Bankruptcy

Discharged

Bankruptcy was filed due to a judgment entered against me, which was the result of litigation with a former employer. It is not the result of default on consumer debt, a real estate loan or a tax lien

CLIENT BELIEVED THE ANNUITY SHE PURCHASED HAD A GUARANTEED PRINCIPAL AND HAS LOST $12,000. SHE HAS ASKED FOR THE RETURN OF HER INVESTMENT. (09/05/2007 - 08/05/2008)

$12,000.00

APPLICATION SIGNED BY CLIENT INDICATES SHE UNDERSTOOD THE GMIB GUARANTEE WAS IN THE FORM OF LIFETIME PERIODIC PAYMENTS ONLY, AND THAT SHE RECEIVED THE PRODUCT PROSPECTUS. CLIENT WAS ALSO PROVIDED WITH THE VARIABLE ANNUITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SHOWING THAT SHE COULD LOSE MONEY INVESTING IN A VARIABLE ANNUITY AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE ANNUITY WOULD FLUCTUATE WITH MARKET PERFORMANCE. CLIENT DID NOT EXERCISE HER RIGHT TO RETURN THE CONTRACT DURING THE FREE-LOOK PERIOD. FA'S RESPONSE:I BELIEVE THAT [CUSTOMER] HAS CONFUSED THE GMIB AND THE GMDB THAT SHE HAD WITH A GUARANTEE OF HER PURCHASE PREMIUM. ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 [CUSTOMER] PURCHASED A VARIABLE ANNUITY WITH A GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME BENEFIT (GMIB) AND A GUARANTEED MINIMUM DEATH BENEFIT (GMDB) AND HER FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN A DIVERSIFIED GROWTH FUND. [CUSTOMER] WAS ADVISED MANY TIMES THAT WHILE THERE WERE RIDERS GUARANTEEING AN INCOME BENEFIT AND DEATH BENEFIT THAT HER PRINCIPAL WAS IN NO WAY GUARANTEED AND THAT HER ORIGINAL INVESTMENT WOULD FLUCTUATE WITH THE MARKET. THE GMIB GUARANTEED [CUSTOMER] A FUTURE INCOME STREAM BASED ON THE GREATEST OF THE AMOUNT SHE PAID FOR THE ANNUITY, THE HIGHEST ANNIVERSARY VALUE OF THE CONTRACT UP TO THE CONTRACT ANNIVERSARY FOLLOWING HER 85TH BIRTHDAY, OR HER PURCHASE AMOUNT PLUS DAILY CREDITING OF 6% ANNUAL COMPOUNDING UP TO UP TO THE CONTRACT ANNIVERSARY FOLLOWING HER 85TH BIRTHDAY. THE GMDB GUARANTEES A BENEFIT TO HER HEIRS OF THE GREATEST OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE ANNUITY ADJUSTED FOR ANY WITHDRAWALS, THE PURCHASE AMOUNT PLUS DAILY CREDITING OF 6% ANNUAL COMPOUNDING UP TO [CUSTOMER] 85TH BIRTHDAY, OR THE HIGHEST ANNIVERSARY VALUE OF THE CONTRACT UP TO ANNIVERSARY FOLLOWING HER 85TH BIRTHDAY.

PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT WRITES THAT HE MAILED LETTER TO WACHOVIA (AT DIFFERENT ADDRESS FROM FA'S ADDRESS) AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO 12/17/08, INSTRUCTING THAT ACCOUNT BE LIQUIDATED. FA NEVER RECEIVED LETTER. HOWEVER, CLIENT WRITES THAT HE BELIEVES THAT FA FAILED TO FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO LIQUIDATE. ACCOUNT WAS LIQUIDATED ON 1/14/08 AND CLIENT BELIEVES ACCOUNT VALUE DECLINED BY $18K DURING THAT PERIOD.

$16,154.00

THE FACT THAT CLIENT'S ACCOUNT WAS NOT LIQUIDATED WAS DUE TOTALLY TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR CLERICAL ERROR IN THE TRANSFER DEPARTMENT PART OF THE FIRM AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I DID OR DID NOT DO. I DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT CLIENT HAD GIVEN TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS UNTIL I WAS ALERTED TO THAT FACT BY THE TRANSFER DEPARTMENT OF THE FIRM. I UNDERSTAND THAT [CUSTOMER] DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DELAY IN FOLLOWING HIS INSTRUCTIONS -- THIS WAS PURELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BACK OFFICE MATTER. **CLIENT WITHDREW CLAIM AS TO FA AND ACKNOWLEDGED IN WRITING THAT AN UNINTENTIONAL, ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR OCCURRED ON THE PART OF UNKNOWN PERSONS AT THE FIRM (DEFINITELY NOT FA) AND WAS IN NO WAY THE FAULT OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION BY MR. MARANO. CLAIM WITHDRAWN AS TO MR. MARANO AND NO WRONGDOING AS TO MR. MARANO.