IN APRIL, 2015, THE CUSTOMER MET WITH ROBERT M. LESTER, JR. AT THE TALON WEALTH MANAGEMENT (DBA) OFFICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING THE 401K ASSETS OF [CUSTOMER'S] FROM AXA & AMERICAN FUNDS AND INVEST AN ADDITIONAL $600,000 WITH LESTER. [CUSTOMER] ALLEGES THAT LESTER AND/OR HIS PARTNER, [THIRD PARTY] SOLD SEVERAL STOCKS WITHOUT HER EXPRESSED PERMISSION OR AUTHORIZATION.

$5,000.00

ALTHOUGH, AT THE TIME OF THE ACTIVITY, THE RR WAS REGISTERED WITH TCM SECURITIES, INC., THE TRANSACTIONS THAT [CUSTOMER] ALLEGES WERE EFFECTED WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION WERE NOT EFFECTED THROUGH TCM SECURITIES, INC. [CUSTOMER] WANTED A MANAGED ACCOUNT, SO I TURNED THE HANDLING OF HER ACCOUNT OVER TO MY PARTNER, [THIRD PARTY] WHO USED HIS RIA BD PLATFORM TO EXECUTE THE SECURITY TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THE COMPLAINT'S ACCOUNT WAS RETURNED TO THE STATE IT WAS IN PRIOR TO THE SALES OF SECURITIES IN HER ACCOUNT AND NO LOSSES WERE INCURRED BY HER. FINRA'S ATLANTA, GA. DISTRICT 7 OFFICE MADE AN INQUIRY INTO THE CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT AND DETERMINED TO CLOSE THEIR INQUIRY WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION. TCM CLOSED THE CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT ON 10-15-2015.

ROBERT LESTER WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD FOR CUSTOMERS' BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS HELD WITH ING FINANCIAL PARTNERS, THE FUNDS FROM WHICH WERE USED TO PURCHASE TWO EQUITY-INDEXED ANNUITIES ("EIAS") THROUGH ANOTHER INSURANCE COMPANY NOT AFFILIATED WITH ING FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC. CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT OUR FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED THEY PURCHASE THE EIAS; HOWEVER, OUR FIRM'S REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT SELL THE EIAS IN QUESTION TO THE CUSTOMERS. CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD PURCHASED THEIR EIAS IN JUNE 2008 BUT THAT THEY WERE DATED JULY 2008, AND THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE EIA CONTRACTS AND A PROSPECTUS UNTIL AUGUST 2008. CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THEY DO NOT KNOW THE REPRESENTATIVE AFFILIATED WITH THE THIRD-PARTY INSURER AND THAT THE EIAS HAVE LONGER SURRENDER PERIODS THAN THEY WANTED. CUSTOMERS REQUEST TO HAVE THEIR PREMIUMS REFUNDED.

$24,160.00

THE ALLEGED DAMAGES AMOUNT WAS INITIALLY INDICATED AS $0.00 BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT HAD ALLEGED NO DOLLAR AMOUNT; AT THAT TIME, THE FIRM WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION THAT DAMAGES FROM THE ALLEGED CONDUCT WOULD BE LESS THAN $5,000. BECAUSE THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO SOLD THE EQUITY-INDEXED ANNUITIES WAS NOT AFFILIATED WITH ING FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC., BUT RATHER A REPRESENTATIVE AFFILIATED WITH A THIRD-PARTY INSURER, THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER WAS HANDLED BY THAT THIRD-PARTY ENTITY. ING FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC. IS FILING THIS U-4 AMENDMENT BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVE WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD FOR THE BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS USED TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF THE EQUITY-INDEXED ANNUITIES IN QUESTION, AND THE CUSTOMERS NAMED HIM IN THEIR WRITTEN COMPLAINT. WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY OR WRONGDOING, THE FIRM AND REPRESENTATIVE ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CUSTOMER IN EXCHANGE FOR A RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS. THE SETTLEMENT WAS MADE SOLELY FOR BUSINESS REASONS AND TO AVOID A LENGTHY AND COSTLY LEGAL PROCEEDING.

THE CLIENTS HAVE VISITED WITH ANOTHER PERSON AND HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VA SOLD TO HIM BY THE AGENT IS NOT SUITABLE GIVEN HIS AGE. THE PRODUCT HAS ALREADY GONE DOWN AND HE STATES THEY WERE PROMISED A 7% MINIMUM. THEY WANT OUT OF THE CONTRACT WITHOUT PENALTY.

$13,373.00

AFTER DISCLOSURES WITH THE CLIENTS, THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO WITHDRAW THEIR PREVIOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE AGENT. THEY RECEIVED SOME INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER AGENT WHICH MADE THEM THINK THE PRODUCT WAS MISREPRESENTED TO THEM. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATION, THE CLIENT REMEMBERED THE PURPOSE AND FEATURES AND WAS SORRY THEY COMPLAINED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

CHARGE-BURGLARY 1. ONE COUNT 2. FELONE 3. NOT GUILTY

FELONY

A. PRETRIAL B. 6/2/1992 C. NONE D. NONE E. NONE F. NONE G. NONE

WRONG PLACE AT WRONG TIME. SOME FRIENDS IN HIGH SHCOOL STOLE SOME BEER, I WAS MISTAKEN FOR HAVING BEEN INVOLVED, SO I WAS ARRESTED WITH THEM FOR BURGLARY, THE STATE CLSED THE CASE AGAINST ME AFTER REALIZING I WASN'T AN ACCOMPLICE