The client alleged that her former advisor misrepresented the terms of her AIG annuity purchase in July of 2014.

$20,615.79

The clients alleged that their former advisor misrepresented the terms of their AIG annuity purchase in June of 2015.

$6,868.48

attorney for customer alleges customer was deceptively led to purchase certain annuity products in 2016.

$84,124.00

$82,290.00

FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Knee consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation into allegations that he misappropriated customer funds while registered with two FINRA member firms.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

All capacities

Indefinite

5/9/2018

Customer alleges some information on a document he signed was not on the document when he signed it in January 2016 and is not an accurate representation of his financial picture.

$23,749.38

Voya Financial Advisors

Discharged

failure to cooperate in an internal investigation relating to potential receipt by the representative of a cash gift from a customer.

VOYA WAS CONDUCTING INTERNAL REVIEW OF POTENTIAL RECEIPT OF CASH GIFT FROM A CUSTOMER. I WAS TERMINATED FOR ALLEGEDLY NOT COOPERATING WITH VOYA'S REVIEW. HOWEVER, I WAS COOPERATING AND DISCLOSED THE GIFT TO VOYA. WHEN VOYA ATTEMPTED TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE ALL CUSTOMER FILES FROM MY OFFICE BEFORE CONCLUDING ITS REVIEW OR MAKING ANY FORMAL DETERMINATION ABOUT THE CASH GIFT, I RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL WHO INTERVENED AND OBJECTED TO VOYA'S APPROACH. AS A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE, MY ATTORNEY PROPOSED A WELL-MEASURED MANNER IN WHICH VOYA COULD COPY THE FILES BUT NOT TAKE EXCLUSIVE, PHYSICIAL POSSESSION OF THEM. I WAS COOPERATING WITH THE REVIEW AND WELL WITHIN MY RIGHTS TO RETAIN COUNSEL, WHICH WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBSTRUCTING THE REVIEW BUT WAS RATHER INTENDED TO FACILITATE IT IN AN ORDERLY AND REASONABLE MANNER. VOYA HAD NO PROPRIETARY CLAIM OVER MY RELATIONSHIPS WITH CUSTOMERS I INTRODUCED TO THE FIRM AND THUS THE WHOLESALE, UNFETTERED APPROPRIATION OF MY FILES BY VOYA WAS ALARMING AND INCONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERMS OF MY RELATIONSHIP WITH VOYA.

State of New Hampshire

UNKNOWN

The client alleged the recommendation into the purchase of a royalty trust to be unsuitable.

$17,000.00

$17,000.00

My customer sought higher yield from his portfolio to increase investment income in line with his stated objectives. We discussed a variety of strategies and investments for his consideration during a detailed retirement income planning discussion. After a holistic discussion on diversification and suitable investments to help achieve his goals, customer decided to proceed with particular investments he selected. Among other investments, the BPT investment was identified and discussed at length with customer, who agreed it met his goals at the time of purchase. He was especially interested in the income opportunity. I proceeded with the transactions he approved, reflecting an overall reduction in equity holdings and mitigation of risk for his total portfolio. The purchase of BPT was entirely suitable in light of customer's risk tolerance and investment objectives, the comprehensive income planning and diversification objectives we discussed, and his goal to re-position assets by selling lower yields and purchasing higher yields. BPT comprised less than 17% of his overall portfolio. After share price of BPT subsequently declined, customer questioned suitability of the investment and made verbal complaint to Ameriprise, although he did not want to sell the investment which was still providing him income distributions. Customer did not complain about any other investments or recommendations. Ameriprise made a business decision to negotiate with customer to attempt swift resolution of verbal complaint. I was not included in the negotiation process and Ameriprise did not seek my input or consent with respect to the settlement offers conveyed to customer. Ultimately, the customer accepted an offer and the matter was resolved without any meaningful opportunity for my participation in the negotiation process, and despite the fact that the long-term outlook for BPT was optimistic, it was not impaired, the investment was suitable at the time of purchase and in fact the customer was reluctant to subsequently sell it because he was still receiving significant income from it. Nevertheless, he accepted the offer from Ameriprise and the settlement has been reported on my record.

CLIENT ALLEGES THAT RR SOLD SECURITIES IN MAY 2006 THAT SHE INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO SELL. CLIENT ALLEGES THAT AS A RESULT OF THE SALE SHE SUFFERED A TAX PENALTY. AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, RR WAS WITH FORMER B/D.

$22,651.00

CLIENT RECEIVED LETTER FROM IRS STATING THAT SHE OWED TAXES AS A RESULT OF A SALE OF SECURITIES. CLIENT WAS UNAWARE THAT THESE TAXES WERE OWED AND ALLEGED THAT SHE HAD INSTRUCTED RR NOT TO SELL THE AFOREMENTIONED SECURITIES. NOTES FROM RR INDICATE THAT SHORTLY BEFORE THE SALE WAS MADE, CLIENT CALLED AND INSTRUCTED RR TO SELL.

ALLEGED UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS IN THE CLIENT PURCHASE OF VARIABLE ANNUITIES

$100,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS; MISREPRESENTATION

$10,000.00

COMPLAINT NO LONGER REPORTABLE BECAUSE FILED MORE THAN 24 MONTHS AGO AND DID NOT RESULT IN A SETTLEMENT OF $10,000 OR MORE. PLEASE ARCHIVE.