Customer alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, material misrepresentations and omissions, and negligence related to alternative investments.

$204,812.00

Customer alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, material misrepresentations and omissions, and negligence related to alternative investments.

$1,940,256.00

$250,000.00

Client was educated and the program was explained thoroughly to clients legal and tax team.

Customer alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable recommendation, material misrepresentations and omitted material information, failure to supervise, and breach of contract related to an alternative investment.

$500,000.00

$190,000.00

Client alleges a sale of an unsuitable and high-risk investment, specifically private placement investments on two dates, December 24, 2015, and September 15, 2016.

$132,396.00

$150,000.00

FINRA Arbitration currently pending. Ellen denies the allegations and will contest the claims.

THE CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THE RR MISREPRESENTED THAT A TAX OPINION LETTER EXISTED WHEN ONE DID NOT. AS A RESULT THE CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THEY OWE PENALTIES AND INTEREST TO THE IRS AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

$20,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGES AN UNAUTHORIZED FINANCIAL PLANNING FEE HAS BEEN CHARGED FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS AND CONSTITUTES A FRAUDULENT TRANSACTION.

$14,000.00

A CORPORATE FINANCIAL PLANNING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE JULY 2006 THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF THE DOCTORS/PARTNERS, EMPLOYEES AND THE PRACTICE AS A WHOLE. THE FEE REFERENCED IN THE COMPLAINT IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE FEE WAS CHARGED TO AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ACTUAL FEES INVOICED WERE CHARGED TO AND PAID BY THE COMPANY FOR OVERALL SERVICES PROVIDED AS PER THE AGREEMENT. A QUARTERLY INVOICE IS SUBMITTED TO THE COMPANY AT THE END OF EACH QUARTER, IN WHICH THEY REMIT A CHECK AS PAYMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE FEES ON AN ON-GOING BASIS AS IS EVIDENT IN THEIR TIMELY PAYMENTS OF THE INVOICES SUBMITTED.

CLIENT SENT E-MAIL STATING THAT SHE TOLD THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT SHE WAS A CONSERVATIVE INVESTOR AND THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE'S STAFF WAS NOT FORTHCOMING WHEN SHE ASKED ABOUT COMMISSIONS THAT WERE EARNED RELATED TO HER ACCOUNT.

$5,000.00

I HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE OIL & GAS INVESTMENT WITH MS. STONE. SHE CHOSE TO INVEST IN THE OFFERING FOR THE TAX CREDITS THE INVESTMENT OFFERED, AND DID SO AFTER DISCUSSING THE INVESTMENT WITH HER TAX ADVISOR. FURTHERMORE, I AT NO POINT " PUSHED A PRODUCT".

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES LAW, PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION, UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND CONVERSION.

$5,000.00

$250,000.00

[CUSTOMER] WAS AN EXTREMELY WEALTHY AND SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR WHO UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECURITIES IN HIS ACCOUNTS. MANAGEMENT INTENDS TO VIGOROUSLY DEFEND THIS ACTION, FIRST BY COMPELLING THE ACTION TO THE APPROPRIATE VENUE, FINRA, PURSUANT TO A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

ALLEGATIONS ARE THAT FROM OCTOBER 2004, THE INVESTMENT ANNUITY CONTRACT(S) THAT WERE SOLD TO THE CLIENTS WERE MISREPRESENTED AS SAFE AND LIQUID INVESTMENTS.

$14,999.00

REP COMMENTS: THE VARIABLE ANNUITIES IN QUESTION WERE SUITABLE INVESTMENTS FOR THESE CLIENTS AT THE TIME OF INVESTMENT BASED ON THE CLIENTS' CONCERN WITH THE VOLATILITY OF THE MARKET AND THE GUARANTEE OF PRINCIPAL. THE PROPER FORMS INCLUDING APPLICATIONS, SUITABLITY FORMS, ORDER TICKETS, AND PROSPECTUS RECEIPTS WERE COMPLETED IN GOOD ORDER AND ARE ON FILE, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CLIENTS WERE AWARE AT THE TIME OF INVESTMENT OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR INVESTMENTS. 01/19/2012: WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY WRONGDOING OR ANY LIABILITY, THE FIRM SETTLED WITH THE CLAIMANTS FOR 14,999. MR. BRETT ELLEN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT. ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE FIRM AND MR. BRETT ELLEN ARISING OUT OF THE CIVIL LITIGATION AND FINRA ARBITRATION HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

"IN JANUARY 2006, CLIENT ALLEGES HE CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR $80,000.00 AFTER HIS ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW BROKER DEALER (FIDELITY). CLIENT ALLEGES MONEY AND DIVIDENDS FROM THREE ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS WERE GOING TO A NON-EXISTENT ACCOUNT THAT THE CLIENT REFERRED TO AS MR. ELLEN'S HOUSE ACCOUNT.

$80,000.00

IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND VERIFIED WITH EACH OF THE THREE (3) CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT COMPANIES THAT THE CLIENT HAS DIRECT INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RE-REGISTERED TO REFLECT HIS NEW IRA CUSTODIAN W/ NFS, DISTRIBUTIONS ARE BEING SENT DIRECTLY TO A NEW BROKERAGE ACCOUNT NOT MANAGED BY MYSELF OR SECURITIES AMERICA AND THAT I, BRETT ELLEN, AM NO LONGER THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE INVESTMENTS. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE NEW REPRESENTATIVE AT FIDELITY DID NOT RE-REGISTER THE INVESTMENTS CORRECTLY AND COMPLETELY, THE INVESTMENTS ARE STILL REFLECTING ASSOCIATION WITH SECURITIES AMERICA AND NOT WITH BRETT ELLEN.

ALLEGATIONS THAT THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST PRODUCTS SOLD TO HER AND HER HUSBAND IN 1999 WERE UNSUITABLE BASED ON THE LEVEL OF RISK AND LACK OF LIQUIDITY.

$36,000.00

CNL, WELLS REAL ESTATE, ATEL, AND THE HARTFORD VARIABLE ANNUITY WERE SUITABLE INVESTMENTS FOR THESE CLIENTS AT THE TIME OF INVESTMENT BASED ON THEIR OBJECTIVES AND GOALS. THE PROPER FORMS INCLUDING APPLICATIONS, SUITABILITY FORMS, ORDER TICKETS AND PROSPECTUS RECEIPTS WERE COMPLETED IN GOOD ORDER AND ARE ON FILE, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CLIENTS WERE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTMENT OF ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH INVESTMENT.

STATE OF NEW YORK INSURANCE DEPARTMENT

NEW YORK INSURANCE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OF FAILURE TO GIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THE IRREGULARITY QUESTION ON ORIGINAL AGENT APPLICATION.

Stipulation and Consent

Monetary/Fine

$500.00

PAYMENT OF NEGOTIATED FINE AMOUNT SUBMITTED WITH SIGNATURE ON THE STIPULATION ON 09/11/2007.

IN PROCESSING MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITH THE NYSID, A QUESTION ASKING IF I HAD EVER HAD A LICENSE REVOKED OR SUSPENDED BY ANY GOVERNING AGENCY WAS ANSWERED "NO" AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AT NATIONAL PLANNING. THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED "NO" AS MY OFFICE WAS TOLD THE CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNING BOARD WAS NOT CONSIDERED A GOVERNING AGENCY. IN RENEWING MY LICENSE TWO YEARS LATER, THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED "YES" AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AT SECURITIES AMERICA, MY CURRENT BROKER/DEALER AS THEY DID SEE THE CFP BOARD AS A GOVERNING AGENCY. MY CFP DESIGNATION HAD BEEN ON A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION AND WAS REINSTATED IN AUGUST 2005 AND REMAINS CURRENT AND IN GOOD STANDING.

CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS AND REQUESTS RETURN OF 80 PERCENT OF COMMISSIONS EARNED BY REPRESENTATIVE.

$8,368.00

AS THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR [CUSTOMER]& [CUSTOMER], I HAVE CONDUCTED MYSELF FAITHFULLY AND EXERCISED SOUND JUDGEMENT. I DESIGNED A PORTFOLIO BASED ON THEIR LONG-TERM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE PORTFOLIO CONSISTED OF VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS SPREAD ACROSS DIFFERENT STYLES AS WELL AS PRIVATE REITS (REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS). THIS COMBINATION OF INVESTMENTS CREATED A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO THAT OVER TIME COULD ACHIEVE [CUSTOMER] & [CUSTOMER'S] DESIRED FINANCIAL GOALS. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITH LESS THAN JUST TEN MUTUAL FUNDS. BY COMBINING VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS WITH DIFFERENT STYLES AND ASSET CLASSES AS WELL AS ADDING REAL ESTATE TO THE ASSET MIX, I CREATED AN "ALL-WEATHER" PORTFOLIO THAT WOULD ALLOW THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE CONSISTENT PERFORMANCE UNDER A WIDE RANGE OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

CLIENT IS UPSET REGARDING ACCOUNT PERFORMANCE AND QUESTIONS SUITABILITY.

$58,233.00

CLIENTS ALLEGE UNSUITABILITY OF INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

$73,594.00

CLIENT WAS UNHAPPY WITH SERVICE PROVIDED BY OUR OFFICE.

$295,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY IN THE SALE BY REP. OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

$14,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABILITY FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS AND MUTUAL FUNDS, DAMAGES ALLEGED EQUALED $150,000

$150,000.00

$53,000.00