Karen Boykin was a subject of the customers' complaint against her member firms that asserted the following causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Missouri's Securities Act § 409-5.501 et al, common law fraud, breach of contract, negligence/negligent misrepresentation/omission, unjust enrichment, and negligent supervision.

$500,000.00

Client purchased an income producing alternative investment that did not perform well and is still winding down. The investment is expected to return approximately 80% of the invested amount once the SEC approves the distribution plan. After a full arbitration, no attorney's fees were awarded, and Woodbury's original offer to the client to repurchase the alternative investment at its full value was granted. No awards were granted on any other products aside from the one alternative investment.

CLIENT ALLEGES THAT HER ENTIRE NET WORTH WAS INVESTED INTO TWO VARIABLE ANNUITIES WHICH ARE ILLIQUID. CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HER ACCESS TO HER FUNDS WITHOUT THE IMPOSITION OF SURRENDER CHARGES.

CLIENT WITHDREW HER COMPLAINT. AS SUCH, THE FIRM CONSIDERS THIS MATTER CLOSED.

BASED ON THE FORM U5 AMENDMENT FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE'S PREDECESSOR BROKER DEALER, WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN OR AROUND JULY AND AUGUST 2007, THE CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THE AGENT ALLOCATED THEIR MONEY IN A HIGH-RISK TOLERANCE CATEGORY INSTEAD OF IN A MODERATE RISK CATEGORY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR RISK PROFILES. THE CUSTOMERS MAINTAIN AS A RESULT, THEY LOST 40% OF THEIR INVESTMENT INSTEAD OF 15%.