Client expressed dissatisfaction with their overall relationship with Barber Financial Group that began in 1991 (est.)

$75,000.00

$75,000.00

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO REPORT TO THE DELEWARE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY KANSAS AND MISSOURI. THE DELEWARE REGULATORY ACTION TOOK PLACE FROM MAY 21, 2012 TO AUGUST 27, 2012.

Consent

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$1,000.00

STATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION

REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO CORRECTLY ANSWER ON THE LICENSE APPLICATION THAT HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS.

Consent

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$250.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE, NEGLIGENCE, VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT, AND VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

$40,000.00

WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY, AND FOR PURELY ECONOMIC REASONS, THIS CASE SETTLED AT A MEDIATION. THE CLAIMANTS SETTLED FOR SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE DEMANDING. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST TO DEFEND THE CASE THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF AN ARBITRATION HEARING.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND BREACH OF CONTRACT, VIOLATION OF KANSAS SECURITIES ACT, FRAUD, AND VIOLATION OF KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

$225,000.00

$59,000.00

REPRESENTATIVE DISPUTES ALL ALLEGATIONS. ANY LOSSES OCCURRED DUE TO CUSTOMER GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO NOT PLACE ANY TRADES. WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY, AND FOR PURELY ECONOMIC REASONS, THIS CASE SETTLED AT A MEDIATION. THE CLAIMANTS SETTLED FOR SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE DEMANDING. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST TO DEFEND THE CASE THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF AN ARBITRATION HEARING.

STATE OF KANSAS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE

F. DEAN BARBER AND BARBER FINANCIAL GROUP FAILED TO REPORT 2 COMPLAINTS ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION FOR BFG INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC

Consent

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$1,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES REPRESENTATIVE INCORRECTLY ALLOCATED SUB-ACCOUNT POSITIONS IN A VARIABLE ANNUITY.

$20,000.00

ATTORNEY FOR CLAIMANTS ALLEGE ADVICE FROM REPRESENTATIVE RESULTED IN TAX CONSEQUENCES.

$16,100.88

I WAS THE INVESTMENT REPRESENTATIVE. I DIDN'T GIVE LEGAL/TAX ADVICE. I HAD NO OPINION ON HOW MONEY WAS FUNDED IN OR OUT OF ANY CORPORATIONS, WHICH IS BEYOND MY SCOPE OF CAPABILITIES.

CLAIMANTS ALLEGE REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED TERMS OF THREE VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACTS.

$77,118.27

$14,999.00

THE CLAIMANTS PURCHASED THE JNL PRODUCTS FULLY AWARE OF ALL DISCLOSURES, RISK TOLERANCE, AND PROSPECTUS INFORMATION. THE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCOUNT FOR YEARS. THIS SETTLEMENT WAS A BUSINESS DECISION DUE TO THE COSTS OF THE ARBITRATION PROCESS.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES DELAY IN THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS HELD IN A 401K PLAN.

CLIENT ALLEGES SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE VARIABLE ANNUITIES SHE PURCHASED WORKED AND HAD SHE UNDERSTOOD THE FEES AND TAX CONSEQUENCES, SHE NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THEM. SHE ALSO ALLEGES THE ANNUITIES ARE UNSUITABLE FOR HER NEEDS. THE CLIENT PURCHASED THREE JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE ANNUITIES ON 12/06/2004.

THE CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT BETWEEN APRIL 2003 AND APRIL 2007, MR. BARBER RECOMMENDED VARIOUS VARIABLE ANNUITIES AND B SHARE MUTUAL FUNDS IN THEIR QUALIFIED ACCOUNTS THAT WERE UNSUITABLE. THEY ALSO ALLEGE THAT MR. BARBER ADVISED THEM TO PURCHASE TWO WHOLE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES FOR THEIR COMPANY'S DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN AND THAT THESE POLICIES WERE MISREPRESENTED TO THEM.

$168,000.00

$168,000.00

I DENY ALL THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY [CUSTOMERS]. THEY ARE FALSE. I NEVER MISLED THEM OR MADE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS ALSO NOT TRUE THAT I HAVE EVER MISREPRESENTED ANY PRODUCT, BE IT INSURANCE, ANNUITIES OR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT. THEIR TAX ATTORNEY MADE ERRORS WITH THE STATUS OF THEIR CORPORATION WHICH RESULTED IN THE PROBLEMS TODAY WITH THE 412I PLAN. NOW THE [CUSTOMERS] HAVE FOUND AN ATTORNEY WHO IS ADVISING THEM TO LOOK BACK AND TRY TO ACCUSE ME OF WRONGDOING TO BOLSTER THEIR CASE. THE [CUSTOMERS'] ACCUSATIONS HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT AND I AM CONFIDENT THIS WILL BE PROVEN IN THE INVESTIGATION.