CUSTOMER'S SON CLAIMS THAT [CUSTOMER] BELIEVED SHE WAS PURCHASING A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WITH A GUARANTEED DEATH BENEFIT AND WHICH REQUIRED ONLY A SINGLE, INITIAL PREMIUM PAYMENT; BUT IN FACT THE POLICY IS A VARIABLE POLICY AND ADDITIONAL PREMIUMS ARE DUE TO MAINTAIN THE DEATH BENEFIT. POLICY WAS PURCHASED IN JUNE 2000.

$230,805.00

$108,007.63

WRITTEN COMPLAINT REGARDING ANNUITY PURCHASED IN 1998 ALLEGED THAT FA IGNORED ACCOUNT AND THAT CUSTOMER WAS LOST MONEY AS A RESULT.

$46,000.00

I DENY THE ALLEGATOINS MADE AND BELIEVE THAY HAVE NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER. TO THE CONTRARY, I MANAGED HER ACCOUNTS PROFESSIONALLY AND SPENT MANY HOURS WITH HER REVIEWING AND UPDATING HER STATUS. ***THIS MATTER ARISES OUT OF TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN AT A PRIOR OR PREVIOUS FIRM. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS HAS NO RECORDS OR INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ISSUES REPRESENTED IN THIS REPORT. THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED CLOSED.

CLIENT, VIA HER SON AND POA, ALLEGES THAT SHE WISHED TO "PRESERVE HER CAPITAL" AND THAT INVESTMENTS IN THE ACCOUNT WERE "INAPPROPRIATE." ALLEGED LOSSES "SOMEWHERE AROUND $30,000 TO $40,000. THIS MATTER WAS NOT REPORTABLE PRIOR TO RECEIPT ON 12/2/1999 OF DOCUMENTATION THAT SON HAS POA FOR THE CLIENT.

$30,000.00

$1,243.48

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED SETTLED THIS MATTER FOR $1,243.48.

CLIENT DEMANDED REVERSAL OF 1035 ANNUNITY EXCHANGE TO AVOID WITHDRAW PENALTY OF $11,062.17.

$11,062.17

THIS MATTER ARISES OUT OF TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN AT A PRIOR OR PREVIOUS FIRM. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS HAS NO RECORDS OR INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ISSUES REPRESENTED IN THIS REPORT. THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED CLOSED.

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED $14,000.00 IN DAMAGES.

$14,000.00

$10,000.00

SETTLED FOR $10,000

THE CLIENT ALLEGED THE UNSUITABILITY OF A SPLIT FUNDED ANNUITY PURCHASED IN 1989 FOR $125,589.22.

$125,589.22

$25,000.00

THERE WAS NO REMEDIAL ACTION AGAINST THE ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, WHOM THE FIRM BELIEVES ACTED APPROPRIATELY. THIS CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $25,000.00. [CUSTOMER] PURCHASED A VARIABLE ANNUITY AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE PROSPECTUS AND SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH ME. AS LONG AS THE INVESTMENT INCREASED IN VALUE, HE WAS HAPPY, WHEN THE INVESTMENT STARTED LOSING VALUE OVER 2 YEARS LATER, HE SUDDENLY COULDN'T REMEMBER ANY THING. I SOLD THE ANNUITY CORRECTLY AND WITH A PROSPECTUS AND IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR [CUSTOMER]. SETTLEMENT OF THIS CASE WAS DONE WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR INPUT AND I FEEL NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS. [CUSTOMER] WAS CLEARLY SUITABLE FOR THIS INVESTMENT.

THE CLIENT ALLEGED THAT VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND DID NOT PERFORM AS GUARANTEED. THE CLIENT ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $15,000.00.

$15,000.00

$10,000.00

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $10,000.00. I SOLD CLIENT 1500 SHARES OF VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT. THIS INVESTMENT WAS INSURED AND GUARANTEED TO PAY $1.20 PER YEAR DIV. BY XEROX CORP. IT HAD A AAA RATING FROM S&P AND WAS SUITABLE FOR THIS CLIENT. SHORTLY AFTER THE OFFERING INVESTMENT STOPPED PAYING DIV AND LOST ALMOST ALL OF ITS VALUE. COMPLAINT SHOULD BE AGAINST THE UNDERWRITERS AND MANAGERS OF THE INVESTMENT NOT AGAINST ONE PERSONALLY.

THE CLIENT ALLEGED THAT VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND DID NOT PERFORM AS GUARANTEED. THE CLIENT ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $15,000.00

$15,000.00

$10,000.00

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $10,000.00.I SOLD CLIENT 1500 SHARES OF VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT. THIS INVESTMENT WAS INSURED & GUARANTEED TO PAY $1.20 PER YEAR DIVIDEND BY XEROX CORP. SHORTLY AFTER THE OFFERING THE INVESTMENT STOPPED PAYING DIVIDEND AND LOST ALL VALUE. THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD GO AGAINST THE UNDERWRITER WHO PROVIDE DUE DILIGENCE FOR ME AND THE MANAGER OF THE INVESTMENT- NOT AGAINST ME PERSONALLY.

CLIENT ALLEGES AN UNSUITABLE PURCHASE OF VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CORP WITH ALLEGED DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $30,000.00

$81,000.00

CLIENT PURCHASED 3600 SHARES VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT AT MY RECOMMENDATION. I WAS INFORMED THAT THE $1.20 PER YEAR DIVENDED WAS INSURED BY XEROX CORP. THE RATING GIVEN THE INVESTMENT WAS AAA BY S&P AND WITH AN ISURED DIVIDEND I FELT IT WAS A VERY APPROPRIATE AND SAFE INVESTMENT. IT TURNED OUT THAT VMS WENT BANKRUPTCY AND CLIENT LOST THEIR MONEY. THE BANKRUPTCY OR OMISSION OF DIVEDEUD WAS CERTAINLY NOT MY FAULT. THIS WAS AN INVESTMENT RISK THAT I COULD NOT FORESEE AND DID NOT EXPECT