(CRD #2108610, Garden City, New York)

November 14, 2025 – Peter James Fetherston appealed a remanded OHO decision to the NAC. Fetherston was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for providing a partial but incomplete response to a FINRA request for information that it issued to him during its investigation into whether he had misappropriated customer funds. The findings stated that Fetherston received three checks made payable to him personally totaling $89,000 from two long-time customers, a married couple. Shortly afterward, Fetherston’s member firm conducted an internal investigation into his activities related to mutual fund purchases and sales by several of his customers. Upon concluding that Fetherston’s mutual fund-related activities violated firm policy, it discharged him. The married couple was among those customers impacted by Fetherston’s conduct, and the firm reimbursed them for the costs they had incurred related to his mutual fund purchases and sales in their accounts. During a call relating to that reimbursement, the married couple notified the firm that they had given Fetherston three checks made payable to him, one to pay for commissions Fetherston said they owed, and the others so he could buy investments for them. The firm then contacted Fetherston, and he told it that he invested the funds in a “fixed investment” but had no proof of it. In fact, Fetherston had deposited the checks into his personal checking account and used the funds to pay his personal expenses. Thereafter, the firm filed a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) with FINRA disclosing the reason it terminated Fetherston. According to the Form U5, the customers complained that “they provided multiple checks made payable directly to [Fetherston] for what he said were for commissions and investments” and that the firm had settled the complaint for $89,000. The filing triggered FINRA’s investigation, and FINRA requested that Fetherston identify and provide certain information about medical expenses he purportedly paid with the funds from the three checks. Fetherston produced personal bank and credit card statements. However, Fetherston used the vast majority of the married couples’ funds to make payments to a credit card account for which he did not provide statements. Without the relevant credit card statements reflecting the charges or the list of medical expenses that FINRA requested, it was unable to determine whether Fetherston used the funds to pay medical expenses, as he claimed. Furthermore, FINRA had to exert significant regulatory pressure to obtain the information that Fetherston did provide. Fetherston failed to timely respond to requests for information and documents; provided incomplete responses; and gave shifting explanations for why the married couple gave him the checks. As a result, FINRA had to issue numerous follow-up requests and threaten filing an action against him seeking sanctions. The majority of the hearing panel found that FINRA failed to prove that Fetherston converted or improperly used customer funds or that he provided false or misleading information, documents, or testimony to FINRA, and therefore dismissed the corresponding causes. The Hearing Officer dissented from the majority's decision to dismiss these causes. The sanction is not in effect pending the review. (FINRA Case #2020065396501) If you have suffered losses as a result of Peter James Fetherston’s act and/or actions, we would like to hear from you. We are currently investigating claims on behalf of clients who have suffered significant losses in their portfolios that are managed by Peter James Fetherston. The Schwartz Law Firm represents investors in claims against financial advisors and their firms. If you have questions about your potential claim or need assistance from an investment fraud lawyer, please contact us at  (813) 226-3372 or email Matthew Schwartz directly at mschwartz@tslfirm.com.