CFP Board Censures Improper CFP® Professional Conduct

Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) announced today public disciplinary actions against the following individuals’ right to use the CFP® certification marks, effective immediately or on the date noted in each case. Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include letters of admonition, suspensions and permanent revocations.

This release contains information about disciplinary actions relating to 29 CFP® professionals. Of these actions, there were 16 revocations, 5 suspensions, 1 interim suspension and 7 letters of admonition.

The basis for each decision can be found in a Disciplinary Action Report below and on CFP Board’s Web site. The public may check on an individual’s disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board at www.CFP.net/verify.

CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection. CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct (“Standards”), which includes the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards. The Standards set forth the ethical standards for financial planners who hold the CFP® certification, who agree to act fairly and diligently when providing clients with financial planning advice and services, putting the clients’ interests first.

CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating incidents of alleged unethical behavior, and following the procedures established in CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. In cases where violations are found, CFP Board may impose discipline ranging from a private censure or public letter of admonition to the suspension or revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks. The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures set forth a fair process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where violations have been found.

The actions in this release result from final decisions of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”). The Commission meets three times a year and reviews all cases on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the details specific to an individual case. While CFP Board has attempted to capture the details relevant to each decision, the summary nature of these releases may omit certain details affecting the decision. Accordingly, the decisions and/or rationale described in the releases may not apply to other cases reviewed by the Commission or reflect the Commission’s future interpretation or application of the Standards.

STATE	NAME	LOCATION	DISCIPLINE
Alabama	Henry E. Walker	Helena	Revocation
California	Stephen J. Hoshimi	Newport	Revocation
California	Paul R. Mata	Rancho Cucamonga	Suspension
California	Ernest J. Miars, CFP®	Carlsbad	Letter of Admonition
California	Al Tatro	Rolling Hills Estates	Suspension
Colorado	Jeffrey D. Ogle	Littleton	Revocation
Florida	Nicholas J. Ruggeri	Clearwater	Revocation
Georgia	Mark E. Davis	St. Simons Island	Letter of Admonition
Massachusetts	Dawna Berube, CFP®	Methuen	Letter of Admonition
Michigan	Michael T. Fant	Plymouth	Revocation
Minnesota	Jon Palmer Brown	Bloomington	Revocation
Missouri	Douglas A. Siebert	St. Louis	Suspension
Nebrasksa	Thomas E. Schaap	Omaha	Revocation
New Jersey	Diana A. Cook, CFP®	Rochelle Park	Letter of Admonition
New York	William F. Keats	North Merrick	Revocation
New York	Edward D. Puttick, Sr.	Setauket	Revocation
North Carolina	James F. Seramba	Greensboro	Suspension
Ohio	Jason C. Lohnes	Dublin	Revocation
Ohio	Edwin P. Morrow	Middletown	Revocation
Pennsylvannia	R. Glen Eichman	Bethlehem	Revocation
Pennsylvannia	Matthew R. Hilbert	Jenkintown	Suspension
Pennsylvannia	James A. Owen	Easton	Revocation
South Carolina	Ronald Jefferson Davis	Mt. Pleasant	Interim Suspension
Tennessee	Russell Darin Hurley, CFP®	Chattanooga	Letter of Admonition
Texas	Donald H. Christie, CFP®	Waco	Letter of Admonition
Texas	Sharon R. Luker, CFP®	Plano	Letter of Admonition
Virginia	John R. Graves	Fredericksburg	Revocation
Virginia	G. Frederick Leamnson	Reston	Revocation
Washington	Graham L. Mac Donald	Bellingham	Revocation

LETTERS OF ADMONITION

CALIFORNIA

Ernest J. Miars, CFP® (Carlsbad): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Miars. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Miars: 1) was the subject of multiple state and federal tax liens; and 2) failed to notify his employer and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (”FINRA”) of the tax liens in violation of FINRA rules. The Commission determined that Mr. Miars’ conduct violated Rules 606(a) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 5.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Miars with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

GEORGIA

Mark E. Davis (St. Simons Island): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Davis. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Davis made commodities-related recommendations to a client when he was not a licensed commodities broker and was not authorized by his firm to provide commodities-related advice. The Commission determined that Mr. Davis’s conduct violated Rules 302, 406 and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 4.2, 4.4, 5.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Davis with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

MASSACHUSETTS

Dawna Berube, CFP® (Methuen): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Berbue. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Ms. Berube filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 1993 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 2010. The Commission determined to depart from the Sanction Guideline for two or more personal bankruptcies because Ms. Berube’s 1993 bankruptcy filing occurred 11 years prior to becoming a CFP® professional and 19 years prior to the hearing. The Commission determined that Ms. Berube’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Berube with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

NEW JERSEY

Diana A. Cook, CFP® (Rochelle Park): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Cook. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Ms. Cook filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 1995 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 2011. The Commission determined to depart from the Sanction Guideline for two or more personal bankruptcies because Ms. Cook’s 1995 bankruptcy filing occurred 14 years prior to becoming a CFP® professional and 17 years prior to the hearing. The Commission determined that Ms. Cook’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Cook with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

TENNESSEE

Russell Darin Hurley, CFP®(Chattanooga): In January 2013, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued Letter of Admonition to Mr. Hurley. CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”) determined that Mr. Hurley: 1) entered into promissory notes with a client at above-market interest rates; and 2) failed to disclose and receive approval from his firm prior to loaning money to the client. The Commission determined that Mr. Hurley’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(b) and 607 of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). The Appeals Committee modified the Commission’s finding that Mr. Hurley violated Rule 201 because it determined that Mr. Hurley was not providing professional services when he loaned money to his client. The Appeals Committee affirmed the remainder of the Commission’s findings of fact and rule violations and its issuance of a Public Letter of Admonition to Mr. Hurley, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Hurley with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

TEXAS

Donald H. Christie, CFP® (Waco): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Christie. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Christie filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 2006. The Commission determined that Mr. Christie’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Christie with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

Sharon R. Luker, CFP® (Plano): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Luker. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Ms. Luker: 1) failed to file taxes for tax years 2002 through 2008, which resulted in a substantial federal tax lien; and 2) failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation. The Commission determined that Ms. Luker’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Luker with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

INTERIM SUSPENSION

SOUTH CAROLINA

Ronald Jefferson Davis (Mt. Pleasant): In April 2012, CFP Board issued Mr. Davis an interim suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks. CFP Board received notice of allegations that Mr. Davis misappropriated client funds that were intended to be used in the purchase of stock and that Mr. Davis forged the client’s named on loan guarantees. When questioned by the Commission regarding these allegations, Mr. Davis declined to respond, citing his Fifth Amendment rights. Pursuant to Article 5.7 of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures, CFP Board issued an Automatic Interim Suspension because Mr. Davis failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he did not pose an immediate threat to the public and that his conduct did not impinge upon the stature and reputation of the CFP® certification marks. Under the interim suspension order, Mr. Davis’s right to use the CFP® certification marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation, and possible further disciplinary proceedings. The interim suspension order became effective on April 6, 2012.

SUSPENSIONS

CALIFORNIA

Paul R. Mata (Rancho Cucamonga): In June 2012, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Mata’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years. CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”) determined that Mr. Mata: 1) used sales literature that was not fair and balanced, contained exaggerated or unwarranted claims and contained predictions of performance, in violation of National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”, now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”); 2) failed to obtain prior written approval from his principal for the sales literature used in his seminars; 3) failed to file the sales literature used in his seminars with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department; 4) offered securities in the form of a private placement offering that was not registered in Nevada; 5) omitted material facts in connection with the private placement offering; 6) acted as a sales representative or agent and/or representative of an investment adviser without being licensed; 7) failed to provide prompt written notice to his employer regarding an outside business activity for which he received compensation; 8) was suspended by FINRA for one year for violating FINRA and NASD Rules; and 9) was prohibited from transacting business in Nevada for five years for violating Nevada law. The Commission determined that Mr. Mata’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 2.1, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). The Appeals Committee affirmed the Commission’s findings of fact and rule violations and its imposition of a three-year suspension of Mr. Mata’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Mata’s suspension is effective from June 15, 2012 to June 15, 2015.

Al Tatro (Rolling Hills Estates): In August 2012, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Tatro’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for five years. CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”) found that Mr. Tatro: 1) knowingly violated net worth requirements for his investment advisory firm; 2) provided investment advisory services to clients despite not being properly registered as an investment advisor; 3) was barred by California from employment with an investment adviser; and 4) failed to notify his clients and CFP Board of his bar by California. The Commission determined that Mr. Tatro’s conduct violated Rules 606(a) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rules 2.1, 4.3, 4.4, 6.4 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). The Appeals Committee affirmed the Commission’s findings of fact and rule violations and its imposition of a five-year suspension of Mr. Tatro’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Tatro’s suspension is effective from August 10, 2012 to August 10, 2017.

NORTH CAROLINA

James F. Seramba (Greensboro): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Seramba’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Seramba violated the terms of a domestic protection order and committed multiple violations of his probation, which resulted from his prior violation of the domestic protection order, despite having been cautioned by CFP Board for similar conduct in the past. The Commission determined that Mr. Seramba’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Seramba’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Seramba’s suspension is effective from December 20, 2012 to December 21, 2013.

MISSOURI

Douglas A. Siebert (St. Louis): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Siebert’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Siebert: 1) maintained blank, signed client forms for clients despite being warned by a state regulator that doing so violated state regulations; and 2) over concentrated the assets of a 78-year-old client in an illiquid and unsuitable variable annuity. The Commission determined that Mr. Siebert’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(g) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Siebert’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Siebert’s suspension is effective from December 20, 2012 to December 21, 2013.

PENNSYLVANIA

Matthew R. Hilbert (Jenkintown): In November 2012, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Hilbert’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Hilbert filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 1997 and again in 2011. The Commission determined that Mr. Hilbert’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Hilbert’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Hilbert’s suspension is effective from December 20, 2012 to December 21, 2013.

REVOCATIONS

ALABAMA

Henry E. Walker (Helena): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Walker’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Walker: 1) directed the sale of, and sold, unregistered and nonexempt promissory notes to clients; 2) sold, and permitted registered representatives to sell, preferred stock offered through a private placement memorandum that omitted material facts; 3) failed to update the private placement memorandum when subsequent material events occurred; and 4) was barred from association with any Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. member in any capacity and from offering or selling any security in the Alabama. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Walker’s conduct violated Rules 1.4, 2.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.1, 6.4, and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Walker failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

CALIFORNIA

Stephen J. Hoshimi (Newport): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Hoshimi’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Hoshimi: 1) filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2011; 2) failed to meet net capital requirements and maintain required books and records for his firm; 3) shared commissions with a fee-only adviser without disclosing the fee-sharing arrangement to his employer; 4) participated in life settlement transactions without disclosing the transactions to his employer; 5) engaged in outside business activities without disclosing the activities to his employer; 6) executed private securities transactions without disclosing the transactions to his employer; and 7) was suspended by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”, formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers “NASD”) for six months for violations of NASD Conduct Rules. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Hoshimi’s conduct violated Rules 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Hoshimi failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

COLORADO

Jeffrey D. Ogle (Littleton): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Ogle’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Ogle: 1) induced five of his clients to invest approximately $460,000 in his father’s real estate business through promissory notes; 2) failed to notify or seek the approval of his firm prior to participating in the private securities transactions; and 3) entered into an Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent wherein he consented to a suspension from any Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. member in any capacity for nine months and a $10,000 fine. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Ogle’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 407(a), 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Ogle failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

FLORIDA

Nicholas J. Ruggeri (Clearwater): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Ruggeri’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Ruggeri: 1) directed a person under his supervision to execute trades in customers’ accounts when neither he nor the supervised person were approved for discretionary authority over the accounts, which resulted in the supervised person’s termination for unauthorized trading; and 2) failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Ruggeri’s conduct violated Rules 103(a), 201, 602, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(f) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Ruggeri failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

MICHIGAN

Michael T. Fant (Plymouth): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Fant’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Fant: 1) exercised discretion in client accounts without the clients’ written authorization and without his employer’s acceptance of the accounts as discretionary, which resulted in his employer terminating his employment; and 2) violated National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”, now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. “FINRA”) rules, which resulted in a 20-business day suspension from association with any FINRA member in any capacity and a $5,000 fine. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Fant’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Fant failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

MINNESOTA

Jon Palmer Brown (Bloomington): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Brown’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Brown knowingly falsified continuing education (“CE”) records to meet his required CFP Board CE requirements. CFP Board also alleged that Mr. Brown failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Brown’s conduct violated Rules 301, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(f) and 3(g) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Brown failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.

NEBRASKA

Thomas E. Schaap (Omaha): In November 2012, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Schaap’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Schaap filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2006 and failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Schaap’s conduct violated Rule 607 of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(f) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Schaap failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules