Danville, California financial advisor Michael Lickiss, associated with Arkadios Capital, is the subject of numerous customer complaints alleging involvement with fictitious notes and promissory notes, according to public records from his BrokerCheck report. Several pending claims seek significant damages, with allegations centering on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence tied to investments recommended or linked to his father, Edwin Emmett Lickiss. While Lickiss maintains he had no prior knowledge or involvement in many of the alleged actions, the disputes have drawn scrutiny from investors and law firms representing affected clients.
Background on Michael Lickiss and Arkadios Capital
Michael Lickiss (CRD# 5135936) operated as a registered representative with Arkadios Capital, a broker-dealer, during the period when many of the complaints arose. Public disclosures indicate he entered the industry around 2016, following his father’s long career in financial services. Edwin Emmett Lickiss, who owned Foundation Financial Group, faces separate federal charges for an alleged $9.5 million Ponzi-like scheme involving fraudulent promissory notes promising high returns on fictitious bonds, as detailed in a July 2025 U.S. Department of Justice indictment.
Investor complaints against Michael Lickiss frequently reference his father’s activities, with allegations spanning from 1999 to 2021, predating Lickiss Jr.’s industry entry. Law firms such as Erez Law, Carlson Law, and Wolper Law Firm have publicized their representation of clients claiming losses, estimating total potential damages in the millions across multiple cases.
Key Pending Customer Complaints
According to BrokerCheck records, Michael Lickiss has faced at least nine customer disputes since 2024, many of which remain pending. These include claims filed while he was registered with Arkadios Capital, alleging misconduct related to promissory notes and corporate debt instruments.
The most recent disclosure, from August 2025, involves a pending customer dispute alleging ‘Fraud, sold fictitious notes unrelated to Arkadios Capital.’ The claim seeks $11,000,000 in damages and is still unresolved, per SEC records cited by Wolper Law Firm.
Earlier in May 2025, a complaint alleged ‘Debt instruments/Fictitious notes,’ with the customer seeking $350,000. Another May 2025 claim accuses Lickiss of fraud in selling fictitious notes, demanding $10,000. These occurred during his time at Arkadios Capital.
In March 2025, a dispute claimed ‘Negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty’ related to corporate debt, remaining pending. A separate March 2025 complaint alleged ‘Failure to supervise, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in the sale of promissory notes,’ seeking $561,257.
Additional pending claims include one from December 2024 seeking $567,014, alleging breach of contract, violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment tied to a promissory note executed with Edwin Lickiss from May 1999 to January 2021. An October 2024 complaint alleged fictitious bonds sold by his father in 2013, seeking $2,300,000.
Summary of Major Claims in Table Format
The following table summarizes select pending and resolved customer complaints against Michael Lickiss, based on publicly available BrokerCheck data:
| Date | Allegation Summary | Damages Sought | Status | Arkadios Capital Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| August 2025 | Fraud, sold fictitious notes (unrelated to Arkadios) | $11,000,000 | Pending | No |
| May 2025 | Debt instruments/Fictitious notes | $350,000 | Pending | Yes |
| May 2025 | Fraud, sold fictitious notes | $10,000 | Pending | Yes |
| March 2025 | Negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty | Not specified | Pending | Yes |
| March 2025 | Failure to supervise, breach in promissory notes | $561,257 | Pending | Yes |
| December 2024 | Breach of contract, securities laws, fiduciary breach, etc. | $567,014 | Pending | Yes |
| October 2024 | Fictitious bonds by father (2013) | $2,300,000 | Pending | Yes |
| February 2024 | Unspecified misconduct re: predecessor’s actions | $1,500,000 | Settled | Yes |
Resolved Dispute and Lickiss’s Response
One notable case from February 2024 involved a lawsuit naming Lickiss among parties related to alleged actions at Foundation Financial Group from 2015 to 2022. Lickiss stated in the disclosure: ‘I did not have knowledge of nor involvement with the alleged actions prior to receiving the concerned lawsuit and was dismissed as a party upon a global settlement being reached after mediation, on or about March 20, 2024.’ The matter settled for $1,500,000.
This resolution contrasts with the ongoing disputes, where law firms like Carlson Law report representing clients who lost approximately $1 million, $1.6 million across cases, and up to nearly $12 million collectively in promissory notes offered by Edwin and Michael Lickiss.
Connection to Father’s Federal Indictment
The complaints against Michael Lickiss often intersect with his father’s legal troubles. Edwin Lickiss was indicted in July 2025 on wire fraud and money laundering charges for a scheme allegedly defrauding at least 50 investors of $9.5 million from 1998 to 2024. Prosecutors claim he promised investments in government and high-yield fictitious bonds, issued fake promissory notes, and used funds for personal expenses in a Ponzi-style operation.
While Michael Lickiss is not named in the federal case, investor complaints frequently cite promissory notes linked to his father, raising questions about supervision, disclosure, and potential liability at Arkadios Capital.
Implications for Investors and the Industry
These disclosures highlight risks for clients of advisors with familial ties to scrutinized figures. Arkadios Capital may face secondary liability claims for alleged failures in supervision, as noted in several complaints. Firms like Carlson Law and Erez Law are actively pursuing recoveries, emphasizing the importance of due diligence via BrokerCheck reviews.
As of the latest records, all listed claims except the 2024 settlement remain pending, with no admissions of wrongdoing by Lickiss. Investors affected by similar promissory note or fictitious instrument schemes are monitoring developments closely. The situation underscores ongoing regulatory focus on high-yield debt products and advisor oversight in the wake of high-profile fraud cases.
