March 9, 2026
ChapmanAlbin is investigating Kyle Lindner (CRD 5421697) after public records showed an outside investment opportunity involving a promissory note and a separate settled customer dispute tied to a real estate security that was allegedly outside the firm’s offerings. FINRA also says Lindner falsely answered annual compliance questionnaires after participating in the transaction. Lindner’s most recent reported employing firm was State Farm VP Management Corp. This page summarizes what public records show and what investors may want to review next.
| Field | Details |
| CRD | 5421697 |
| Most recent firm | State Farm VP Management Corp. |
| Registration status | Not currently registered |
| Primary concern | FINRA disciplinary action involving an outside private securities transaction, a $150,000 promissory note, and a settled customer dispute tied to an outside real estate security |
| Products mentioned | Promissory note; real estate security |
| Potential investor claims | Selling away, failure to supervise, misrepresentation and omission |
The most important recent development is a FINRA disciplinary action that resulted in a four-month suspension and a $5,000 fine. According to the uploaded BrokerCheck report and AWC, FINRA found that Lindner participated in a private securities transaction with a firm customer without giving prior written notice to his member firm. The record says the investment involved a $150,000 promissory note issued by a purported real estate development company and that Lindner helped introduce the opportunity, provide customer information to help facilitate the investment, and assist the customer in obtaining a loan to partially fund it. The AWC also says he falsely attested on annual compliance questionnaires for 2020 and 2021 that he had not engaged in any undisclosed private securities transactions.
Public records reflect that FINRA initiated the regulatory action under docket number 2024083942501 and resolved it through an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent accepted on February 20, 2026. The AWC states that the matter originated from a Form U4 amendment filed by State Farm in October 2024, and it also notes that the firm later filed a Form U5 reporting Lindner’s discharge after an internal review. BrokerCheck lists the product type as a promissory note and the sanction as a four-month suspension in all capacities beginning March 2, 2026, together with a $5,000 fine.
BrokerCheck also reflects a settled customer dispute connected to a real estate security that the firm said was outside of what the firm offered. The disclosure states that the firm became aware of allegations that the registered representative recommended the customer invest in a real estate investment, that the customer alleged losses, and that the matter later settled. In the broker-reported version, the allegation is framed as a recommendation that the customer speak with another client presenting an investment opportunity in which Lindner had participated. For investors, that kind of fact pattern can raise questions about whether the opportunity was properly disclosed, whether risks were fully explained, and whether the investment should have been screened and supervised by the firm.
Outside investments are often described in investor cases as “selling away,” meaning the recommendation or facilitation happened outside the firm’s approved platform and oversight. When that happens, investors may miss the basic protections that come with normal supervisory review, product due diligence, and firm records. Promissory note and real estate related offerings can be especially risky if they are pitched informally, tied to a personal contact, or funded with borrowed money. Depending on the facts, these cases may also overlap with failure to supervise and misrepresentation and omission.
If you invested in an outside opportunity connected to Kyle Lindner, do not rely on memory alone. Gather the paperwork, communications, and account records tied to the recommendation and the funding source. These matters can involve claims such as selling away, failure to supervise, and misrepresentation and omission. ChapmanAlbin can review the public record, compare it to your documents, and help evaluate whether a claim may exist against the broker, the firm, or both.
It generally refers to a broker recommending or participating in a securities transaction away from the firm’s approved channels. That matters because the investment may not have gone through the firm’s normal supervision and review.
Because public records say FINRA found that Kyle Lindner participated in a private securities transaction with a customer without giving notice to his firm and later imposed a suspension and fine. That kind of finding can be important when evaluating whether an investor claim exists.
Not by itself. A settlement can happen for many reasons. But a settled customer dispute can still be an important sign that an investor should review the recommendation, the paperwork, and how the investment was presented.
Preserve every document and communication you can find, including bank records and any loan paperwork used to fund the investment. Then compare those records against what appeared, or did not appear, on your official brokerage statements.
Depending on the facts, yes. Investor claims can involve both the broker and the supervising firm, especially where the issue involves outside business activity, undisclosed private securities transactions, or gaps in supervision.
This page is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Past outcomes are not a guarantee of future results. Every matter depends on its own facts, documents, and timeline.
"*" indicates required fields
