Plaintiff alleges that her Financial Advisor mismanaged her accounts and made misrepresentations about the sale of a variable annuity.

$7,500.00

Without admitting any liability, the Firm settled the matter for $7,500.00 to avoid further costs associated with the arbitration proceedings.

FLORIDA CLIENTS CLAIMED THAT THE FA DID NOT COMMUNICATE TO THEM THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CLASS B SHARES. THE CLIENTS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE FA PURCHASED OVER $120,000 CLASS B SHARES IN THE WIFE'S IRA ACCOUNT SPREAD AMONGST FIVE DIFFERENT FUND FAMILIES ABWBX, FSINX, FIIBX; FURTHER THAT THE FA PURCHASED SOME OF THE SAME FUND FAMILIES, CLASS B SHARES AS WELL, IN THE HUSBAND'S IRA ACCOUNT TOTALING OVER $40,000. THE CLIENTS' OPENED THEIR IRA ACCOUNTS ON MAY 9, 2007. THE CLIENTS CLAIMED THAT THEY RECENTLY LEARNED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BREAKPOINTS HAD CLASS A SHARES BEEN PURCHASED, SAVING THEM FEES FROM THE LOAD AND DECREASING THE ANNUAL EXPENSE RATION. THE CLIENTS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE FA PURCHASED SOME OF THE SAME FUND FAMILIES IN THEIR FEE-BASED DISCRETIONARY ADVISORY JOINT ACCOUNT WHICH WAS OPENED ON APRIL 10, 2007.THE CLIENTS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THEY PURCHASED AN AXA EQUITABLE ACCUMULATOR PLUS SERIES 07 VARIABLE ANNUITY IN DECEMBER 2007 MAKING A PREMIUM PAYMENT OF $200,000. THE CLIENTS CLAIMED THAT THE FA TOLD THEM THEY WERE GUARANTEED 6% ON THE ANNUITY BUT FAILED TO TELL THEM THE FEES WOULD RUN 3% PER YEAR. NO DAMAGES WERE SPECIFIED; HOWEVER, DAMAGES ARE REASONABLY ESTIMATED TO BE OVER $5,000.

THE FIRM DENIED THE COMPLAINT VIA A LETTER TO THE CLIENTS ON MARCH 18, 2009. PER THE FA, HE FULLY EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENTS THE VARIOUS PRICING OPTIONS AVAILABLE WITH THE MUTUAL FUNDS THAT HE RECOMMENDED TO THEM I.E. CLASS A, B AND C SHARES AND THE COSTS AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SHARE CLASS. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT OVERALL THE CLIENTS APPEARED TO BE BETTER OFF HAVING INVESTED IN CLASS B SHARES RATHER THEN CLASS A SHARES BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNDS IN QUESTION, ETC. PER THE FA, HE REVIEWED THE AXA ANNUITY WITH THE CLIENTS AND DISCUSSED WITH THEM SUCH INFORMATION AS THE CHARACTERISTICS, TERMS, FEATURES, AVAILABLE RIDERS (E.G. GUARANTEED MINIMUM DEATH BENEFIT THE GMDB AND THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME BENEFIT THE GMIB), RISKS, COSTS AND FEES (INCLUDING THE PENALTIES FOR EARLY WITHDRAWALS), TAX BENEFITS, AND INVESTMENT OPTIONS (BOTH VARIABLE AND FIXED) ASSOCIATED WITH AN INVESTMENT IN THE AXA ANNUITY. THE FA PROVIDED THE CLIENTS WITH A BROCHURE FOR THE AXA ANNUITY AT THE POINT OF SALE. THE FA ALSO PROVIDED THE CLIENTS WITH A COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE AXA ANNUITY ON A CD. BOTH THE BROCHURE AND THE PROSPECTUS CONTAINED DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARGES, FEES, AND ANNUAL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AXA ANNUITY.

NEW YORK POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR NEW JERSEY CLIENT EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT FINANCIAL ADVISOR MARKETING VARIABLE ANNUITIES TO CLIENT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2003 TO 2006, AT TOTAL PURCHASE COST OF ABOUT $168,300, AND MUTUAL FUND SHARES IN 2003, A TOTAL PURCHASE COST OF ABOUT $19,540. POA SEEKS REFUND OF COMMISSIONS, SURRENDER AND EXIT FEES WHICH TOTAL ABOUT $12,833.

$12,833.00

SETTLED IN THE INTEREST OF CLIENT RELATIONS AND TO AVOID COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING FORMAL PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY FOR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY LOSSES FROM (I) THE VALUE OF AN ANNUITY LESS (II) THE ANNUITY PURCHASE AMOUNT PLUS THE AMOUNT THE CLIENT WOULD HAVE EARNED IF THE PURCHASE AMOUNT HAD BEEN INVESTED OTHERWISE. THE LOSSES EQUALLED $0 UPON SURRENDER OF THE ANNUITY ON FEBRUARY 8, 2007 SO THAT THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WAS $0.