Statement of Claim alleges an investment recommendation was made for the purpose of generating high commissions and fees and that Claimants were deprived of the ability to generate reasonable returns that would have been received in a diversified portfolio.

$70,000.00

These clients are sophisticated investors who expressed a desire to mitigate taxes as well as create monthly cash flow. After I attended a due diligence meeting with Atlas Growth Partners, LP, I was impressed enough to purchase the Fund myself as it promised a 7% tax-free dividend based off of oil and gas drilling in the Eagleford area of Texas. At the time, crude oil was priced very low and had significant room to increase in value. The oil market collapsed rapidly around 2016 and the company ran out of cash. As a result, this investment stopped paying its designated dividends. This was a product vetted and approved by the broker-dealer.

The Statement of Claim alleges recommendations were made that did not align with the Claimant's suitability.

$45,000.00

These clients are sophisticated investors who expressed a desire to mitigate taxes as well as create monthly cash flow. After I attended a due diligence meeting with Atlas Growth Partners, LP, I was impressed enough to purchase the Fund myself as it promised a 7% tax-free dividend based off of oil and gas drilling in the Eagleford area of Texas. At the time, crude oil was priced very low and had significant room to increase in value. The oil market collapsed rapidly around 2016 and the company ran out of cash. As a result, this investment stopped paying its designated dividends. This was a product vetted and approved by the broker-dealer.

Statement of Claim alleges an investment recommendation was made for the purpose of generating high commissions and fees and that Claimants were deprived of the ability to generate reasonable returns that would have been received in a diversified portfolio.

$575,000.00

These clients are sophisticated investors who expressed a desire to mitigate taxes as well as create monthly cash flow. After I attended a due diligence meeting with Atlas Growth Partners, LP, I was impressed enough to purchase the Fund myself as it promised a 7% tax-free dividend based off of oil and gas drilling in the Eagleford area of Texas. At the time, crude oil was priced very low and had significant room to increase in value. The oil market collapsed rapidly around 2016 and the company ran out of cash. As a result, this investment stopped paying its designated dividends. This was a product vetted and approved by the broker-dealer.

Statement of Claim alleges an investment recommendation was made for the purpose of generating high commissions and fees and that Claimants were deprived of the ability to generate reasonable returns that would have been received in a diversified portfolio.

$800,000.00

$595,000.00

These clients are sophisticated investors who expressed a desire to mitigate taxes as well as create monthly cash flow. After I attended a due diligence meeting with Atlas Growth Partners, LP, I was impressed enough to purchase the Fund myself as it promised a 7% tax-free dividend based off of oil and gas drilling in the Eagleford area of Texas. At the time, crude oil was priced very low and had significant room to increase in value. The oil market collapsed rapidly around 2016 and the company ran out of cash. As a result, this investment stopped paying its designated dividends. This was a product vetted and approved by the broker-dealer.

CLIENTS ALLEGE UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT RR DID NOT EXPLAIN HOW MOVING ACCOUNTS WOULD CHANGE THEIR CONTRACT, AND THAT SALES PROCEEDS REINVESTED, OR WERE SET TO REINVEST, WHEN THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

$20,000.00

RR ACTIVELY MANAGED FEE-BASED ADVISORY ACCOUNT AND TRADED SECURITIES ON AT LEAST A MONTHLY BASIS. CLIENTS COMPLAINED TO THE STATE OF OREGON ALLEGING UNAUTHORIZED TRADING. STATE OF OREGON FOUND: NO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, RR RESPONDED TO CLIENTS' CONCERNS IN A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME, TRADES IN QUESTION WERE CONDUCTED UNDER A VALID DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY, AND ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN MANAGED ON A DISCRETIONARY BASIS AND WITH A STANDARDIZED TRADING MODEL FROM INCEPTION, 10/2006 THROUGH 3/2009.

CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT VUL POLICY PURCHASED IN 2007 WAS UNSUITABLE. THEY CLAIM TO HAVE ASKED FOR A POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BEGIN DRAWING CASH WITHDRAWALS IN 13 YEARS. THE POLICY HAS A LARGE DEATH BENEFIT, WHICH THEY DID NOT WANT, AND A SURRENDER PERIOD OF 15 YEARS.

$80,000.00

$20,000.00

CASE RESOLVED WITHOUT JUDGMENT, CLIENT FIRST REGISTERED COMPLAINT WITH INSURANCE CO., WHO THEN DID FULL REVIEW. INSURANCE CO. DETERMINED ALL PROPER PROCEDURES, PAPERWORK AND DISCLOSURES WERE FOLLOWED, AND DENIED CLIENT'S CLAIM. CLIENT THEN REGISTERED COMPLAINT AGAINST REP. INDIVIDUALLY, SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED WITHOUT ARBITRATION.

CLIENT INVESTED IN VARIABLE ANNUITY 01/05/2007. CLIENT STATES IN MULTIPLE LETTERS PRODUCT WAS UNSUITABLE, RR MISREPRESENTED PRODUCT AND MONTHLY PREMIUMS WERE TOO EXPENSIVE.

$13,244.00

CURRENT FIRM WAS NOT B/D WHEN PRODUCT WAS PURCHASED. INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDED TO COMPLAINT 08-26-08 AND 10-22-08 COPYING CURRENT BD ON SECOND RESPONSE. INSURANCE COMPANY DENIED COMPLAINT STATING PRODUCT WAS IN LINE WITH CLIENT'S STATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, RR PROVIDED AMPLE DISCLOSURES AND NO MONTHLY PREMIUMS HAD BEEN PAID. NO EVIDENCE OF MISREPRESENTATION BY RR WAS FOUND. RR MET WITH CLIENT MULTIPLE TIMES TO EXPLAIN PRODUCT AND PROCESS PRIOR TO SIGNING INITIAL PAPERWORK. PRODUCT TOOK ANOTHER MONTH TO BE ISSUED. CLIENT HAD FULL PARAMED EXAM DURING THIS TIME. POLICY WAS DELIVERED AND EXPLAINED PROPERLY. OVER A YEAR AFTER CLIENT WAS INVESTED IN PRODUCT, COMPLAINT WAS WRITTEN.