Dean Edwin Meyers

Dean Edwin Meyers is currently employed as a Broker and/or Investment Adviser at EDWARD JONES located at 125 W CHARLES ST, MUNCIE, IN, 47305.

Dean Edwin Meyers has worked at EDWARD JONES since June 25, 1986

Disclosure History

Dean Edwin Meyers has 5 Disclosure Event(s).

Date: December 28, 2005
Category: Customer Dispute
Allegations: CLIENT STATES HE GAVE IR $235,000 TO INVEST IN AN ANNUITY IN 1998. CLIENT STATES IR MADE ALL KINDS OF VERBAL ASSURANCES THAT THE CLIENT WOULD OUT LIVE THE ANNUITY. CLIENT ADDITIONALLY STATES IR ASSURED HIM THE ANNUITY WOULD NEVER GO BELOW $100,000, SO IN AUG. OF 2004 WHEN THE ANNUITY WAS DOWN TO $95,000, HE WITHDEW HIS MONEY AND WENT ELSEWHERE. CLIENT ADDITIONALLY STATES ATTEMPTS TO MEET WITH THE IR HAVE GONE UNHEEDED.
Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00
Broker Comment: UPON REVIEW, IT APPEARS THE ILLUSTRATION THE CLIENT WAS PROVIDED WAS BASED UPON MARKET PERFORMANCE AT THAT TIME AND WHILE BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, THE NUMBERS ARE NOT GUARANTEED. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THE IR DID ENCOURAGE THE CLIENT TO USE THE IRS ONE TIME 72T CHANGE AND REDUCE THE MONTHLY PAYOUT. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THE CLIENT DID NOT WANT TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. AS TO THE CLIENT'S NOTE REGARDING THE ACCOUNT WOULD NOT FALL BELOW $100,000, THE IR HAS INDICATED THAT THE $100,000 WAS THE DEATH BENEFIT OF THE ANNUITY.

Date: August 30, 2003
Category: Customer Dispute
Allegations: CLIENT CLAIMS ORDER PLACED THROUGH ORDER SERVICES ON 4/17/00 SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED AS A DAY ORDER TO PURCHASE 1,000 SHARES OF XCELERA AT 51, BUT WAS ENTERED AS GTC. CLIENT FURTHER STATES STOCK SPLIT ON 5/1/00 AND ORDER WAS EXECUTED AT PRE-SPLIT PRICE LEVEL OF 48 1/2. CUSTOMER REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASE WHICH TOTAL APPROXIMATELY $30,000 AS OF DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT.
Damage Amount Requested: $30,000.00
Settlement Amount: $35,000.00
Broker Comment: OUR RECORDS INDICATE A LIMIT ORDER TO PURCHASE 1,000 SHARES OF XLA AT $51.00 PER SHARE GTC FILLED ON 5/1/2000 AT $48.50 PER SHARE. IT DOES APPEAR THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING THIS PURCHASE. SINCE THE CLIENT HAS ELECTED TO RETAIN THE SHARES WE HAVE OFFERED A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,440.45 WHICH REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE SHARES WERE PURCASED AND THE AVERAGE PRICE PER SHARE OF $40,0625 ON 5/3/00, THE DATE THE CLIENT AGREED TO RETAIN THE SHARES. THE SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS SENT ON OCTOBER 26, 2000. AS OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2000, THE CLIENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE OFFER, THEREFORE, THE OFFER HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. CLIENT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED TO ENTER INTO MEDIATION TO SETTLE THIS MATTER, WHICH WAS GRANTED. AFTER MEDIATION, SETTLEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000, OF WHICH THE IR WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR $8,440.45. MEDIATION SETTLEMENT WAS FULLY EXECUTED ON MAY 24, 2002.

Date: May 29, 2003
Category: Customer Dispute
Allegations: CLIENT CLAIMS THROUGH HER ATTORNEY, BASED UPON HER AGE, INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND ECONOMIC STATUS, THE MARGIN TRADING WAS NOT SUITABLE. CLIENT CLAIMS SHE WAS NOT AWARE THAT TRADING ON MARGIN WAS GOING ON AT ALL AND SUCH TRADING WAS UNAUTHORIZED. CLIENT FUTHER CLAIMS THAT WHEN THE IR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE CLIENT, IR CLAIMED IT WAS AN ERROR AND TO IGNORE IT. CLIENT ALLEGING LOSSES OF $528,564 IN HER TRUST ACCOUNT.********ARBITRATION DESCRIPTION: ALLEGATIONS OF UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, VIOLATION OF STATE BLUE SKY LAWS, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND VIOLATION OF NASD RULES IN USING MARGIN IN CLAIMANT'S ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PURCHASE TECH STOCKS. (AMOUNT CLAIMED: $528,564 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, $400,000 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES PLUS COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND 8% INTEREST.)
Damage Amount Requested: $528,564.00
Settlement Amount: $150,000.00
Broker Comment: IR BELIEVED CLIENT WAS WELL VERSED IN FINANCIAL MATTERS, HAVING OWNED AN ACCOUNTING AGENCY AND NURSING HOME BUSINESS. CLIENT INDICATED TO THE IR THAT SHE DID NOT NEED INCOME FROM HER INVESTMENTS; HOWEVER, BEGINNING IN FEBRUARY 1996, CLIENT BEGAN TAKING WITHDRAWALS. OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT CLIENT HAD TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL WITHDRAWALS FROM HER ACCOUNTS, WHICH APPEAR TO TOTAL APPROXIMATELY $489,000 THROUGH 2002. IN REGARD TO SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS IN CLIENT'S ACCOUNTS, IR INDICATED HE RECOMMENDED SHE SELL THE FEDERATED AGGRESSIVE FUND IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF 1999 (DUE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL GAIN IN THE FUND), BUT CLIENT DECLINED TO SELL UPON THE ADVICE OF HER ACCOUNTANT. AS TO OTHER INVESTMENTS IN THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNTS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE INVESTMENTS WERE OUTSIDE THE STATED OBJECTIVES OF THE ACCOUNTS. CLIENT INDICATED THAT AFTER OCTOBER 2000, IR AGGRESSIVELY USED THE MARGIN ACCOUNT TO SHORT SELL TECH STOCKS, BUT BASED ON OUR REVIEW CLIENT ONLY SOLD SHORT ONE TECH STOCK IN JANUARY 1997. IT DOES NOT APPEAR CLIENT SOLD SHORT AT ANY OTHER TIME, INCLUDING IN CLIENT'S TRUST ACCOUNT. IT WOULD APPEAR CLIENT WAS FAMILIAR WITH INVESTING IN AGGRESSIVE AND GROWTH AND INCOME STOCKS AND MUTUAL FUNDS, AS CLIENT HAS OWNED SIMILAR INVESTMENTS OVER THE LAST NINE YEARS. IT WOULD ALSO APPEAR CLIENT UNDERSTOOD MARGIN, AS THE ORIGINAL MARGIN ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED IN APRIL 1997. IR INDICATED AT NO TIME DID HE ALLUDE TO ERRORS IN REGARD TO CLIENT'S MARGIN QUESTIONS; HOWEVER, IR DID OFFER TO REVIEW CLIENT'S STATEMENTS FOR ACCURACY. CLIENT HAS RECEIVED ACCOUNT STATEMENTS WHICH PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT AS WELL AS REFLECTING ACTIVITY (INCLUDING MARGIN ACTIVITY). IT IS OUR OPINION THE CLIENT WAS AWARE OF THE ACTIVITY IN THE ACCOUNTS AND ALL TRANSACTIONS WERE COMPLETED WITH HER AUTHORIZATION. CLAIM DENIED.************** ARBITRATIONRESOLUTION: SETTLED FOR $150,000.00

Date: January 24, 2003
Category: Customer Dispute
Allegations: CLIENT CLAIMS THE PURCHASE OF CONSECO STOCK ON FEBRUARY 23, 2000 WAS UNAUTHORIZED. CLIENT STATES THE STOCK WAS PURCHASED ON MARGIN AND THIS WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. CLIENT CLAIMS SHE CONTACTED IR AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER DUE TO IR RECOMMENDING TO HOLD THE STOCK, SHE FOLLOWED HIS ADVICE. LOSSES EXCEED $5,000.
Damage Amount Requested: $5,000.00
Broker Comment: IR STATED THAT HE DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSIFICATION WITH CLIENT AND ALSO INFORMED HER OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLACING A LARGE PERCENT OF HER NET WORTH IN ONE STOCK. IT ALSO APPEARS IR EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF MARGIN, INCLUDING MARKET EXPOSURE AND SHORT SELLING AND BASED ON OUR REVIEW, THE CLIENT BEGAN BORROWING ON MARGIN IN FALL OF 1995. ACCORDING TO IR, CLIENT HAS HAD AN EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF HOLDING LARGE STOCK POSITIONS. IN REGARD TO THE STOCK POSITION IN CONSECO, IT APPEARS THIS STOCK HAD LOCAL INTEREST AS THE COMPANY IS HEADQUARTERED IN INDIANAPOLIS. IR STATED CONSECO STOCK WAS PURCHASED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CLIENT. IR INDICATED HE HAD NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS WITH CLIENT DURING 2000-2002 AND CLIENT AGREED TO CONTINUE HOLDING THE STOCK. IN ADDITION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR CLIENT CLAIMED THE TRANSACTION WAS UNAUTHORIZED UNTIL AFTER THE STOCK VALUE HAD DECLINED SUBSTANTIALLY. SINCE CLIENT'S ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED, SHE HAS RECEIVED CUSTOMER ACCOUNT STATEMENTS WHICH PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT AS WELL AS REFLECTING ACCOUNT ACTIVITY (INCLUDING MARGIN ACTIVITY). IT IS OUR OPINION THE CLIENT WAS AWARE OF THE ACTIVITY IN THE ACCOUNT AND ALL TRANSACTIONS WERE COMPLETED WITH HER AUTHORIZATION. BASED ON OUR REVIEW, WE WILL NOT BE MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ACCOUNT.

Date: December 02, 2002
Category: Criminal
Charges: PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CLASS D FELONIES Charge Type: FELONY
Disposition: THE FOLLOWING CHARGES WERE BROUGHT UNDER CAUSE NUMBER 18C04-0211-FD-315, WITH DISPOSITION AS INDICATED: COUNT 1, PERJURY (FELONY), FILED DECEMBER 2, 2002, DISMISSED SEPTEMBER 3, 2003; COUNT 2, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (FELONY), FILED DECEMBER 2, 2002, DISMISSED SEPTEMBER 3, 2003; COUNT 3, RESISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT (MISDEMEANOR), FILED AUGUST 28, 2003, TO BE DISMISSED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PRETRIAL DIVERSION AGREEMENT. NO JUDGMENT OR CONVICTION HAS BEEN OR WILL BE ENTERED. NO ADMISSION OF GUILT HAS BEEN OR WILL BE MADE. NO CRIMINAL PENALTY HAS BEEN OR WILL BE IMPOSED. MR. MEYERS' SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN LIFTED.****COUNT 3 DISMISSED 4/1/04 AT COMPLETION OF DIVERSION CONTRACT
Broker Comment: ON DECEMBER 2, 2002, THE DELAWARE COUNTY PROSECUTOR FILED AN INFORMATION CHARGING MR. MEYERS WITH PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CLASS D FELONIES. BOTH CHARGES ARISE OUT OF A CIVIL DISPUTE OVER ENTITLEMENT TO THE PROCEEDS OF AN ANNUITY CONTRACT. AT ISSUE IS THE AUTHENTICITY OF A CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY LETTER PREPARED BY MR. MEYERS FOR THE SIGNATURE OF THE OWNER. THE DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF'S INVESTIGATOR CONTENDS THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE DOCUMENT IS FORGED AND THAT MR. MEYERS KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY PRESENTED IT AS A GENUINE DOCUMENT, AND TESTIFIED AS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. MR. MEYERS STATED THAT HE FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE OWNER IN PREPARING THE DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY FORGERY. MR. MEYERS DISPUTES THE CHARGES AND WILL VIGOROUSLY DEFEND THEM.********************ON DECEMBER 2, 2002, THE DELAWARE COUNTY PROSECUTOR FILED AN INFORMATION CHARGING MR. MEYERS WITH PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CLASS D FELONIES. JUST PRIOR TO TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AGREED TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES IN EXCHANGE FOR MR. MEYERS' ENROLLMENT IN A PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM. NO PLEA OF GUILTY AND NO ADMISSION OF GUILT WAS REQUIRED AND NONE WAS OR WILL BE MADE. UNDER INDIANA LAW, ONLY PERSONS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION. ON AUGUST 28 AND SEPTEMBER 3, THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE DISMISSED THE FELONY COUNTS 1 AND 2, AND ADDED MISDEAMANOR COUNT 3. COUNT 3, THE SOLE REMAINING CHARGE WILL ALSO BE DISMISSED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF SIX MONTHS FROM SEPTEMBER 3, 2003. MR. MEYERS HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE.

More Information

All individuals registered to sell securities or provide investment advice are required to disclose customer complaints and arbitrations, regulatory actions, employment terminations, bankruptcy filings and criminal or civil judicial proceedings.

A disclosure includes information about customer disputes, disciplinary events and financial matters on the broker's record as reported by securities regulators, the individual broker, and any involved firms. Some of these items may involve pending actions or allegations that have not been resolved or proven. The presence of a disclosure does not automatically indicate any wrongdoing.

BrokerCheck is the source of the data included in this Report. The data was compiled on June 29, 2018.

To view the full report for Dean Edwin Meyers, click here.

The use of BrokerCheck data is subject to the BrokerCheck Terms of Use.