FORMER CLIENT PRIMARILY ASSERTS THAT SHE WAS A CONSERVATIVE INVESTOR AND INVESTED IN UNSUITABLE RISKY INVESTMENTS, NAMELY NON-PUBLICLY TRADED REITS, OVER A MULTI-YEAR PERIOD STARTING IN 2005. SHE INVESTED IN NUMEROUS PUBLICLY TRADED REITS PROVIDED BY MULTIPLE COMPANIES OVER THIS TIME FRAME. SHE ALSO CLAIMS THAT SHE WAS TOO CONCENTRATED IN REITS, AND THAT SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE ILLIQUID. SHE CLAIMS THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE GENERATED GREATER PROFITS THAN SHE DID ON HER OVERALL AGGREGATE PORTFOLIO.

$300,000.00

$65,000.00

Financial Advisor vigorously denied and disputed each and every claim. First, Financial Advisor countered that the Former Client was not a conservative, but rather a very aggressive investor. For example, the Former Client marked off on her risk profile that her investment goal for her overall portfolio was to "beat the S&P 500", an aggressive goal. Former Client also often frequently and independently engaged in speculative, risky, and concentrated investments without Financial Advisor's involvement. For example, rather investing in cd's or government bonds, Former Client independently invested in highly volatile and concentrated Tech sector mutual funds, penny stocks, and the equivalent of illiquid "dark pools" in the Dominican Republic, futures, and even advocated risky via tactical settlements on her own against Financial Advisor's advice that these were too risky. Not only did Former Client never claim that she ever had a need for liquidity, Former Client also invested in non-publicly traded REITs on numerous occasions with different companies and signed and initialed all documents explaining the risks, as well as receiving the Form ADV disclosure document numerous times. Moreover, Former Client is a also a former licensed real estate agent over multiple real estate cycles. Former Client is also real estate investor with decades of experience. Thus, Financial Advisor argued that it is implausible that Former Client did not understand that real estate investments are not liquid or that they can rise or fall in value. Financial Advisor also argued that the concentration in REITs was not directed by the Financial Advisor, but rather by the Former Client. Before Financial Advisor would allow Former Client to invest in Former Client's desired concentration, Financial Advisor required Former Client to sign a plain English document stating that she understood that she was "putting her eggs in one basket" and that Former Client understood the risks of her desired concentration, and that the Former Client wanted to proceed regardless before allowing Former Client to invest. Financial Advisor argued that not only was it not grossly unfair for Former Client to file a complaint against Financial Advisor after it was the Former Client who requested the concentration, to be advised against it by Financial Advisor, and then be required to sign a plain English document listing the risks of such a concentration before being allowed to invest, and then later filing a complaint against Former Client arguing that the concentration was unsuitable amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. Financial Advisor counterclaimed against Former Client requesting attorney fees arguing that the claim lacked any merit. Financial Advisor ultimately settled the matter with Former Client prior to arbitration without admitting liability, fault, wrongdoing, misconduct, or breach of duty of any kind by any Party, as the costs of defending against the claim even upon prevailing considerably exceeded Former Client's settlement offer. A notice of dismissal with prejudice of the arbitration claim was filed with FINRA and without awarding of attorney's fees to Former Client. The allegations also did not meet the definition of sales practice violations.