Escalation of previous denied complaint. The client's attorney now alleges the representative had the client sign a blank annuity application and falsified the client financial information on the application

$5,625.00

The client called advisor to discuss changes as primary investment objectives had changed and rate had dropped. The client signed fully completed forms and even initialed written disclosures, and the client disclosed adequate liquidity (also noted and initialed by client) to make investment.

THE CLIENT'S ATTORNEY ALLEGES THAT THE ANNUITY WAS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE SHE ALLEGEDLY LOCKED UP MOST OF HER ASSETS INTO THE ANNUITY.

$57,303.00

THE INVESTMENT MET INVESTMENT NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES. WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY CLIENT OF ADEQUATE LIQUIDITY.

THE CLIENT ALLEGED THAT THE VARIABLE ANNUITY WAS UNSUITABLE. THE CLIENT RECEIVED EXTENSIVE WRITTEN AND VERBAL DISCLOSURES ABOUT THE FEATURES AND RISKS OF THE ANNUITY. THE ANNUITY WAS PRESENTED TO HIM AS SUITABLE FOR HIS INVESTMENT GOALS OF TAX-DEFERRED POTENTIAL GROWTH AND GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME BENEFIT.

$18,384.00

SUNTRUST INVESTMENT SERVICES,INC. AND THE REPRESENTATIVE BELIEVE THIS ANNUITY IS SUITABLE TO THE CLIENT'S STATED INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES. DURING AN ACCOUNT REVIEW WITH THE REPRESENTAIVE IN JANUARY 2008 THE CLIENT EXPRESSED NO CONCERNS OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE ANNUITY EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENT HAD DECLINED IN VALUE. IN JANUARY 2009 CONVERSATION WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE, THE CLIENT SPECIFICALLY SAID HE WAS NOT MAD AT THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT AT FAULT.

NORTH CAROLINA CLIENT HAS CLAIMED THAT HIS 1999 PURCHASE OF A NATIONWIDE VARIABLE ANNUITY WAS MISREPRESENTED BY HIS BROKER. THE CLIENT ALLEGES THAT HIS BROKER TOLD HIM THAT WHEN THE SEVEN YEAR SURRENDER PERIOD HAD LAPSED THAT HE WAS GUARANTEED TO HAVE AT LEAST HIS INITIAL PRINCIPAL RETURNED TO HIM. HE HAS SINCE LEARNED THAT THE GUARANTEE EXTENDED TO THE DEATH BENEFIT FEATURE ONLY. HE IS CLAIMING DAMAGES OF $8,684.78, WHICH REPRESENT THE CURRENT DECLINE IN THE ANNUITY VALUE.

$8,684.78

THE CLIENT WAS MADE FULLY AWARE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY PRIOR TO HIS PURCHASE. HE RECEIVED A PROSPECTUS AND SIGNED AN ANNUITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO MERIT TO HIS CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PRODUCT HE PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE CLAIM WAS DENIED.

NC RESIDENT ALLEGES BROKER MISLED HIM TO BELIEVE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF VAIRABLE ANNUITY (PURCHASED IN 11/97) WOULD NOT DECREASE BUT IT HAS DECLINED BY ABOUT $15,000.

$15,000.00

IN A 10-4-02 LETTER TO THE CLIENT, THE FIRM DENIED THE CLIENT'S ALLEGATIONS.

CLIENT HAS STATED THAT SHE WAS TOLD AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTMENT, AUGUST 2000, THAT SHE WOULD EXPERIENCE MARKET LOSS.

$29,733.07

CLAIM DENIED.

CUSTOMER REDEEMED (2) CDS IN ORDER TO INVET IN A UIT PRODUCT. CLAIMED SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD BE COMMISSION CHARGED ON THE UIT. ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $7,850.00.

$7,850.00

$7,850.00

WACHOVIA INVESTMETNS MADE A GOODWILL SETTLEMENT TO COVER PENALITIES CUSTOMER INCURRED UPON EARLY REDEMPTION OF CD AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION RELATING TO CUSTOMER'S INVESTMENT IN THE VAN KAMPEN MERRITT UIT ($7,850.00) CUSTOEMR ALLEGED DAMAGES, YET AN ANALYSIS OF THE UIT PURCHASED AS COMPARED TO THE CD REDEEMED, SHOED A OVERALL POSITIVE RETURN FOR THE CUSTOMER. CUSTOMER SIGNED ALL DOCUMENTATION/DISCLOSURES PERTAINING TO SALES CHARGES YET ALLEDGES SHE WAS NOT TOLD. CUSTOMER HAS EVEN ELECTED TO REMAIN IN THE INVESTMENT AS SHE IS HAPPY WITH THE RETURN THE UIT HAS GENERATED. SETTLEMENT WAS STRICTLY A GOODWILL GESTURE.