2026-04-06 sec-litreleases complaint 193 KB 25,840 chars

SEC v. Jeffrey Higgins, No. 2:26-cv-00676, District of Oregon (Apr. 6, 2026) — Complaint

raw: DUNCAN C. SIMPSON LAGOY (Cal. Bar No. 298776)

DUNCAN C. SIMPSON LAGOY (Cal. Bar No. 298776), No. 2:26-cv-00676 (Apr. 6, 2026)

Caption: McKinney v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Enriched metadata

Scheme: broker-dealer-fraud (95%)
Court: District of Oregon
Case No.: 2:26-cv-00676
Entity: Jeffrey Higgins

Classified broker-dealer-fraud(confidence 95%). EDGAR detection: forms Form D· recall 29% / precision 9%. detection rule →

Extracted insights

Dollar amounts 1

$800K $800,000 $100K–$1M

Entities 6

agency Finra
company he had engaged in a scheme to misappropriate securities
person jeffrey higgins
agency jeffrey higgins from association with any finra member firm
agency Securities and Exchange Commission
person this action

Triples 12

Jeffrey Higgins misappropriated over $800,000 worth of securities from twelve clients
Jeffrey Higgins created a sham investment program called Cumulus
Jeffrey Higgins used Client funds to purchase securities at market prices
subject divert securities to his personal brokerage account
Jeffrey Higgins provided fictitious annual reports to his Clients
Jeffrey Higgins admitted he had engaged in a scheme to misappropriate securities
Jeffrey Higgins violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
Jeffrey Higgins violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
Jeffrey Higgins violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act
Securities and Exchange Commission brings this action
Jeffrey Higgins is a resident of Tamarack, Idaho
FINRA barred Jeffrey Higgins from association with any FINRA member firm

PDF

DUNCAN C. SIMPSON LAGOY (Cal. Bar No. 298776) · Source

Text layers

Extracted body text (25,840c)

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS

JASON H. LEE (Cal. Bar No. 253140)
JASON M. BUSSEY (Cal. Bar. No. 227185)
[email protected]
ERIN E. WILK (Cal. Bar No. 310214)
[email protected]
DAVID ZHOU (NY Bar No. 4926523)
[email protected]
DUNCAN C. SIMPSON LAGOY (Cal. Bar No. 298776)
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 705-2500 (Telephone)
(415) 705-2501 (Facsimile)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFREY HIGGINS,

Defendant,

Case No.

COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -2-

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges:

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1. From approximately September 2017 through February 2024, Defendant Jeffrey

Higgins (“Defendant”) misappropriated over $800,000 worth of securities from twelve of his clients

(the “Clients”) for his personal benefit.

2. While perpetrating this fraud, Defendant was a registered representative and

investment adviser representative associated with a financial firm that was dually-registered with the

Commission as a broker-dealer and investment adviser (the “Firm”). Defendant managed the Clients’

brokerage accounts at the Firm, and he also served as the Clients’ investment adviser.

3. Defendant misappropriated the Clients’ securities through a sham investment program

that he created called Cumulus through which he would purportedly, with discretionary authority

from the Clients, purchase discounted securities at a third-party transfer agent (the “Transfer Agent”)

and then sell the securities for a profit.

4. In reality, and unbeknownst to his Clients, the securities Defendant purchased for the

Clients were not discounted. Instead, Defendant used Client funds to purchase securities at market

prices through the Transfer Agent.

5. After using Client funds to purchase market-rate securities, Defendant misused a bulk

transfer process at the Transfer Agent to divert some of those securities to his personal brokerage

account at the Firm using falsified documents and signatures.

6. To facilitate his fraud, Defendant also used a personal Hotmail email account to

provide fictitious annual reports to his Clients claiming to show increases in the value of their

investments, when in reality, Clients’ holdings were worth significantly less than Defendant reported

because Defendant was not purchasing the shares at a discount and was misappropriating some of the

Clients’ securities.

7. Defendant’s scheme fell apart when he was unable to meet a Client withdrawal

request, and in June 2024, Defendant admitted to the General Counsel and the Chief Compliance

Officer of the Firm that he had engaged in a scheme to misappropriate securities from his Clients

since around 2007.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -3-

8. Through his conduct, Defendant has engaged in acts, practices, schemes, transactions,

and courses of business that violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], Section

17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Sections 206(1) and

206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-

6(2)]. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendant will continue to engage in the acts,

practices, schemes, transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint, and in acts,

practices, schemes, transactions, and courses of business of similar purport and object.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The Commission brings this action and this Court has jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and

77v(a)]; Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and

78aa(a)]; and Sections 209(d), 209(e), and 214 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-9(e),

and 80b-14].

10. Defendant, directly or indirectly, made use of the means and instrumentalities of

interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the acts, practices, schemes, transactions, and

courses of business alleged in this Complaint.

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act

[15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a)], and Section 214 of the

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14] because acts, practices, schemes, transactions, and courses of

business that form the basis for the violations alleged in this Complaint occurred in this District.

DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT

12. Under Civil Local Rule 3-2, this civil action should be assigned to the Pendleton

Division because a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claims alleged

herein occurred in Baker County, Oregon.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -4-

DEFENDANT

13. Defendant Jeffrey Higgins, age 54, currently is a resident of Tamarack, Idaho. He

resided in Baker City, Oregon when he undertook the actions set forth herein, including from at least

2017 through 2024. He previously held Series 6, 7, 63, 65, and 66 securities industry licenses.

14. At the time Defendant began the Cumulus program, Defendant was employed by a

predecessor to the Firm—another dually registered broker-dealer and investment adviser—whose

retail assets were acquired in 2017 by the Firm, which then became Defendant’s employer.

15. Between 2007 and 2024, Defendant worked as both a registered representative and

investment adviser representative associated with the Firm and its predecessor entity. In this role,

Defendant worked with individual investors serving as their broker and investment adviser.

16. In July 2024, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) barred

Defendant from association with any FINRA member firm after Defendant failed to cooperate with

FINRA’s request for information relating to conduct set forth in this Complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendant’s Cumulus Program

17. Starting in or around 2007, Defendant created and began offering a fake investment

program called Cumulus.

18. This program was not offered by the Firm or its predecessor entity, and neither entity

approved of the program or was aware of its existence.

19. Over time, Defendant selectively offered the Cumulus program to individuals with

whom he had a preexisting personal relationship or who he believed were less likely to question its

legitimacy, including several retirement-age individuals.

20. Defendant pitched the program as an arbitrage opportunity whereby Defendant could

purchase securities at a discount and then sell them at a profit. Specifically, Defendant told the

Clients that, under the Cumulus program, he would transfer Client funds to the Transfer Agent to

purchase shares of certain public companies at a discount and then liquidate those securities at market

prices to capture the discount value for the Clients.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -5-

21. Defendant claimed to be able to take advantage of this process on a continual basis to

provide reliable and low risk positive annual returns.

22. Some of the twelve Clients who invested in the Cumulus program resided in Baker

County, Oregon.

B. Defendant’s False and Misleading Statements Concerning the Cumulus
Program and Deceptive Conduct

23. Defendant directly solicited Clients to make investments into the Cumulus program

and directly provided false and misleading information to those Clients about the program, including

between 2017 and 2024. Defendant was the only person who communicated, orally or in writing,

with the Clients concerning the Cumulus program, and Defendant solely controlled the content of

those communications. When the Clients invested in the Cumulus program, they relied on the false

and misleading statements Defendant made about the Cumulus program.

24. As part of these solicitations, Defendant misrepresented the basic premise of the

Cumulus program to Clients. During in-person or telephone conversations, when initially pitching the

program to investors, and over time in response to questions from the Clients, including between 2017

and 2024, Defendant falsely claimed that he was able to purchase shares of public companies at a

discount and then profit by selling those same shares at market prices. In reality, the shares he

purchased were not discounted, and Defendant purchased securities at market prices.

25. Additionally, as part of his initial solicitation and in later communications with the

Clients about the Cumulus program, Defendant omitted to tell the Clients that he was

misappropriating some of the securities he was purchasing through the program. This critical

omission rendered Defendant’s other statements about how the Cumulus program operated

misleading.

26. Defendant also emailed the Clients misleading annual statements that he created that

contained similar misrepresentations about how the program operated. These annual statements were

Client specific and contained false information about the value of the shares held by each Client as

well as each Client’s purported positive returns. Clients received their annual statements from

Defendant every year until 2024.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -6-

27. After receiving, and in reasonable reliance on, the oral representations from Defendant

regarding the Cumulus program described above and the annual statements that Defendant prepared,

Clients periodically decided to invest money in the Cumulus program for Defendant to manage. To

do so, Clients allowed Defendant to transfer funds from their brokerage accounts, which he managed,

to the Transfer Agent. Some clients also wrote checks to the Transfer Agent with the understanding

that this money would be invested as Defendant described for the Cumulus program.

28. The Clients invested in the Cumulus program because Defendant promised them low-

risk returns that were higher than the Clients could receive through other investment programs. Many

of the Clients also trusted Defendant because they had longstanding personal relationships with him.

29. Defendant facilitated the deposit of Client funds into accounts at the Transfer Agent,

which he opened in the names of his Clients, to purchase shares directly from various issuers.

However, these shares were not purchased at a discount as represented by Defendant, and the Transfer

Agent account statements for the Clients show that Defendant purchased the shares at market prices.

30. Because the Transfer Agent account statements could therefore have potentially

revealed Defendant’s scheme, Defendant took steps to ensure that most of his Clients did not receive

records from the Transfer Agent. Many of the Clients were not even aware that Defendant had

opened an account in their name at the Transfer Agent. Defendant directed that the Transfer Agent

account statements for those Clients be mailed to his personal P.O. Box, and he never shared those

records with the applicable Clients.

31. At least one Client asked Defendant for statements showing the transactions

Defendant made as part of the Cumulus program. Defendant falsely told that Client that there were

no statements showing those transactions.

32. Defendant further used a personal Hotmail email account to communicate with his

Clients about the Cumulus program and with the Transfer Agent, in an apparent effort to avoid

detection of the scheme. As a registered representative and investment adviser representative,

Defendant was required by the Firm to use a business email account that was subject to monitoring

for all his communications with the Clients and the Transfer Agent.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -7-

33. Defendant also encouraged Clients to speak with him on the phone or in person about

the Cumulus program (rather than in writing), and he directed at least one Client not to send him text

messages about the Cumulus program to his work phone, which was also subject to monitoring by the

Firm.

34. As a result of the steps described above, Defendant’s emails and text communications

with respect to the Cumulus program avoided oversight by the Firm.

C. Defendant’s Misappropriation of Securities from His Clients

35. Defendant benefited from the scheme by misappropriating his Clients’ securities

purchased as part of the Cumulus program.

36. To effectuate the misappropriation, after Defendant had purchased securities at the

Transfer Agent in his Clients’ accounts, Defendant took advantage of a bulk transfer process called

“DWAC” (Deposit/Withdrawal at Custodian) to transfer securities from multiple accounts at the

Transfer Agent in a single, aggregated transaction to the Firm.

37. Because the DWAC transfers from the Transfer Agent to the Firm did not specify who

owned which securities in the batch, Defendant was able to direct which Clients’ accounts at the Firm

received shares, and the amounts, regardless of whether the shares came from those same Clients’

accounts at the Transfer Agent.

38. Using the DWAC process, Defendant was able to siphon a portion of the Clients’

securities into his own personal account at the Firm.

39. As part of this process, Defendant sent an email from his personal Hotmail email

account to the Transfer Agent that attached both a request letter on Firm letterhead and a letter

purportedly from each Client requesting the DWAC transfer. The former letter included a “signature

guarantee,” purportedly from Defendant’s supervisor at the Firm, while the latter included purported

signatures from Defendant’s Clients and his supervisor. Defendant deliberately falsified all of the

foregoing signatures.

40. Once the Transfer Agent initiated the bulk transfer process, Defendant emailed the

Firm’s cashier department using his Firm email account asking the cashier department to accept the

bulk transfer.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -8-

41. Defendant’s email to the Firm cashier department instructed the cashier to distribute

the shares to specified Firm accounts, including his personal brokerage account.

42. After receiving these securities in his personal brokerage account, Defendant generally

sold them shortly thereafter and used the cash for his personal benefit.

43. Defendant omitted to tell the Clients that he would misappropriate some of the

securities he was buying for them through the Cumulus program. That omitted fact was important to

the Clients because they would not have invested in the Cumulus program if they had known that

Defendant would misappropriate some of their securities.

44. Between 2017 and 2024, Defendant sent instructions on at least 76 occasions to the

Transfer Agent and the Firm cashier department that resulted in securities being misdirected from his

Clients’ accounts at the Transfer Agent to his personal brokerage account at the Firm. During the

same period, there were an additional approximately 20 instances where Defendant moved securities

among Client accounts at the Transfer Agent and the Firm in an apparent attempt to meet client

withdrawal requests.

45. In total between 2017 and 2024, Defendant misdirected approximately 4,582 shares

from the twelve Client accounts at the Transfer Agent to his own personal account at the Firm. Based

on the market prices of those shares at the time they were transferred, the value of the misappropriated

securities was over $800,000 in total during that period.

D. Defendant Admitted He Misappropriated Client Assets

46. In early 2024, one of Defendant’s Clients asked to withdraw his money from the

Cumulus program, but Defendant was unable to provide sufficient cash to the Client.

47. On June 17, 2024, Defendant contacted the General Counsel and the Chief

Compliance Officer of the Firm and admitted that since 2007 he had used the bulk transfer process to

misappropriate his Clients’ securities.

48. Defendant also stated that he had targeted the twelve specific Clients at issue because

he believed that they were unlikely to make frequent withdrawal requests and did not have a clear

understanding of how the stock discount process or bulk transactions worked.

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -9-

49. Additionally, Defendant admitted that he used a personal Hotmail email account to

communicate with the Clients and the Transfer Agent, that he directed Transfer Agent account

statements to his P.O. Box instead of the Clients’ addresses, and that he created false annual

statements reflecting fictitious returns for the Cumulus program.

E. Defendant Acted as an Investment Adviser with Respect to his Clients’
Investments in the Cumulus Program

50. All twelve Clients were brokerage customers of the Firm and three of them also had

written advisory agreements with the Firm naming Defendant as their investment adviser

representative.

51. With respect to the Cumulus program, Defendant provided investment advisory

services to all twelve Clients, including investment advice and portfolio management under the

Cumulus program, and acted as an investment adviser within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of

the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)].

52. Under the Cumulus program, Defendant determined which securities to purchase for

the Clients and when to buy and sell these securities. The Clients further gave Defendant full

discretionary authority to make these decisions on their behalf. The Clients did not pre-authorize the

individual trades or receive advance notification of such trades.

53. The Clients also understood that Defendant acted as their investment adviser with

respect to the Cumulus Program.

54. In emails he sent from his personal Hotmail account and from his email account at the

Firm, Defendant used a signature block in which he identified himself as an “Investment Advisor

Representative.”

55. The Clients further understood that Defendant was receiving compensation from

managing the Cumulus program. Defendant also received compensation by misappropriating his

Clients’ securities.

F. Tolling Agreements

56. Defendant signed a tolling agreement with the Commission that suspended the

running of the applicable statute of limitations from October 2, 2024 to April 1, 2025. Defendant

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -10-

subsequently signed one additional tolling agreement that suspended the running of the applicable

statute of limitations from June 11, 2025 to December 11, 2025. Each of the two tolling agreements

specified a period of time in which “the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any action

or proceeding against [Defendant] authorized, instituted, or brought by or on behalf of the

Commission or to which the Commission is a party arising out of the investigation (‘any proceeding’),

including any sanctions or relief that may be imposed therein, is tolled and suspended.” The tolling

agreements further provided that Defendant and any of his agents or attorneys “shall not include the

tolling period in the calculation of the running of any statute of limitations or for any other time-

related defense applicable to any proceeding, including any sanctions or relief that may be imposed

therein, in asserting or relying upon any such time-related defense.”

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder

57. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraph Nos. 1

through 56.

58. Defendant, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, in

connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation

or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, or of the facilities of a national

securities exchange, with scienter:

a. Employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;

b. Made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts

necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and

c. Engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would

operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons, including purchasers of

securities.

59. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated, and unless restrained and enjoined

will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -11-

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

60. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraph Nos. 1

through 56.

61. Defendant, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or indirectly, in the

offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in

interstate commerce or by use of the mails:

a. with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;

b. obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material fact or

by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements

made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not

misleading; and

c. engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers.

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated, and unless restrained and enjoined

will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act

63. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraph Nos. 1

through 56.

64. Defendant, acting as an investment adviser, using the mails and the means and

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and

artifices to defraud one or more advisory clients and/or prospective clients.

65. In engaging in such conduct, Defendant acted with scienter, that is, with intent to

deceive, manipulate or defraud or acted with a severely reckless disregard for the truth.

66. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated, and unless restrained and enjoined

will continue to violate, Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1)].

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -12-

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act

67. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraph Nos. 1

through 56.

68. Defendant, acting as an investment adviser, using the mails and the means and

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, directly and indirectly, engaged in transactions, practices and

courses of business which would and/or did operate as a fraud and deceit on one or more advisory

clients and/or prospective clients.

69. While engaging in the course of conduct described above, Defendant acted at least

negligently.

70. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant violated, and unless restrained and enjoined

will continue to violate, Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(2)].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court:

Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendant from directly or indirectly violating Section

10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder,

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2)].

II.

Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendant from directly or indirectly, including, but not

limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase,

offer, or sale of any security, provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendant

from purchasing or selling securities for his own personal accounts, pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)].

III.

Enter an injunction, in a form consistent with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and pursuant to Section 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5)], permanently

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -13-

restraining and enjoining Defendant from, directly or indirectly, acting as or being associated with any

broker, dealer, or investment adviser.

IV.

Enter an order requiring Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received as a result of his

unlawful conduct plus prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and

21(d)(7) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)].

Enter an order requiring Defendant to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d)

of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)],

and Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)].

VI.

Retain jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that

may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

VII.

Grant such other and further relief as this Court may determine to be just and necessary.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, the Commission demands a trial by jury on all

issues so triable.

Dated: April 6 , 2026 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Duncan C. Simpson LaGoy
Duncan C. Simpson LaGoy
Attorney for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

OCR text (27,489c · textlayer · 95% conf)

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 705-2500 (Telephone)
(415) 705-2501 (Facsimile)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFREY HIGGINS,

Defendant,

Case No.

COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

Case 2:26-cv-00676-HL Document 1 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 13

COMPLAINT
SEC v. HIGGINS -2-

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges:

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1. From approximately September 2017 through February 2024, Defendant Jeffrey

Higgins (“Defendant”) misappropriated over $800,000 worth of securities from twelve of his clients

(the “Clients”) for his personal benefit.

2. While perpetrating this fraud, Defendant was a registered representative and

investment adviser representative associated with a financial firm that was dually-registered with the

Commission as a broker-dealer and investment adviser (the “Firm”). Defendant managed the Clients’

brokerage accounts at the Firm, and he also served as the Clients’ investment adviser.

3. Defendant misappropriated the Clients’ securities through a sham investment program

that he created called Cumulus through which he would purportedly, with discretionary authority

from the Clients, purchase discounted securities at a third-party transfer agent (the “Transfer Agent”)

and then sell the securities for a profit.

4. In reality, and unbeknownst to his Clients, the securities Defendant purchased for the

Clients were not discounted. Instead, Defendant used Client funds to purchase securities at market

prices through the Transfer Agent.

5. After using Client funds to purchase market-rate securities, Defendant misused a bulk

transfer process at the Transfer Agent to divert some of those securities to his personal brokerage

account at the Firm using falsified documents and signatures.

6. To facilitate his fraud, Defendant also used a personal Hotmail email account to

provide fictitious annual reports to his Clients claiming to show increases in the value of their

investments, when in reality, Clients’ holdings were worth significantly less than Defendant reported

because Defendant was not purchasing the shares at a discount and was misappropriating some of the

Clients’ securities.

7. Defendant’s scheme fell apart when he was unable to meet a Client withdrawal

request, and in June 2024, Defendant admitted to the General Counsel and the Chief Compliance

Officer of the Firm that he had engaged in a scheme to misappropriate securities from his Clients

since around 2007.

Case 2:26-cv-00676-HL Document 1 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 13