NEW JERSEY CLIENT'S HUSBAND CLAIMED IN AN EMAIL MESSAGE THAT HE WANTED THE FIRM TO REVERSE THE BOND TRANSACTIONS SINCE THE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION DID NOT REPRESENT A SAFE HARBOR AS WAS HIS PREREQUISITE FOR THOSE PARTICULAR FUNDS. THE CLIENT DID NOT SPECIFY THE ACCOUNT(S) IN QUESTION, THE BONDS/FUNDS IN QUESTION, THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTION OR ANY SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE CLIENT'S HUSBAND IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF THE NUVEEN MUNICIPAL FUND HIGH INCOME OPPORTUNITY FUND 2 (NMD) THAT WAS MADE FOR HIS WIFE'S ACCOUNT ON NOVEMBER 11, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,975.00 AND THE PURCHASE OF THE OPPENHEIMER NJ MUNICIPAL FUND (ONJCX) THAT WAS ALSO MADE FOR HIS WIFE'S ACCOUNT ON MARCH 12, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 AND AN ADDITIONAL $50,000 ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2008. THE CLIENT'S HUSBAND HAS POWER OF ATTORNEY OVER HIS WIFE'S ACCOUNT. AGGREGATE UNREALIZED LOSSES IN THE INVESTMENTS IN NMD AND ONJCX ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $90,502.41 (INCLUSIVE OF REINVESTED DIVIDENDS, ETC.).

THE FIRM DENIED THE COMPLAINT VIA A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE CLIENT'S HUSBAND ON MARCH 6, 2009. BASED UPON THE FIRM'S REVIEW, IT APPEARED THAT THE CLIENT'S INVESTMENTS IN NMD AND ONJCX WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLIENTS' DESIRE TO ADD TAX-EXEMPT INVESTMENTS TO THEIR OVERALL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. A SIGNED MUTUAL FUND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT WAS ON FILE FOR THE CLIENT'S PURCHASE OF THE ONJCX SHARES. IT APPEARED THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INVESTMENTS IN QUESTION WAS THE RESULT OF MARKET FORCES, PARTICULARLY, THE UNPRECEDENTED DECLINES THAT OCCURRED IN THE OVERALL STOCK AND BOND MARKETS IN 2008, CONTINUING IN TO 2009.

NEW JERSEY CLIENT CLAIMED THAT SHE OPENED TWO 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS WITH THE FA. THE FIRM'S RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED ON OR ABOUT JUNE 14, 2005. THE CLIENT FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY QUARTERLY STATEMENTS OR ANY ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE FA AFTER THE ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED. THE CLIENT CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD TO ESTABLISH AN ONLINE ACCOUNT BEFORE FINDING OUT THAT THE 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS HAD ZERO BALANCES. THE CLIENT CLAIMED THAT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME THAT SHE OPENED THE ACCOUNTS SHE GAVE THE FA CASH AMOUNTS TO OPEN THE ACCOUNTS. THE CLIENT CLAIMED THAT SHE GAVE THE FA $800 TO DEPOSIT INTO ONE OF THE ACCOUNTS AND $1,100 TO DEPOSIT INTO THE OTHER ACCOUNT. THE CLIENT DEMANDED TO KNOW WHERE THE FUNDS WENT AND CLAIMED THAT SHE BELIEVED THAT THE MONEY WAS TAKEN BY THE FA. THE CLIENT HAS DEMANDED TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE MONIES IN QUESTION.

$1,900.00

THE FIRM DENIED THE COMPLAINT ON JUNE 12, 2005. THE CLIENT OPENED TWO FRANKLIN TEMPLETON 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN ACCOUNTS (THE 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS) THROUGH THE FA ON OR ABOUT JUNE 14, 2005. WHEN THE CLIENT OPENED THE 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS, THE CLIENT GAVE THE FA TWO CHECKS (NOT CASH) DRAWN ON HER CHECKING ACCOUNT TO FUND THE ACCOUNTS: 1) ONE CHECK WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $570.00 MADE PAYABLE TO FT 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN; AND 2) ONE CHECK WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $780.00 MADE PAYABLE TO FT 529 COLLEGE SAVINGS PLAN. THE FA PROCESSED THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK TO OPEN THE ACCOUNTS AND HE FORWARDED THE PAPERWORK AND THE CHECKS TO THE FIRM'S REGIONAL BROKERAGE OFFICE FOR TRANSMITTAL TO FRANKLIN TEMPLETON. DURING THE TRANSMITTAL PROCESS TO FRANKLIN TEMPLETON, THE PAPERWORK AND THE CHECKS WERE LOST OR MISPLACED. THE 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS WERE NOT OPENED BY FRANKLIN TEMPLETON NOR WERE THE ACCOUNTS FUNDED WITH THE CHECKS; THE CHECKS WERE NEVER CASHED OR RETURNED TO THE CLIENT'S BANK. THE CLIENT'S FUNDS THEREFORE REMAINED IN HER CHECKING ACCOUNT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY THEFT OR MISAPPROPRIATION ON THE PART OF THE FA. NEITHER THE FIRM NOR THE FA DISCOVERED THAT THE 529 PLAN ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN OPENED BY FRANKLIN TEMPLETON UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE CLIENT'S COMPLAINT.

FORMER CLIENT ALLEGES THAT SHE WAS GUARANTEED AN 8.5% RETURN ON HER MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENT AND QUESTIONS WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS WERE NOT INVESTED IN SAME FUND.

$81,000.00