Claimant alleges recommendations of certain direct investments were not in keeping with his investment needs and objectives, and that full disclosures regarding the investments were not made.

$150,000.00

Claimant alleges that recommendations of certain variable annuity contracts and a real estate investment trust were not in keeping with her needs and objectives, and that proper disclosures were not made to her regarding the investments.

$250,000.00

$55,000.00

The Claimants allege that the financial professional sold them an alternative investment that was unsuitable.

$130,000.00

$14,000.00

Claimant alleges that one alternative investment recommendation, which he made more than six years ago, was not in keeping with his needs and objectives, and was not adequately explained to him.

$50,000.00

placement of unsuitable (high-risk, illiquid) alternative investments is alleged

$300,000.00

$33,500.00

Overconcentration in illiquid investments alleged, unsuitable advice and mismanagement alleged.

$242,842.00

$65,000.00

Claimant alleges misrepresentation and unsuitability with regard to the sale of alternative invesment.

$20,000.00

$5,000.00

Claimant's attorneys allege that recommendations of certain non-traded alternative investments were not in keeping with the client's investment objectives and that adequate disclosures regarding the investments were not made.

$100,000.00

$35,000.00

Customer alleges variable annuities purchased in 2017-2020 were unsuitable and surrender fees on withdrawals were not disclosed.

$5,000.00

$15,000.00

Mr. Just vigorously disagrees with the claims made in this complaint.

Claimants allege that Mr. Just recommended alternative investments that were unsuitable.

$99,000.00

$16,500.00

Customer alleges alternative investments purchased in 2015 were misrepresented.

$117,727.00

FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Just consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose state tax liens. The findings stated that Just knew of the tax liens more than 30 days prior to the time he disclosed them on his Form U4.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$5,000.00

Suspension

All capacities

three months

6/21/2021

9/20/2021

The settlement includes a finding that Just willfully failed to disclose a material fact on a Form U4, and that under section 3(a)(39)(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Article III, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, this omission make him subject to a statutory disqualification with respect to association with a member.

Claimant alleges that the financial professional recommended alternative investments that were unsuitable.

$100,000.00

$8,750.00

In summary, there was a settlement paid to the client by the Broker-Dealer. Mark Just paid none of the settlement costs. There was no admission of wrongdoing by Mark Just and the client agreed to settle their complaint.

Claimants allege that Mr. Just recommended alternative investments that were unsuitable.

$250,000.00

$70,000.00

In summary, there was a settlement paid to the client by the Broker-Dealer. Mark Just paid none of the settlement costs. There was no admission of wrongdoing by Mark Just and the client agreed to settle their complaint.

Claimant alleged unsuitable alternative investments.

$150,000.00

$60,000.00

Note: U4 update filed on 9/24 answering "yes" to the relevant disclosure question. DRP failed to save; hence this further update.

Claimants now allege that the investments they elected to purchase in 2014/2015 were unsuitable.

$100,000.00

$40,000.00

The Statement of Claim is rife with misstatements. The claims are meritless and factually inaccurate. As of early February 2020, Claimants have a gross, unrealized portfolio gain of approximately $100,000. This matter will be rigorously defended. Mr. Just along with the employing firm settled with the customer and the parties agreed to dismiss the pending arbitration action and all claims in its entirety with prejudice. In summary, there was a settlement paid to the client by the Broker-Dealer. Mark Just paid none of the settlement costs. There was no admission of wrongdoing by Mark Just and the client agreed to dismiss their complaint.

CLAIMANTS SEEK UNSPECIFIED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $100,000.

$100,000.00

$40,000.00

Customer alleges that his portfolio under-performed between 2011-2017 due to unsuitable investment recommendations and is seeking to recover "lost gains."

$997,269.00

$200,000.00

FINRA investigated the customer complaint, before it evolved to arbitration. FINRA's investigation in Matter ID 20170539151 was closed with no action.

CLIENT ALLEGES THE RECAPTURE CHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BONUS FEATURE OF FOUR ANNUITIES HE PURCHASED WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO HIM PRIOR TO PURCHASE. THE PURCHASES WERE MADE ON 7/22/09, 7/23/09, 7/24/09 AND 7/20/10.

$9,000.00

IN ADDITION TO RECEIVING A VERBAL EXPLANATION OF THE RECAPTURE CHARGE, [CUSTOMER] RECEIVED AT LEAST 12 DOCUMENTS (3 ITEMS PER CONTACT) THAT SHOWED THE RECAPTURE CHARGES (PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PAGE, AND CONTRACT). [CUSTOMER]SIGNED HIS NAME A MINIMUM OF 12 TIMES INDICATING HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THESE CHARGES.

MISREPRESENTATION OF VA

THE CLIENT WROTE A LETTER INDICATING HER DESIRE TO SURRENDER AN ANNUITY PRIOR TO THE END OF THE SURRENDER CHARGE PERIOD AND REQUESTED THAT I REIMBURSE HER THE SURRENDER CHARGE. THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED ABOUT 2 YEARS AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE AND WITH ONLY 2 YEARS REMAINING IN THE SURRENDER CHARGE PERIOD. A WRITTEN RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED TO THE CLIENT IN FEBRUARY 2011 RE-EXPLAINING THE PRODUCT FEATURES AND HOW SHE BENEFITS AND, THEREFORE, WHY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS SUITABLE AT THE TIME THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE. THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WAS A STRETCH IRA AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SET UP TO GUARANTEE HER WITHDRAWALS EQUAL TO THE GREATER OF 5% OF HER INITIAL INVESTMENT OR HER RMD FOR BOTH HER AND HER HUSBAND'S LIFE WITH UPSIDE POTENTIAL. THE PRIMARY BENEFIT WAS THE GUARANTEED WITHDRAWALS FOR LIFE - EVEN IF THE ACCOUNT BALANCE REACHED ZERO. A SECONDARY BENEFIT WAS THE STEP-UPS IN THE INCOME BASE AS A RESULT OF EITHER NO WITHDRAWALS OR AN INCREASE IN THE ACCOUNT VALUE. THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CLIENT TO CHANGE HER MIND AND/OR CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITHOUT INCURRING ANY PENALTIES. THE CLIENT SIGNED NUMEROUS FORMS ACKNOWLEDGING AND ACCEPTING THE CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANNUITY, INCLUDING A 4 YEAR SURRENDER CHARGE PERIOD. IN JANUARY 2009 AT THE TIME THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED (AND AGAIN IN HER COMPLAINT LETTER IN DECEMBER 2010), THE CLIENT WAS CONCERNED HER STRETCH IRA WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO "KEEP UP" AND MAINTAIN HER REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTIONS, WHICH ARE ABOUT 4% PER YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO THIS CONCERN, SHE INVESTED IN A VARIABLE ANNUITY THAT ALLOWED HER TO INVEST HER FUNDS AS SHE WANTED IN OVER 90 DIFFERENT SUBACCOUNTS WHILE BEING GUARANTEED LIFETIME ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS FOR BOTH HER AND HER HUSBAND EQUAL TO THE GREATER OF 5% OF HER INITIAL INVESTMENT OR HER RMD. THE RIDER COST WAS AND IS 1.25%. THE ANNUITY PROVIDES A 7% INCREASE IN THE INCOME BASE IF THERE ARE NO WITHDRAWALS BUT ALSO PROVIDES STEP-UPS IF THE VALUE INCREASES. IN HER LETTER, THE CLIENT CLAIMED SHE WOULD NOT BE RECEIVING A 7% INCREASE DUE TO THE RMD AND THEREFORE FELT ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF ANY REMAINING SURRENDER CHARGES. IN 2009, THERE WAS NO RMD, MEANING SHE RECEIVED A 7% INCREASE. IN 2010, 90 OF 99 SUBACCOUNTS AVAILABLE IN THIS PRODUCT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT RETURNS TO PAY THE RMD AND STILL PROVIDE A STEP-UP. BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INVESTMENT OPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO MOVE THE INVESTMENTS - IN 2010, 90 OUT OF 99 SUBACCOUNTS EARNED 5.25% OR BETTER (ENOUGH TO PAY THE RIDER COSTS AND THE RMD); 69 OUT OF 99 SUBACCOUNTS EARNED 10% OR BETTER; AND 48 SUBACCOUNTS EARNED A HIGHER RETURN THAN THE S&P 500 STOCK INDEX RETURN OF 12.78%, MEANING THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET A STEP-UP. THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS SUITABLE AND THE COMPLAINT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION. IT WAS PERHAPS AN ATTEMPT BY THE CLIENT (AND POSSIBLY A NEW ADVISOR) TO MOVE MONEY INTO ANOTHER PRODUCT WITHOUT INCURRING SURRENDER CHARGES. AFTER SENDING A RESPONSE LETTER IN FEBRUARY 2011 RE-EXPLAINING THE PRODUCT FEATURES AND BENEFITS TO HER, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CLIENT SO I CAN ONLY ASSUME THE LETTER MADE HER REALIZE THIS PRODUCT SATISFIED HER ANNUAL RMD REQUIRED FOR THE REMAINDER OF HER AND HER HUSBAND'S LIFE AND ALSO PROVIDED UPSIDE POTENTIAL.