Lifemark Securities Corp.

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, DERBIN CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT HE IMPERSONATED A CUSTOMER ON A TELEPHONE CALL TO A FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT DERBIN'S CUSTOMER WANTED TO TRANSFER HER RETIREMENT PLAN FROM ONE FUND PROVIDER TO ANOTHER. DERBIN ATTEMPTED A THREE-WAY TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE EXISTING FUND PROVIDER, THE CUSTOMER AND HIMSELF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TYPE OF RETIREMENT ACCOUNT THE CUSTOMER HAD. THE CUSTOMER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ANSWER DERBIN'S ATTEMPTED THREE-WAY CALL. ON THE ENSUING PHONE CALL BETWEEN DERBIN AND THE FUND PROVIDER, DERBIN IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS THE CUSTOMER. DERBIN PROVIDED THE FUND PROVIDER WITH THE CUSTOMER'S DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, MAIDEN NAME, AND ACCOUNT NUMBER TO CONVINCE THE FUND PROVIDER THAT HE WAS THE CUSTOMER. HE THEN ASKED THE FUND PROVIDER TO TELL HIM WHAT TYPE OF RETIREMENT PLAN THE CUSTOMER OWNED. THE FUND PROVIDER DID NOT PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, AND INSTEAD REQUESTED A CALL BACK NUMBER FROM DERBIN, WHICH HE DECLINED TO PROVIDE. THE FUND PROVIDER REFUSED TO PROVIDE DERBIN WITH THE INFORMATION AND ALERTED HIS MEMBER FIRM. WHEN THE FIRM CONFRONTED DERBIN, HE TWICE FALSELY STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THE CUSTOMER WAS ON THE LINE WHEN THE CALL WAS MADE TO THE FUND PROVIDER. Status: Final Sanction Detail: IF SUSPENDED OR BARRED, PROVIDE: SANCTION TYPE: SUSPENSION REGISTRATION CAPACITIES AFFECTED (E.G., GENERAL SECURITIES PRINCIPAL, FINANCIAL OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL, ALL CAPACITIES, ETC.): ALL CAPACITIES DURATION (LENGTH OF TIME): 10 BUSINESS DAYS START DATE (MM/DD/YYYY): 06/21/2022 END DATE (MM/DD/YYYY): 07/05/2022 Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, DERBIN CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT HE IMPERSONATED A CUSTOMER ON A TELEPHONE CALL TO A FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT DERBIN'S CUSTOMER WANTED TO TRANSFER HER RETIREMENT PLAN FROM ONE FUND PROVIDER TO ANOTHER. DERBIN ATTEMPTED A THREE-WAY TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE EXISTING FUND PROVIDER, THE CUSTOMER AND HIMSELF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TYPE OF RETIREMENT ACCOUNT THE CUSTOMER HAD. THE CUSTOMER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ANSWER DERBIN'S ATTEMPTED THREE-WAY CALL. ON THE ENSUING PHONE CALL BETWEEN DERBIN AND THE FUND PROVIDER, DERBIN IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS THE CUSTOMER. DERBIN PROVIDED THE FUND PROVIDER WITH THE CUSTOMER'S DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, MAIDEN NAME, AND ACCOUNT NUMBER TO CONVINCE THE FUND PROVIDER THAT HE WAS THE CUSTOMER. HE THEN ASKED THE FUND PROVIDER TO TELL HIM WHAT TYPE OF RETIREMENT PLAN THE CUSTOMER OWNED. THE FUND PROVIDER DID NOT PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, AND INSTEAD REQUESTED A CALL BACK NUMBER FROM DERBIN, WHICH HE DECLINED TO PROVIDE. THE FUND PROVIDER REFUSED TO PROVIDE DERBIN WITH THE INFORMATION AND ALERTED HIS MEMBER FIRM. WHEN THE FIRM CONFRONTED DERBIN, HE TWICE FALSELY STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THE CUSTOMER WAS ON THE LINE WHEN THE CALL WAS MADE TO THE FUND PROVIDER.

Allegations: THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("COMMISSION") DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLICINTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE,INSTITUTED AGAINST LIFEMARK SECURITIES CORP. ("LIFEMARK" OR "RESPONDENT"). THE COMMISSION FINDSTHAT BETWEEN JULY 2020 AND JANUARY 2022, THE FIRM AND ONE OF ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVESFAILED TO COMPLY WITH REGULATION BEST INTEREST'S CARE OBLIGATION, EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15L-1(A)(2)(II), WHEN THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED A CERTAIN CORPORATE BOND KNOWN AS AN LBOND TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS WITHOUT EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE, CARE, AND SKILL TOUNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL RISKS, REWARDS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS(THE "REASONABLE BASIS" PRONG OF THE CARE OBLIGATION). EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15L-1(A)(2)(II)(A). INDECEMBER 2021, THE FIRM, ACTING THROUGH ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO FAILED TO COMPLYWITH REGULATION BEST INTEREST'S CARE OBLIGATION, EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15L-1(A)(2)(II), WHEN THEYRECOMMENDED L BONDS TO A RETAIL CUSTOMER WITHOUT EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE, CARE, ANDSKILL TO HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS IN THAT PARTICULARCUSTOMER'S BEST INTEREST (THE "CUSTOMER SPECIFIC" PRONG OF THE CARE OBLIGATION). EXCHANGE ACTRULE 15L-1(A)(2)(II)(B). AS A RESULT OF ITS CONDUCT, THE FIRM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH REGULATION BESTINTEREST'S CARE OBLIGATION, EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15L-1(A)(2)(II), AND WILLFULLY VIOLATED REGULATIONBEST INTEREST'S GENERAL OBLIGATION, EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15L-1(A)(1). Status: Final Sanction Detail: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, SHALL PAY $4,410.18 IN DISGORGEMENT, $705.30 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST,A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY OF $85,000 TO THE SEC, AND SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING ORCAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF RULE 15L-1(A)(1) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT. Summary: THE FIRM SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH THE SEC ACCEPTED. BETWEEN JULY 2020 AND JANUARY 2022, THE FIRM, A DUALLY REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER AND INVESTMENT ADVISER, THROUGH ONE OF ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PORTIONS OF REGULATION BEST INTEREST. THE FIRM, ACTING THROUGH ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE, RECOMMENDED AN INVESTMENT TO FIVE RETAIL CUSTOMERS WITHOUT EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE, CARE, AND SKILL TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL RISKS, REWARDS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS AGREED TO IN THE FIRM'S OFFER.