Breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligent supervision, breach of contract, fraud and financial elder abuse.

$300,000.00

$35,000.00

Alleged unsuitability, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence and negligent supervision.

$1,350,000.00

$85,000.00

ATTORNEY FOR CLAIMANTS ALLEGES VARIABLE ANNUITY PRODUCTS WERE UNSUITABLE

IN OUR NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH THESE CLIENTS, THEY CONTINUALLY EXPRESSED A HIGH LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH OUR SERVICES. THEY REPEATEDLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF OTHER SERVICES AND PRODUCTS THAT WE OFFERED, WHICH WE ADDED DURING THEIR PORTFOLIO CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES POOR PERFORMANCE, EXCESSIVE FEES, MISREPRESENTATION, UNSUITABILITY, AND POOR SERVICE

MISREPRESENTATION OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AND TRANSFER OF ACCOUNT PROBLEM.

$21,479.56

$3,528.00

CLIENT EARNED COMPETATIVE PERFORMANCE ON HER INVESTMENT BUT WAS STILL UNHAPPY. DESPITE DRAMATICALLY BETTER DIVERSIFICATIONA DN PERFORMANCE, CLIENT WANTED OUR FEES REFUNDED. DUE TO THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THIS COMPLAINT, IT WAS ECONOMICALLY PRUDENT TO SETTLE THIS MATTER WITHOUT FURTHER LITIGATION COSTS. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SETTLEMENT.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATION / MISLEADING INFORMATION.

$49,081.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE 25401, INTENTIONAL BREACH OF FICUCIARY DUTY (SUITABILITY), NEGLIGENT BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, CHURNING, FRAUD, AND OMMISSIONS.

$165,000.00

CLAIMANT [CUSTOMER] SETTLED FOR $75,000 AND CLAIMANT [CUSTOMER] SETTLED FOR $90,000 FOR A TOTAL SETTLEMENT AMOUNT OF $165,000. "THE FIRM HAS SETTLED WITH EACH CLAIMANT. THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONG-DOING BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE FIRM. THE COST OF LITIGATION WARRANTED SETTLING THIS FRIVOLOUS MATTER."

CLAIMANT ALLEGES INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNSUITABLE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES.

$395,589.16

$150,000.00

CLAIMANT FILED FINRA ARBITRATION NUMBER 10-01406 TOGETHER WITH TWO SIBLINGS. ENTIRE MATTER COLLECTIVELY SETTLED FOR $150,000. THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONG-DOING BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE FIRM. THE COST OF LITIGATION WARRANTED SETTLING THIS FRIVOLOUS MATTER.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNSUITABLE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES.

$395,589.16

$150,000.00

CLAIMANT FILED FINRA ARBITRATION NUMBER 10-01406 TOGETHER WITH TWO SIBLINGS. ENTIRE MATTER COLLECTIVELY SETTLED FOR $150,000. THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONG-DOING BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE FIRM. THE COST OF LITIGATION WARRANTED SETTLING THIS FRIVOLOUS MATTER.

UNSUITABILITY OF PURCHASES

THIS MATTER WAS BETWEEN THE CUSTOMERS AND THEIR FORMER ADVISOR. I WAS DEPOSED AS PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT I WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION

CLAIMANT ALLEGES INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNSUITABLE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES.

$395,589.16

$150,000.00

CLAIMANT FILED FINRA ARBITRATION NUMBER 10-01406 TOGETHER WITH TWO SIBLINGS. ENTIRE MATTER COLLECTIVELY SETTLED FOR $150,000. "THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE, AND NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR WRONG-DOING BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE FIRM. THE COST OF LITIGATION WARRANTED SETTLING THIS FRIVOLOUS MATTER."

COMPLAINANT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY OF VARIABLE ANNUITY SOLD TO HER IN MAY 2008. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR DAMAGES, THE FIRM HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION AND CONCLUDED THAT DAMAGES WOULD NOT BE LESS THAN $5K.

CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABILITY OF VARIABLE ANNUITY INVESTMENT.

$11,698.87

$3,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING A VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED 06/25/2007.

$116,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES ACCOUNT WAS NOT PROPERLY MANAGED DUE TO DELAY IN ACCOUNT TRANSFER.

$37,993.95

CLAIMANTS ALLEGE VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE 25401, CHURNING, FRAUD OMISSIONS, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND MISREPRESENTATION.

$90,000.00

(2012) - THIS MATTER WAS SETTLED AND CONCLUDED BY THE E&O INSURANCE CARRIER AS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT. NO DAMAGES WERE INCURRED BY THE CLIENT (IN FACT, SHE MADE MONEY ON HER INVESTMENT). THE COST TO LITIGATE WAS PROHIBITIVE. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY AND ABIDED BY ALL INDUSTRY PRACTICES. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PAY FOR ANY SETTLEMENT PERSONALLY. (2008) - [CUSTOMER] PREVIOUSLY FILED A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INDIVIDUALLY. A NEW DRP HAS BEEN CREATED BECAUSE THIS MATTER INVOLVES TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN ADDITION TO [CUSTOMER]. THE ALLEGED DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE SUIT, HOWEVER THEY ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE GREATER THAN $5,000.00. NATIONAL PLANNING CORPORATION WAS NOTIFIED ON DECEMBER 29, 2011 THAT CLAIMANTS [CUSTOMERS] SETTLED THIS MATTER FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $10,000.00. THIS MATTER REMAINS OPEN AS CLAIMANT [CUSTOMER'S] CLAIM IS CURRENTLY PENDING. A DISCLOSURE WILL BE FILED WHEN THE FIRM IS NOTIFIED OF A FULL RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.

CLIENT ALLEGES VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED IN JUNE 2007 WAS UNSUITABLE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS.

$42,000.00

COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THEY WERE PLACED IN AN UNSUITABLE VARIABLE ANNUITY PRODUCT IN EARLY OCTOBER 2000

$12,000.00

$7,500.00

ALTHOUGH THIS MATTER WAS ULTIMATELY SETTLED, THE RATIONALE FOR SETTLEMENT WAS MADE PURELY ON COST OF LITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS AND NOT BECAUSE THE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE BELEIVED THERE WAS ANY MERIT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT

COMPLAINANT ALLEGES HE WAS PLACED IN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT VEHICLE DURING A PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2005

$21,000.00

CUSTOMERS ALLEGE REPRESENTATIVE PLACED THEM IN UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS

ALLEGES THAT REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CLOSE ACCOUNTS WHEN SHE ASKED HIM TO, CAUSING FURTHER LOSSES.

$8,983.56