FINRA

Without admitting or denying the findings, Kinsman consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to appear for on-the-record testimony that was requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into the events resulting in Kinsman's termination from his member firm and sales practice complaints. The findings stated that the firm filed a Form U5, stating that it had discharged Kinsman for unprofessional conduct.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Bar (Permanent)

All capacities

Indefinite

5/20/2020

Claimant alleges that from 2012 through 2017, the FA made unsuitable investment recommendations, forgery and falsifying business records.

$995,000.00

I WAS NOT A NAMED PARTY IN FINRA ARBITRATION DOCKET/CASE # 19-00957 WHICH WAS FILED ON 04/09/2019. I DISAGREE WITH ALL CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE CLAIMANT. THE ARBITRATION WHICH WAS SETTLED ON 05/09/2020 FOR $995,000.00 WAS ENTIRELY PAID BY WELLS FARGO ADVISORS FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC WHILE THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS $0.00. THE WELLS FARGO STATEMENT REGARDING THE ARBITRATION SETTLEMENT IS, "WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY LIABILITY, THE FIRM SETTLED THE MATTER FOR $995,000.00 TO AVOID THE EXPENSE AND DISTRACTION OF FURTHER LITIGATION." PLEASE SEE DISCLOSURE 1 OF 4, PAGE 13 OF THE DETAILED REPORT.

Client alleged they were told their investment was principal protected, would be guaranteed an annual return of at least 5%, and had no fees associated with it. (11/19/2014-10/17/2016)

$24,000.00

After several meetings over the course of over 6 months working alongside with the grantor, beneficiaries, trustees, and the client's estate attorney and accountant, we conducted several suitability studies, reviewed total client assets, risk tolerance, financial goals, and the purpose of funds invested was to gain access to death benefit rider, transfer wealth to beneficiaries of trust, and gain tax deferred growth in variable annuity investments within an irrevocable trust. Investment was suitable based on the suitability studies, documented assets to be included inside the trust, and disclosed personal assets outside of the trust. Liquidity needs for funds invested were stated as none. Although the result was liquidation of the policies to satisfy the client, the client did not sustain losses on investments made. Matter was settled to avoid the uncertainty and cost of litigation and arbitration.

Claimant alleges that investment recommendations were misrepresented and unsuitable.

$50,000.00

Claimant voluntarily dismissed all claims

THIS VERBAL COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SALE OF AN AUCTION RATE SECURITY (ARS) THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE WIDESPREAD ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY 2008.

$200,626.00

THIS MATTER INVOLVES THE SALE OF AUCTION RATE SECURITIES (ARS). THE TRANSACTION(S) AT ISSUE TOOK PLACE BEFORE MID-FEBRUARY 2008, WHEN THE ARS MARKET SUFFERED WIDESPREAD AUCTION FAILURES AND ILLIQUIDITY. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CAUSE, CONTRIBUTE OR HAVE ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THESE MARKET EVENTS. THE FIRM REACHED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN OF ITS REGULATORS, PURSUANT TO WHICH IT REPURCHASED ARS FOR THEIR FULL PAR VALUE FROM CERTAIN CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTANT CLIENT, WHETHER THEY COMPLAINED OR NOT. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE CLIENT, AND WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE REPURCHASE AMOUNT. THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IN ITEM 11 ABOVE REFLECTS THE PAR VALUE OF THE REPURCHASED ARS, AS REQUIRED BY FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12. REPRESENTATIVE DISPUTES THE ASSERTION IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH

CLIENT WAS UNHAPPY WITH PERFORMANCE WITH ACCOUNT.FILED COMPLAINT WITH MY COMPANY,ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH CLIENTS COMPLAINT.MY FIRM DECIDED TO SETTLE COMPLAINT WITH [CUSTOMERS].

$180,000.00

$180,000.00