions-on-16-individuals-301877576.html

SOURCE Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc.

PR Newswire Political/Government News