John F. Davenport and J. Davenport Advisors: Connecticut Regulators Move to Shut Down Norwalk Adviser
The securities attorneys at The White Law Group are monitoring recent regulatory actions involving John F. Davenport, a Norwalk-based investment adviser, and his firm J. Davenport Advisors LLC.
In January 2026, Connecticut banking regulators issued a cease and desist order against Davenport and his advisory firm, citing extensive compliance failures, misleading disclosures, and serious supervisory breakdowns. State officials are now seeking to revoke both the firm’s registration and Davenport’s individual registration as an investment adviser.
Connecticut Cease and Desist Order: Key Allegations
According to a 21-page enforcement order issued by the Connecticut Banking Commissioner, investigators identified a pattern of regulatory violations following examinations and an investigation by the state’s Securities and Business Investments Division.
Among the most serious allegations:
-
Hiring a convicted Ponzi schemer
Regulators allege Davenport hired a former broker-dealer agent—previously convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme from 2012 to 2019 and sentenced to 42 months in federal prison—as a paralegal in September 2022. The individual allegedly worked in shared office space with the investment advisory firm. -
Severe data security and recordkeeping failures
During an August 2025 examination, regulators found:-
Unlocked file cabinets containing advisory client records
-
Login credentials and passwords written on Post-it notes in plain view
-
Client account documents accessible to any office employee
-
-
Misrepresentation of advisory fees
The order alleges Davenport misrepresented fees charged to at least four advisory clients. -
Missing or improperly executed advisory contracts
Regulators allege the firm provided advisory services to at least one client for more than a year without a fully executed contract. In other cases, contracts signed by clients in early 2024 were not signed by the firm until November 2025—after regulators requested copies. -
Inaccurate regulatory disclosures
Davenport allegedly underreported an IRS tax lien on regulatory filings, listing it as approximately $949,000 when the actual lien totaled more than $1.8 million. -
Professional discipline concerns
The order states Davenport’s law license was administratively suspended six times between 2012 and 2024, and that he failed to disclose those suspensions to Connecticut’s Statewide Grievance Committee.
During sworn testimony, Davenport reportedly stated that he did not understand how to file corrective amendments with regulators and admitted he had not read the firm’s written compliance policies and procedures.
John F. Davenport’s BrokerCheck History
Public records show that John F. Davenport (CRD #1448999) has been registered in the securities industry since the mid-1980s and has been affiliated with more than a dozen brokerage firms over his career. His BrokerCheck report reflects nine disclosures, including customer disputes and regulatory actions.
Notable Customer Complaints
-
October 2023 – Customer Dispute (Settled)
Allegations of recommending an unsuitable alternative investment, with claimed damages of $150,000. The matter settled for $15,000. -
July 2019 – Customer Dispute (Settled)
Allegations included failure to observe high standards of commercial honor, lack of due diligence, misrepresentations, and breach of fiduciary duty related to annuity transactions. The dispute settled for $325,000.
Regulatory Actions
-
January 2019 – FINRA AWC
Davenport consented to sanctions after regulators found he:-
Engaged in undisclosed commission-sharing with a representative at another firm
-
Failed to properly record compensation on firm books and records
-
Allowed business communications through unapproved personal email accounts
Sanctions included a two-month suspension and a $20,000 fine.
-
-
December 2021 – Connecticut Insurance Department Action
Regulators alleged Davenport and others impersonated clients on multiple calls to an insurer without client knowledge or consent. The matter settled with a $10,000 fine, ethics training, and probation.
What does this mean for investors?
The Connecticut Banking Department has indicated it may seek fines of up to $100,000 per violation, in addition to permanently revoking registrations. If Davenport and his firm fail to request or appear at a scheduled hearing, the allegations may be deemed admitted and the cease and desist order could become permanent.
For investors, the allegations raise serious concerns about:
-
Supervision and compliance controls
-
Safeguarding of confidential financial information
-
Accuracy of fee disclosures
-
Suitability of investment recommendations, including alternative investments
Investor Options: FINRA Arbitration and Legal Claims
Investors who believe they were harmed by unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, or supervisory failures may have legal options. In many cases, claims against brokerage firms or advisers are resolved through FINRA arbitration, which can allow investors to seek recovery of losses without going to court.
Free Consultation With a Securities Attorney
If you are concerned about investments recommended by John F. Davenport or J. Davenport Advisors, you may be able to pursue a claim for financial recovery.
For a free consultation with a securities fraud attorney, contact The White Law Group at 888-637-5510.
The White Law Group represents investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration and securities litigation and has offices in Chicago, Illinois and Seattle, Washington.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can investors recover losses linked to John F. Davenport or J. Davenport Advisors?
Possibly. Investors who suffered losses due to unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, excessive fees, or supervisory failures may be able to seek recovery through FINRA arbitration or other legal claims, depending on how the investments were sold and which firm was responsible.
Why is the Connecticut cease and desist order concerning for investors?
Regulators alleged serious compliance failures, including hiring a convicted Ponzi schemer, poor safeguarding of client information, inaccurate regulatory disclosures, and missing or improperly executed advisory contracts. These issues can indicate broader supervision and fiduciary duty failures that may expose investors to harm.
Does a regulatory action automatically mean an adviser committed fraud?
Not necessarily. However, regulatory actions and customer complaints are important red flags. They may support investor claims when combined with evidence of unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, or violations of securities laws and FINRA rules.
