Lifemark Securities Corp, a New York-based independent broker-dealer, has faced a growing list of regulatory problems, arbitration claims, and customer complaints. Much of the scrutiny stems from its sales of high-risk GWG L bonds, which were backed by life insurance policies and marketed as income-producing investments. These products have led to significant losses for investors, drawing action from the SEC, FINRA, and state regulators.
If you or someone you know has suffered significant investment losses working with Lifemark Securities or another brokerage firm, don’t hesitate to reach out to Meyer Wilson Werning today. Our attorneys are experienced in securities fraud cases and will help to guide you through the process with a free consultation to determine whether your losses are the result of actionable misconduct.
Lifemark’s Regulatory Challenges
Lifemark Securites Corp’s (CRD#: 16204) compliance record shows repeated failures that raise questions about its supervision of brokers and adherence to investor protection rules.
- June 2025: The firm lost two FINRA arbitration cases in just weeks, resulting in $223,000 in awards to investors tied to GWG L bond sales.
- July 2024: The SEC settled charges that Lifemark violated Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) by recommending L Bonds between July 2020 and January 2022 without conducting reasonable diligence. The firm agreed to pay an $85,000 penalty plus disgorgement.
- New Jersey Bureau of Securities: Fined Lifemark $7,500 for failing to report customer complaints, arbitrations, and investigations as required under a Heightened Supervision Agreement.
These enforcement actions reflect a troubling pattern of supervision lapses that have left investors exposed to unsuitable and misrepresented products.
We Have Recovered Over
$350 Million for Our Clients Nationwide.
Broker Misconduct Within Lifemark
The firm’s problems extend beyond the company itself to its registered representatives. For example, in July 2024, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Lifemark broker Garrett Moretz, alleging he fraudulently sold GWG L bonds as “guaranteed” between September 2019 and August 2020.
Other Lifemark brokers have faced arbitration claims for unsuitable recommendations and misrepresentations, further undermining investor confidence. Taken together, these issues suggest not just isolated misconduct, but broader supervisory weaknesses across the firm.
Why Lifemark’s Supervisory Model Raises Concerns
Lifemark operates as an independent broker-dealer, a business model that often relies on geographically dispersed branch offices supervised by contractors rather than dedicated compliance staff. According to industry observers, this structure can create serious oversight problems:
- Supervisory personnel may not be present on-site, meaning new accounts, transactions, and sales literature often go unreviewed.
- Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) are sometimes managed by independent contractors who run their own businesses, limiting their time spent on oversight.
- Compliance audits may occur only once per year, leaving long gaps without meaningful supervision.
This type of structure can increase the risk that brokers can sell risky, unsuitable, or even fraudulent investments without detection, exposing clients to preventable losses.
Our lawyers are nationwide leaders in investment fraud cases.
Investor Complaints and Arbitration
Lifemark has faced numerous arbitration claims from investors seeking damages for losses tied to unsuitable GWG L bond sales and other misconduct. Arbitration is the standard forum for resolving disputes with broker-dealers, and many Lifemark customers are bound by agreements requiring FINRA arbitration rather than litigation in court.
While arbitration can limit some legal avenues, it gives investors a structured process to pursue recovery. Successful arbitration claims against Lifemark in 2025 demonstrate that investors can and do prevail when evidence shows unsuitable recommendations and supervisory lapses.
We Are The firm other lawyers
call for support.
How Meyer Wilson Werning Helps Lifemark Investors
Lifemark’s history of regulatory fines, arbitration awards, and broker misconduct shows the risks of weak supervision in independent broker-dealer models. At Meyer Wilson Werning, we represent investors who have lost money due to unsuitable GWG L bond sales and other misconduct tied to Lifemark brokers. If you suffered losses through Lifemark Securities, contact us today so we can review your case, evaluate potential claims, and pursue recovery through arbitration or other legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Lifemark Securities facing regulatory scrutiny from the SEC and FINRA?
Lifemark has faced multiple actions tied to its sales of high-risk GWG L bonds, including SEC and FINRA penalties for failing to perform proper due diligence. Regulators found the firm violated disclosure and supervision rules, leaving investors exposed.
What are GWG L bonds and why are they considered risky investments?
GWG L bonds were backed by life insurance policies and marketed as income-generating, but they carried significant risks like illiquidity and default potential. Many investors who bought them through Lifemark suffered substantial losses.
Has Lifemark Securities lost arbitration cases tied to investor complaints?
Yes, in June 2025 Lifemark lost two FINRA arbitration cases, paying $223,000 in awards tied to unsuitable GWG L bond sales.
How does Lifemark’s independent broker-dealer model create risks for investors?
Lifemark relies on dispersed branch offices and independent contractors for supervision, which can lead to weak oversight. This structure increases the chance of unsuitable or fraudulent investments being sold without detection.
What legal options do investors have if they lost money with Lifemark Securities?
Most investors must pursue recovery through FINRA arbitration, where claims of unsuitable recommendations and poor supervision can be presented. Lifemark investors have already succeeded in winning compensation this way.
Recovering Losses Caused by Investment Misconduct.