Stifel Financial Corp. paid $850,000 in December 2025 to settle an arbitration claim tied to former broker Chuck Roberts.
The payment increases the firm’s total legal costs connected to Roberts’ conduct to nearly $200 million in settlements and arbitration awards, according to BrokerCheck records reviewed on December 30, 2025.
Roberts was barred from the securities industry by FINRA in July 2025 after he refused to cooperate with an investigation into customer complaints about his sale of structured notes to clients. The firm faces 23 active arbitration claims alleging misrepresentation of these complex debt securities and unsuitable investment recommendations made while Roberts operated his Stifel-affiliated CR Wealth Management Group in Miami and New York.
According to Fox 9 news, Haselkorn & Thibaut (InvestmentFraudLawyers.com) has had an increase of calls from investors seeking help with losses from structured notes. As result, they have opened a special investigation into Stifel and options for investors to recover losses.
This report documents the $850,000 settlement disclosed in BrokerCheck, the status of the $133 million FINRA arbitration award Stifel is challenging in federal court, and the scope of pending litigation stemming from Roberts’ sales practices between 2016 and his departure from the firm in June 2025.
Key Takeaways
- Stifel Financial settled an arbitration claim for $850,000 in December 2025 over former broker Chuck Roberts’ sale of structured notes, adding to a legal tab that now totals nearly $200 million.
- FINRA barred Roberts from the securities industry in July 2025 for failing to cooperate with an investigation into customer complaints about unsuitable investments and misrepresentation of structured note risks.
- A FINRA arbitration panel in March 2025 ordered Stifel to pay $132.5 million to the Jannetti family, the second-largest retail arbitration award in FINRA history, including $79.5 million in punitive damages.
- Stifel filed a motion in federal court in May 2025 to vacate the $132.5 million award and assembled a legal defense team from Sullivan & Cromwell, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, and Greenberg Traurig.
- Twenty-three arbitration claims remain pending against Stifel over Roberts’ conduct, with plaintiffs alleging supervisory failures, breach of fiduciary duty, and overconcentration of client portfolios in risky structured products.
The $850,000 Settlement and Growing Legal Costs
Stifel paid $850,000 to resolve an arbitration claim filed against the firm over Chuck Roberts’ investment recommendations. The settlement was reached in December 2025 and disclosed on BrokerCheck, FINRA’s public database of broker registration and disclosure information.
This payment represents one of nine settlements the firm has reached with former Roberts clients. Stifel has settled those nine cases for a combined $46.2 million, according to data compiled by Financial Planning in late December 2025.
Roberts’ BrokerCheck profile shows nearly 40 customer complaints filed against him since 2022. Three complaints have been denied by arbitration panels.
Chuck Roberts’ Industry Bar and Background
FINRA issued a permanent bar against Roberts on July 12, 2025. The disciplinary notice states Roberts initially cooperated with FINRA’s investigation by producing documents and appearing for on-the-record testimony.
He refused to respond to a request FINRA sent in May 2025 seeking additional testimony. Roberts consented to the bar without admitting or denying allegations, according to the FINRA order.
Before his bar, Roberts worked at Stifel from 2016 through June 2025. He operated as the head of CR Wealth Management Group, maintaining offices in Miami and New York. Court documents show Roberts generated $61.4 million in commissions from selling $3.7 billion worth of structured notes, securities whose returns are tied to underlying assets such as technology stocks or market indexes.
The Structured Notes at the Center of Claims
Structured notes are debt securities that combine features of bonds and derivatives. Their performance is linked to reference assets, which in Roberts’ case included individual technology stocks.
Court filings identify specific stocks Roberts used as underlying assets. These included Dynatrace, Palantir Technologies, Twilio, and DocuSign. Some structured notes were also linked to the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF.
FINRA has warned that structured notes carry substantial risks and may be unsuitable for investors seeking principal protection or consistent income. The regulatory organization cautions against describing these products as “conservative” or “predictable,” noting they function more like option contracts than traditional debt securities.
The Record-Breaking FINRA Arbitration Award
A three-member FINRA arbitration panel ordered Stifel to pay $132.5 million to the Jannetti family on March 12, 2025. The award ranks as the second-largest retail arbitration award in FINRA history.
The panel awarded David Jannetti and his children $26.5 million in compensatory damages, $79.5 million in punitive damages, and $26.5 million for attorney fees and costs. The Jannetti family had initially sought $5 million in damages when they filed their claim in 2023.
Why the Award Was So Large
The arbitration panel’s decision document states Stifel “had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct” and knew there was a “high probability” the Jannetti family would face financial harm. The panel found the firm intentionally pursued its course of conduct despite this knowledge.
Punitive damages are rare in FINRA arbitration. Legal experts note that panels reserve this remedy for cases involving egregious misconduct or intentional wrongdoing.
The family claimed to have lost approximately $16 million over three years. This represented the vast majority of what they had invested through Roberts.
Previous Large Arbitration Awards
Before the Jannetti case, two other FINRA panels issued significant awards against Stifel related to Roberts’ conduct:
| Date | Award Amount | Punitive Damages | Client Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| October 2024 | $14.3 million | $9 million | Louis and Elizabeth Deluca |
| November 2024 | $2.35 million | Not specified | Not disclosed |
| March 2025 | $132.5 million | $79.5 million | Jannetti family |
Stifel’s Legal Defense and Court Challenge
Stifel filed a 2,420-page motion in federal court in May 2025 to vacate the $133 million arbitration award. The firm argues the award amount is unsupported by facts or law.
The motion alleges “evident partiality and misbehavior” by arbitrator Jodi Charny. Stifel claims Charny presided over the Deluca case (which resulted in a $14.3 million award including $9 million in punitive damages) just days before hearings began in the Jannetti case, yet certified she had not formed any opinion about the subject matter.
Stifel’s Defense Arguments
Stifel’s official statement characterizes the claimants as “a sophisticated family of experienced and aggressive investors who understood the risks involved, participated in the selection of investments, monitored them closely and only complained after incurring losses.”
The firm maintains it suggested clients diversify holdings. Stifel’s legal team argues the awards reflect misapplication of legal standards rather than proper findings of misconduct.
The Legal Team Assembled
Stifel expanded its defense team in May 2025 by retaining Robert Sacks. Sacks serves as managing partner and head of the West Coast litigation unit at Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent international law firm.
The defense team also includes G. Wayne Hillis, Jr. from the Atlanta office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Michael N. Kreitzer from the Miami office of Greenberg Traurig. This assembly of lawyers from multiple major firms signals the significance Stifel places on overturning the award.
Legal experts note that firms face substantial obstacles when seeking to vacate arbitration awards. Courts grant relief only in narrow circumstances, such as when arbitrators exceed their authority or display evident partiality.
Active Litigation and Pending Claims
BrokerCheck data shows 23 arbitration claims remain pending against Stifel. All allege misrepresentation of structured notes and unsuitable investment recommendations by Roberts.
Nature of the Allegations
The pending claims center on several recurring allegations:
- Roberts misrepresented the risks of structured notes by describing them as safe, conservative investments with downside protection
- Clients’ portfolios became overconcentrated in structured products, with some accounts holding 80% or more in these securities
- Stifel failed to supervise Roberts despite warning signs about his sales practices and client complaints
- The firm prioritized its financial interests over client welfare by earning substantial fees from structured note sales
Many complaints cite text messages between Roberts and clients. These messages, which were sent through channels outside Stifel’s supervision systems, allegedly show Roberts made specific representations about safety and returns that were not accurate.
Breakdown of Roberts’ Customer Complaints
Roberts’ BrokerCheck profile documents the following status of customer disputes as of late December 2025:
| Status | Number of Cases | Total Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Settled | 9 | $46.2 million |
| Arbitration Awards | 3 | $149.5 million |
| Denied | 3 | N/A |
| Pending | 23 | At least $39.2 million sought |
The combined settlements and awards through December 2025 total nearly $200 million. This figure does not include legal fees Stifel has incurred defending the cases or the potential exposure from pending claims.
Supervisory Failures Cited by Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue Stifel exhibited systematic supervisory failures. They point to evidence that Roberts communicated with clients primarily through personal text messages rather than firm-monitored channels.
Court documents show Roberts’ strategy generated substantial revenue for Stifel. His $61.4 million in commissions from $3.7 billion in structured note sales made him one of the firm’s top producers in the Miami market.
The large volume of sales in a concentrated product category should have triggered heightened supervision, according to industry compliance experts. FINRA rules require firms conducting due diligence on complex products and providing adequate training to representatives who sell them.
Implications for the Securities Industry
The Roberts cases have drawn attention to structured note sales practices across the brokerage industry. FINRA has issued multiple investor alerts about these products, warning that their complexity makes them difficult for retail investors to understand.
Data from FINRA’s 2024 Dispute Resolution Statistics shows arbitration case filings have declined overall. The organization received 2,469 new customer cases in 2024, down from previous years. Cases involving structured products represent a small but significant portion of total filings.
Recovery Rates in FINRA Arbitration
Industry research shows investors who bring arbitration claims recover damages in approximately 30% of cases that proceed to a final hearing. The median recovery in “customer win” cases typically ranges from 37% to 47% of claimed losses, according to studies of FINRA awards from 2007 through 2023.
The Roberts cases depart from this pattern. The three arbitration awards against Stifel total $149.5 million, far exceeding the amounts initially claimed by the Jannetti family ($5 million requested, $132.5 million awarded) and other claimants.
Legal experts note that settlements in 60% to 70% of filed cases avoid the uncertainty of arbitration. Stifel’s decision to defend rather than settle the Jannetti case resulted in the second-largest award in FINRA’s history.
Questions About Compliance Systems
The cases raise questions about how broker-dealers supervise high-producing representatives who concentrate client assets in proprietary or complex products.
Structured notes generate significant revenue for firms through underwriting fees and sales commissions. Industry data shows major banks including JPMorgan Chase, RBC, and Bank of America-Merrill Lynch have issued billions of dollars in structured notes over the past decade.
FINRA’s supervisory rules require firms to maintain systems reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of securities laws. The repeated findings that Stifel failed to supervise Roberts suggest those systems were inadequate to monitor his concentrated sales strategy.
Conclusion
The $850,000 settlement adds to Stifel’s total legal costs of nearly $200 million stemming from Chuck Roberts’ structured note sales. The firm faces 23 pending arbitration claims and is challenging a $132.5 million award in federal court.
Roberts was barred from the securities industry in July 2025 for failing to cooperate with FINRA’s investigation. His sales generated $61.4 million in commissions from $3.7 billion in structured note transactions while he worked at Stifel from 2016 to 2025.
The cases document allegations that Roberts misrepresented product risks and overconcentrated client portfolios. Arbitration panels have found Stifel failed to supervise Roberts despite red flags about his sales practices and client communications conducted outside firm-monitored channels.
The outcome of Stifel’s motion to vacate the $133 million award remains pending. The resolution of 23 active arbitration claims will determine the final scope of the firm’s financial and legal exposure from this broker scandal.
FAQs
1. What prompted the Stifel $850K settlement in this broker scandal?
This $850,000 settlement resolves a specific arbitration claim involving former broker Chuck Roberts, who was barred from the industry for selling unsuitable structured notes. The agreement addresses accusations that Stifel failed to supervise Roberts as he concentrated client portfolios in risky, volatile debt securities without proper authorization.
2. How does this settlement affect investors who lost money in the scandal?
This payout adds to the nearly $182 million in total damages and settlements Stifel has incurred, serving as a precedent for other investors seeking restitution. The compensation is distinct from the record-breaking $133 million FINRA arbitration award issued in March, which the firm is currently appealing in federal court to avoid paying full punitive damages.
3. What new lawsuits have emerged following the settlement announcement?
Twenty-three additional arbitration cases remain pending against the firm, alleging that Stifel leadership ignored red flags while Roberts over-concentrated client accounts in high-risk sectors like biotech.
4. What consequences does Stifel face beyond the financial settlement?
Beyond immediate fines, the scandal has fueled market speculation that Stifel may sell its retail business to a competitor like Raymond James to mitigate ongoing liability. Continued regulatory failures could force a mandatory restructuring of the company’s entire private client group compliance framework to prevent future oversight lapses.
