FINRA

NASD RULE 2110, 2310: KAY WORKED AS A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE SERVICING CUSTOMERS OF HIS MEMBER FIRM'S AFFILIATED BANK. BETWEEN LATE 2006 AND EARLY 2008, AT LEAST NINE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS OR COUPLES, ALL OF WHOM WERE REFERRED TO KAY BY THE FIRM'S BANK EMPLOYEES, SOUGHT SAFE AND SECURE INVESTMENTS WHICH WOULD NOT FLUCTUATE IN VALUE AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, WOULD PAY FIXED RATES OF RETURNS. KAY LED THESE CUSTOMERS INTO BELIEVING, THROUGH HIS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY WERE PURCHASING INVESTMENTS THAT MET THOSE CRITERIA. KAY MISREPRESENTED THE NATURE OF THE INVESTMENTS TO THESE CUSTOMERS, LEADING THEM, THROUGH AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS OR OMISSIONS, TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE INVESTING IN SAFE PRODUCTS, SUCH AS GOVERNMENT BONDS OR BANK INSTRUMENTS, THE PRINCIPAL VALUE OF WHICH WOULD NOT FLUCTUATE, WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE INVESTING IN MATERIALLY DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RISK. KAY FAILED TO TELL EACH OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT THEY WERE INVESTING IN MUTUAL FUNDS. KAY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE RISKS OF THE INVESTMENTS TO HIS CUSTOMERS, LEADING THEM TO ACCEPT HIS RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED INVESTMENT AND FAILED TO ENSURE THAT HIS CUSTOMERS UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF THESE INVESTMENTS.

Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

$50,000.00

Suspension

ALL CAPACITIES

ONE YEAR

1/3/2011

1/2/2012

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, KAY CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE, HE IS FINED $50,000 AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR ONE YEAR. THE FINE IS DUE AND PAYABLE EITHER IMMEDIATELY UPON RE-ASSOCIATION WITH A MEMBER FIRM FOLLOWING HIS SUSPENSION OR PRIOR TO ANY REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM ANY STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION RESULTING FROM THIS OR ANY OTHER EVENT OR PROCEEDING, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE SUSPENSION IS IN EFFECT FROM JANUARY 3, 2011, THROUGH JANUARY 2, 2012.

WELLS FARGO INVESTMENTS, LLC

Permitted to Resign

NASD RULE 2110, 2310: KAY WORKED AS A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE SERVICING CUSTOMERS OF HIS MEMBER FIRM'S AFFILIATED BANK. BETWEEN LATE 2006 AND EARLY 2008, AT LEAST NINE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS OR COUPLES, ALL OF WHOM WERE REFERRED TO KAY BY THE FIRM'S BANK EMPLOYEES, SOUGHT SAFE AND SECURE INVESTMENTS WHICH WOULD NOT FLUCTUATE IN VALUE AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, WOULD PAY FIXED RATES OF RETURNS. KAY LED THESE CUSTOMERS INTO BELIEVING, THROUGH HIS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY WERE PURCHASING INVESTMENTS THAT MET THOSE CRITERIA. KAY MISREPRESENTED THE NATURE OF THE INVESTMENTS TO THESE CUSTOMERS, LEADING THEM, THROUGH AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS OR OMISSIONS, TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE INVESTING IN SAFE PRODUCTS, SUCH AS GOVERNMENT BONDS OR BANK INSTRUMENTS, THE PRINCIPAL VALUE OF WHICH WOULD NOT FLUCTUATE, WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE INVESTING IN MATERIALLY DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RISK. KAY FAILED TO TELL EACH OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT THEY WERE INVESTING IN MUTUAL FUNDS. KAY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE RISKS OF THE INVESTMENTS TO HIS CUSTOMERS, LEADING THEM TO ACCEPT HIS RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED INVESTMENT AND FAILED TO ENSURE THAT HIS CUSTOMERS UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF THESE INVESTMENTS.

CLIENTS FILED A VERBAL COMPLAINT ON 12/8/08 ALLEGING SUITABILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH A MUTUAL FUND PURCHASE MADE MARCH 6, 2007. NO DAMAGES STATED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$10,624.42

VERBAL COMPLAINT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE ON APRIL 26,2007, OCTOBER 5, 2007, AND DECEMBER 7, 2007. DAMAGES UNSTATED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$75,459.55

VERBAL COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISREPRESENTATION; PURCHASE OCCURRED ON MARCH 9, 2007.

$17,601.57

CLIENTS FILED A VERBAL COMPLAINT ON 9/30/08 ALLEGING MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH MUTUAL PURCHASES MADE MARCH - SEPTEMBER 2007. NO DAMAGES STATED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$24,641.10

CLIENT VERBALLY ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION. NO DAMAGES STATED.

$21,745.66

COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT A MUTUAL FUND PURCHASED MARCH 8, 2007 WAS MISREPRESENTED AS BEING GUARANTEED. NO DAMAGES STATED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$12,879.06

VERBAL COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE ON OCTOBER 9, 2006 - MAY 15, 2008. THE ALLEGED COMPENSATORY DAMAGED AMOUNT WAS NOT STATED, BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$60,818.84

COMPLAINT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE MAY 7, 2007, MAY 21, 2007, AND NOVEMBER 9, 2007. NO DAMAGES STATED IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND GOOD FAITH ESTIMATED OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES WAS UNDER $5,000.

$21,992.72

CLIENT ALLEGED THAT HE WANTED TO INVEST EXCESS CASH INTO SOMETHING LIQUID AND SAFE, AND THAT DESPITE BEING TOLD THAT IF HE KEPT HIS INVESTMENT FOR ONE YEAR HE COULD EARN 7.5% WITHOUT RISK TO PRINCIPAL, HIS ACCOUNT DECLINED IN VALUE. CLIENT INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS ON JUNE 8, 2007, JULY 17, 2007, AND DECEMBER 3, 2007. DAMAGES UNSTATED BUT BELIEVED TO EXCEED $5,000.

$5,648.77

COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT INCOME FUNDS WERE MISREPRESENTED AS A GUARANTEED GOVERNMENT BOND IF HELD FOR ONE YEAR. THE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED ON JUNE 18, 2007. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES UNSTATED BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$26,200.00

COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT AN INCOME ORIENTED BOND FUND WAS SOLD AS A BOND THAT HAD NO RISK. CLIENT STATED HE WAS LIED TO. MUTUAL FUND PURCHASE IN QUESTION OCCURRED ON JANUARY 17, 2008.

$6,000.00

$5,247.81

CLIENT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES. FUNDS WERE PURCHASED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2007, MARCH 7, 2007, AND APRIL 11, 2007. DAMAGES UNSTATED BUT BELIEVED TO EXCEED $5,000.

$7,066.31

COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT MUTUAL FUNDS WERE RECOMMENDED AS BEING SAFE AND THAT THE PRINCIPAL WOULD NOT BE AT RISK. MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES OCCURRED BETWEEN APRIL 30, 2007 AND MARCH 13, 2008. CLIENT DID NOT STATE SPECIFIC COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, BUT REQUESTED TO BE MADE WHOLE (REALIZED LOSSED EXCEED $5,000).

$11,860.65

COMPLAINT ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION OF A MUTUAL FUND. CLIENT REQUESTED RETURN OF FULL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AS SHE STATED SHE WAS TOLD THE PRINCIPAL WAS 100% GUARANTEED. DAMAGES NOT SPECIFIED BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$13,750.00