THE CLIENTS ALLEGE THE REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED THE PURCHASE OF TWO LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AS INVESTMENTS IN AUGUST 2007. THEY WERE INFORMED THEIR PRINCIPAL COULD NOT BE LOST AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE GUARANTEED TO MAKE A CONSIDERABLE PROFIT AFTER TWO YEARS WHEN SOLD.

$150,000.00

THE CLAIMANTS IMPROPERLY INSTITUTED THE FINRA PROCEEDING RELATIVE TO LIFE INSURANCE THAT WAS LEGALLY UNDERWRITTEN AND SOLD TO CLAIMANTS. THE LIFE INSURANCE CARRIERS AT ISSUE NEVER CHALLENGED THE POLICIES OR ALLEGED THAT THE POLICIES WERE IMPROPER, AND THE CLAIMANTS INSTEAD VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED THE POLICIES TO LAPSE AND THEN SOUGHT TO POINT THE FINGER AT MR. LYNCH. AFTER RECEIVING THE FINRA COMPLAINT, MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA FILED AN COMPREHENSIVE AND VIGOROUS ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THAT COMPLETELY DENIED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE [CUSTOMERS'] CLAIMS SINCE MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY WRONGDOING.MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA WERE AWAITING THE FINRA FINAL HEARING TO CLEAR THEIR GOOD NAMES AND TO PROVE THE CLAIMANTS ALLEGATIONS TO BE BASELESS, BUT THE CLAIMANTS ULTIMATELY ELECTED TO SETTLE THE CASE AND RECEIVE FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FROM THE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE CARRIER OF MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA. MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA NEVER ADMITTED TO ANY LIABILITY OR WRONGDOING WHATSOEVER, AND CLAIMANTS INSTEAD OPTED TO DISMISS THEIR FINRA CASE IN EXCHANGE FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT FROM CHARTIS INSURANCE. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT MIKE LYNCH AND MONEY MATTERS OF AMERICA DID NOT DIRECTLY PAY ANY MONIES TO THE CLAIMANTS AND DID NOT RELINQUISH THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE FINRA CASE WERE BASELESS.

BENEFICIARY ALLEGES SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEATH CLAIM PAPERWORK SHE COMPLETED WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE FOLLOWING HER HUSBAND'S DEATH WOULD RESULT IN THE LUMP-SUM DISTRIBUTION OF THREE ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND CAUSE A TAXABLE EVENT. BENEFICIARY CLAIMS SHE ONLY WANTED TO NOTIFY THE ANNUITY CARRIERS OF HER HUSBAND'S DEATH AND DID NOT REALIZE SHE COULD MAINTAIN THE ANNUITY CONTRACTS AS HELD.

ALL OPTIONS INCLUDING TAX IMPLICATIONS WERE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED WITH THE BENEFICIARY AND THE LUMP-SUM DISTRIBUTION OPTION WAS AGREED UPON. IN ITS REVIEW, THE BROKER-DEALER FOUND THE CLIENT FULLY COMPLETED ALL FORMS REQUESTING THE DEATH CLAIM LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FROM THE THREE ANNUITY CONTRACTS. THE INSURANCE CARRIERS, IN THE INTEREST OF CUSTOMER SERVICE, AGREED TO REINSTATE THE ANNUITY CONTRACTS WITH NO MONETARY LOSS TO THE CLIENT.

CLIENT ALLEGES THAT IN 1994 REP STATED HE WOULD DO BETTER BY REPLACING HIS 75000 LIFE POLICY WITH ANOTHER.

$24,000.00

CLIENT IS ALLEGING THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECIFIED