Roger Roemmich

ChapmanAlbin is investigating Roger Roemmich (CRD 1293322) in connection with investor allegations involving private offerings, real estate securities, suitability concerns, and alleged misstatements or omissions tied to outside investments. The most immediate concern for many investors is that Roemmich is no longer registered and public records show multiple pending disputes, including claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and securities-fraud-related conduct. Roemmich’s most recent reported employing firm was Alexander Capital, L.P. This page is based on public records, including FINRA BrokerCheck and related regulatory filings, and summarizes the key issues in plain English for investors reviewing their options.

Broker Snapshot

Related Investigations

Investors may also want to review ChapmanAlbin’s related investigation into 828 Media / Todd Lundbohm offerings, which is relevant because the BrokerCheck record references alleged investments tied to 828 Media Capital, LLC.

Key Facts and Public Records

• FINRA BrokerCheck detailed report for Roger A. Roemmich (CRD 1293322), showing 5 customer disputes, 2 employment separations after allegations, and 1 outstanding tax lien.
• Most recent reported brokerage firm in the record: Alexander Capital, L.P. (Red Bank, New Jersey), with registration through May 2025.
• Pending disclosures in the provided record include allegations tied to private offerings and direct investments, including a matter referencing 828 Media Capital, LLC, along with alleged fiduciary-duty breaches, negligence, fraud-related allegations, and disclosure concerns.
• One earlier settled customer dispute involved suitability and misrepresentation allegations relating to a TIC investment and shows a $227,500 settlement, including a $10,000 individual contribution.
• The report also reflects a May 12, 2025 voluntary resignation from Alexander Capital while customer allegations were pending and an outstanding IRS tax lien reported at $107,932.14.

Further Details

FINRA and BrokerCheck information

The public record shows a mix of older and newer dispute activity. The older settled matter centered on suitability and alleged misrepresentation involving a TIC-style real estate investment. More recent matters are more serious from a dollar-loss perspective, with pending claims tied to private offerings and direct investments, including allegations connected to 828 Media Capital, LLC, that allegedly involved false statements, omitted information, compensation disclosure issues, fiduciary-duty concerns, and negligence theories. For investors, the practical issue is whether the investment was fully explained, suitable for the investor’s needs, and approved through the proper channels.

Regulatory and employment history context

Roemmich’s BrokerCheck record shows he was most recently associated with Alexander Capital, L.P. after prior associations with Dempsey Lord Smith, Coastal Equities, and Triad Advisors. The record states that he voluntarily resigned from Alexander Capital in May 2025 while he was the subject of a written customer complaint and a customer-initiated civil suit alleging, among other things, unsuitable recommendations, fraud-related conduct, and breach of fiduciary duty. An earlier separation in 2006 at H&R Block Financial Advisors was reported in connection with a review into whether he was receiving income or fees from outside business activity.

Why these allegations matter to investors

Private placements and other direct investments can be especially risky because they are often illiquid, lightly traded, and harder for ordinary investors to independently evaluate. When an investor later learns that important facts were left out, that a broker had compensation incentives that were not clearly disclosed, or that a recommendation did not fit the investor’s objectives or risk tolerance, the losses can be difficult to unwind. These issues can also raise questions about whether the firm supervising the broker was doing enough to review the offering, the sales process, and outside compensation arrangements.

What investors can do and how ChapmanAlbin can help

If you invested with Roger Roemmich and are now concerned about private offerings, direct investments, or real-estate-security recommendations, it may be worth reviewing what you were told before the investment was made, what risks were disclosed, and whether any compensation arrangements were explained. Depending on the facts, a potential recovery claim could involve the broker, the supervising firm, or both. Investors often benefit from gathering their documents before speaking with counsel so the timeline, product type, and loss history can be evaluated more efficiently.

Common Warning Signs

• You were told an investment was safe, conservative, or income-focused, but later learned it involved concentrated private or illiquid holdings.
• You invested in a private company or direct offering without receiving clear written explanations of risks, fees, restrictions, or how the broker was being paid.
• The recommendation seemed tied to urgency, exclusivity, or insider-style access rather than a clear review of your goals and risk tolerance.
• Your account included large investments in private offerings or real-estate-related programs that were difficult to value or sell.
• You later discovered facts about the issuer, compensation, or conflicts that you do not recall being told up front.

Documents to Gather

• Account statements and trade confirmations for the full period you worked with the broker
• Private placement memoranda, subscription agreements, offering documents, and any investor questionnaires you signed
• Emails, text messages, notes from calls or meetings, and any pitch decks or summary sheets you received
• Wire records, ACH confirmations, checks, or transfer instructions tied to the investment
• Tax documents such as K-1s, 1099s, and records showing income, write-downs, or losses
• Any later correspondence discussing delays, valuation problems, liquidity issues, or requests for more capital

FAQs

What does it mean that a dispute is pending?

A pending dispute means the allegations have been made but have not yet been fully resolved. It does not by itself prove liability, but it can still be important for investors who are reviewing whether their own experience may have involved similar products, explanations, or sales practices.

Why do private placements and direct investments come up so often in investor cases?

These investments can be more complex, less transparent, and harder to sell than traditional publicly traded securities. That can make suitability, disclosure, due diligence, and supervision especially important.

Does a resignation after allegations automatically mean wrongdoing occurred?

Not automatically. But it is often a signal that investors should review the surrounding facts carefully, especially when the resignation happened while written complaints or civil allegations were already pending.

Can a claim involve the brokerage firm as well as the broker?

Yes. Depending on the facts, investor claims can involve the supervising firm, particularly where the issues include due diligence, suitability review, supervision of outside activities, or oversight of how an investment was presented to customers.

Disclaimer

This page is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Past outcomes are not a guarantee of future results. Each matter is different and depends on its specific facts.