7/08-10/08; CLIENT STATES HE ADVISED THE FA IN JULY 2008 THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO SEE THE BALANCE OF HIS ACCOUNTS LOWER THAN $400K. CLIENT IS VERY UPSET THAT THE FA DID NOT GET HIM OUT OF MARKET BEFORE THE ACCOUNT FELL BELOW THE SPECIFIED LEVEL AND HAS INDICATED HE ADVISED THE FA THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO 'STAY WITH THE INVESTMENT PLAN'. CLIENT REQUESTS THAT HIS ACCOUNT BE RESTORED TO THE $400K LEVEL. *****LITIGATION: PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT HE HELD ACCOUNTS AT EDWARD JONES AND IN JULY OF 2008 HE TOLD HIS BROKER HE DID NOT WANT HIS ACCOUNTS EXPOSED TO FURTHER RISK BUT HIS BROKER FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT THE ACCOUNTS. (AMOUNT CLAIMED: A $ AMOUNT GREATER THAN $10,000 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES PLUS COSTS.)

$5,000.00

$13,000.00

ACCORDING TO THE FA, HE DID RECEIVE THE CLIENT'S E-MAIL DATED JULY 4, 2008 AND HE SPOKE WITH THE CLIENT ON JULY 8, 2008. THE FA HAS INDICATED HE REVIEWED THE FIRM'S INVESTMENTS PHILOSOPHY OF BUYING AND HOLDING QUALITY INVESTMENTS FOR THE LONG TERM. IN ADDITION, HE PROVIDED HIS TELEPHONE NUMBERS (HOME AND CELL) AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CLIENT CONTACT HIM WITH ANY CONCERNS. THE FA HAS STATED HE SPOKE WITH THE CLIENT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE CLIENT VISITED THE FA'S OFFICE ON OCTOBER 24, 2008 EXPRESSING CONCERNS REGARDING THE BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT AND REFERRING TO THE JULY 4, 2008 E-MAIL. THE FA HAS INDICATED HE REMINDED THE CLIENT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD AFTER HE RECEIVED THE E-MAIL AND THE CLIENT'S DECISION TO REMAIN INVESTED. IN ADDITION, THE CLIENT HAS RECEIVED STATEMENTS WHICH HAVE PROVIDED INFORMATION REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT AS WELL AS REFLECTING ACCOUNT ACTIVITY. CLAIM DENIED. LITIGATION: SETTLED UPON PAYMENT OF $13,000. 12/20/11.