CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT CERTAIN REIT RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN 2005 AND 2006 WERE NOT SUITABLE FOR THEM.

$250,000.00

$40,000.00

CLAIMANT INITIATED A CLAIM AGAINST ME ASSERTING THAT THEY EXPERIENCED DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $250,000. THEY SPOKE OF UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY REFERENCED THEIR AGE AS RETIREES TO SEEMINGLY INFER THAT THEY WERE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF-AGAIN ALL OF THIS WAS LAID OUT IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THEY ATTESTED TO. CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THIS CASE MUST BE POINTED OUT. ROYAL ALLIANCE, ALSO NAMED IN THIS CLAIM, INITIATED A 3RD PARTY PORTFOLIO REVIEW AND DISCOVERED AS I STATED THAT THESE CLIENTS EXPERIENCED A POSITIVE TOTAL RETURN-CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM. AT THIS POINT IN TIME CLAIMANT THEN INSISTED ON REMOVING THOSE HOLDINGS THAT PERFORMED TO THE POSITIVE AND ONLY FOCUS ON THE HOLDINGS THAT WERE NOT POSITIVE-A THEORY THAT WOULD GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE AND ACCORDINGLY TO PRIOR CASE STUDY-UNACCEPTABLE. OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT IS THAT FACT THAT THIS CLAIM HAD EXCEEDED THE 6 YEAR ELIGIBILITY RULE SET FORTH BY FINRA-THIS ELEMENT CLAIMANTS OWN COUNSEL POINTS OUT ON HIS WEBSITE AS A QUALIFYING ISSUE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT MUST BE SAID THAT I WAS ABLE TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE IN WHOLE BY PROVIDING A $5,000 PAYMENT TO AVOID AN ARBITRATION COSTS THAT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE EXCEEDED $50,000 ACCORDING TO MY COUNSEL. THIS $5,000 PAYMENT REPRESENTED A VALUE FAR LESS THAN THE $250,000 CLAIM AT INCEPTION.

CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE REITS.

$170,000.00

$25,000.00

I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY FINRA OR MY FORMER BROKER/DEALER ROYAL ALLIANCE THAT ANY COMPLAINT IN ANY FORMAT EXISTED REGARDING [CUSTOMERS]. I WAS NEVER AFFORDED THAT ABILITY TO DOCUMENT FACTS RELATING TO THIS CLIENT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT APPROPRIATE PERSPECTIVE TO THIS ISSUE. SEVERAL THOUGHTS MUST BE NOTED: CLIENTS HOLDINGS WERE WITHIN REASONABLE STANDARDS RELATING TO RISK TOLERANCE, NET WORTH, TIME HORIZON AND PRODUCT ALLOCATION. I HAVE CLIENT SIGNED DOCUMENTATION TO FULLY SUPPORT THIS ALONG WITH SIGNED DOCUMENTATION ATTESTING TO THE FACT THAT THE CLIENT UNDERSTOOD ALL LIQUIDITY AND MARKET RISKS THAT WAS ASSOCIATED. THE CLIENTS "ALLEGED DAMAGE CLAIM" EXCEEDS THE TOTAL INVESTED INTO SAID PRODUCTS THUS THEY WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO EXPERIENCE MORE THAN TOTAL MARKET LOSS TO MEET THOSE FIGURES-WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE. IN ADDITION, THIS CLAIM DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REST OF THE CLIENT'S PORTFOLIO. LAST, I WAS NOT THE SOLICITING REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PRODUCTS ISOLATED IN THIS CLAIM AND IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE SOLICITATION OF THE TWO PROGRAMS OCCURRED IN 2004 WHICH PLACES THIS CLAIM BEYOND FINRA'S 6 YEAR LIMITATION RULE. I INTEND TO PURSUE ANY/ALL ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO ME AGAINST THIS CLIENT AND I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH ANY SETTLEMENT THAT ROYAL ALLIANCE HAS SAW FIT TO ENTER INTO.

CUSTOMER COMPLAINED THAT HER INVESTMENT WAS UNSUITABLE BASED ON HER INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND SOPHISTICATION.

[CUSTOMER], IN HER LETTER, IMPLIED THAT HER INVESTMENT WAS UNSUITABLE EFFECTIVELY DUE TO ILLIQUIDITY. SHE FAILED TO MENTION THAT THIS HOLDING EQUALS LESS THAN 2% OF HER LIQUID ESTATE AND THE FACT THAT 98% WAS READILY AVAILABLE. FURTHER, SHE SIGNED MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS AFFIRMING THAT LIQUIDITY MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE. ROYAL ALLIANCE ASSOCIATES, INC DENIED CLAIM.

CUSTOMER ALLEGES IT WAS UNSUITABLE FOR MR. KEYES TO RECOMMEND HE INVEST IN A VARIABLE ANNUITY.

$19,023.94

THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY REVIEWED THE COMPLAINT AND COULD "FIND NO REASON WHY MR. KEYES SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DECISIONS" THE CLIENT MADE. THE STATE ALSO NOTIFIED THE CUSTOMER THAT MR. KEYES HAD NOT "VIOLATED ANY INSURANCE LAWS OR REGULATIONS WITH THIS TRANSACTION."

UNSUITABLE VARIABLE ANNUITIES FROM 2000.

$90,000.00

$26,500.00

MR. RUDE, ACCORDING TO A LETTER DRATED ON 8/6/2003, ALLEGES THAT A VARIABLE ANNUITY HE PURCHASED WAS MISREPRESENTED TO HIM AND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT CONSISTANT WITH HIS INVESTMENT RISK. CLIENT ALSO CLAIMS THAT HE WAS INFORMED THE NEVADA LIFE AND HEALTH INS. GUARANTY ASSN. WOULD PROTECT HIS PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT.

$47,000.00

MR RUDE WAS A CLIENT OF THE FIRM THAT I FORMERLY WORKED FOR. THE WRITING AGENT, PATRICK WILDE, WAS THE SERVICING AGENT. MY ROLE WAS THAT OF A TEAM, AND I SAT IN ON THE CALL WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS EXPLAINED TO MR. RUDE. THE PROGRAM THAT MR. RUDE IS SPEAKING OF DOES FEATURE 100% PRINCIPAL PROTECTION FOR THE PARTICIPANT, BOTH WHILE LIVING AND AT DEATH. FURTHER, FROM MEMORY, THE INITIAL PORTFOLIO THAT MR. RUDE AGREED ON HAS HELD UP EXTREMELY WELL DURING THIS MARKET DECLINE. PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH AIG AND SAI HAVE FOUND NO MERIT TOWARDS THIS CLAIM. THE STATE OF NEVADA, I BELIVE, ALSO HAS DISCOVERED NO WRONG DOING.

ALLEGE UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN SUB-ACCOUNTS OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY

$30,000.00