CLAIMANTS ALLEGE IN 1999 THEY PURCHASED VARIABLE ANNUITIES ON THE ADVICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH WERE UNSUITABLE BASED ON THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES.

$79,992.00

ALL CLAIMANTS WERE FURNISHED ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT OPTIONS AND PROPER INFORMATION TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS CONCERNING THEIR INVESTMENTS. EACH CLAIMANT FIRMLY REQUESTED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 72-T ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION, WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS 10%. SUBSEQUENT MARKET ACTIVITY FROM 3/2000 TO 10/2002, COMBINED WITH THIS EXCESSIVE DISTRIBUTION RATE, WAS VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS.

THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT HE WAS TOLD IF HE INVESTED INTO THE VARIABLE ANNUITY THAT HE COULD WITHDRAWAL HIS FUNDS AT ANY TIME WITH NO SURRENDER CHARGES OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND. THE CUSTOMER OPENED THE VARIABLE ANNUITY 10/05/1999 AND THE OTHER CONTRACT WAS OPENED 7/28/1999. MR. HUGH WAS NOTIFIED BY THE CUSTOMER ON 2/14/2001 WHERE THE CUSTOMER EXPRESSED HIS DISPLEASURE KNOWING THAT HE COULD NOT TAKE A COMPLETE DISTRIBUTION FROM THE ANNUITY WITHOUT INCURRING SURRENDER CHARGES. MR. HINSON DENIES EVER TELLING THE CUSTOMER THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO WITHDRAW THE MONEY AT ANY TIME WITHOUT SURRENDER CHARGES BUT IN FACT TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW UP TO 15% OF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT INVESTED EACH YEAR DURING THE SURRENDER CHARGE PERIOD WITHOUT INCURRING ANY SURRENDER CHARGES. DAMAGES NOT SPECIFIED.