EDWARD JONES

Discharged

BRITTAIN WAS TERMINATED AFTER HE ADMITTED HE HAD PURPOSEFULLY SUBMITTED AN INACCURATE SEMINAR REIMBURSEMENT FORM TO THE FIRM.

IN APRIL OF 2010, I ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT MY VERY FIRST INVESTOR SEMINAR. AS A FIRST YEAR FA WITH EDWARD JONES, THE FIRM WILL REIMBURSE UP TO $300 OF THE EXPENSE, SO WE SET IT UP AS A DINNER SEMINAR AT A LOCAL RESTAURANT. I DECIDED TO PRESENT ONE OF THE APPROVED SEMINARS, THE SUBJECT OF THAT MONTH'S PUBLICATION, WRITTEN BY MR. ALAN SKRAINKA, WHO WAS THE CURRENT CHIEF INVESTMENT COMMENTATOR EMPLOYED BY EDWARD JONES. IT WAS ENTITLED 'DEMYSTIFYING THE DEFICIT." FOLLOWING THE PROTOCOL, I OBTAINED WRITTEN PERMISSION TO CONDUCT THE SEMINAR AND THEN MADE APPROPRIATE PREPARATIONS, E.G. SENDING OUT INVITATIONS, OBTAINING RSVP'S, MAILING OUT PRESENTATION MATERIALS, ETC. THE DATE WAS SET FOR MAY 10, 2010. TWO DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT, I CALLED IN TO HQ ONE LAST TIME TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS ALL SET. I WAS THEN INFORMED THAT MR. SKRAINKA HAD BEEN FIRED BY THE FIRM FOR PLAGIARIZING MATERIALS IN THE FIRM'S PUBLICATIONS, THEY WERE IN LITIGATION WITH HIM, AND THAT ALL OF HIS MATERIALS WERE UNDER MORATORIUM. SO I COULDN'T PRESENT WHAT I HAD PLANNED. IT WAS TOO LATE TO START OVER, SO I ASKED THEM WHAT I SHOULD DO. I COULD STILL GO AHEAD WITH THE SEMINAR AS LONG AS I PRESENTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT, USING ANY OF THE MATERIAL NOT WRITTEN BY MR. SKRAINKA. I CHOSE A GENERIC INVESTING ADVISE SHOW CALLED 'RULES OF THE ROAD.' ON THE DAY OF THE SEMINAR, MY ASSISTANT AND I COLLECTED THE PROSCRIBED "DEMYSTIFYING THE DEFICIT' MATERIALS FROM ATTENDEES, AND PASSED OUT THE NEW MATERIALS FOR "RULES OF THE ROAD.' THE SEMINAR WAS CONDUCTED ACCORDINGLY, WITH APPROPRIATE BUT LIMITED EXPLANATIONS, AND ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEFICIT WERE ANSWERED GENERICALLY AND STEERED BACK TOWARDS THE SEMINAR MATERIAL. 3 DAYS AFTER THE SEMINAR, FIELD COMPLIANCE CALLED AND SAID THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN CONFUSING RESPONSES FROM SEMINAR ATTENDEES REGARDING THE SUBJECT PRESENTED. THEY DEDUCED FROM RESPONSES THAT I HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE RULES AND HAD ACTUALLY PRESENTED THE MATERIAL I HAD BEEN TOLD NOT TO PRESENT. AND, AS SUCH, ON MY SUBMISSION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SEMINAR COSTS, INCLUDING RECEIPTS, I HAD INDICATED THAT I HAD PRESENTED "RULES OF THE ROAD", PER INSTRUCTIONS. MY RESPONSE TO FIELD COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ONE OF GREAT SURPRISE. AFTER ALL, A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF MY AUDIENCE WAS ELDERLY, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFICIT, AND I HAD SENT THEM MATERIAL BEFOREHAND REGARDING THE DEFICIT. THEY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEFICIT, AND WERE ANSWERED FROM MY OWN KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE SUBJECT. THEY WERE UNDERSTANDABLY CONFUSED. HOWEVER, FIELD COMPLIANCE STATED THAT DUE TO THE LITIGATION WITH WHICH THE FIRM WAS THEN UNDERGOING WITH ALAN SKRAINKA REGARDING HIS MATERIAL, THEY FELT IT BEST TO RECOMMEND TERMINATION OF MY CONTRACT. THEY SIMPLY DID NOT WANT ANY APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING. THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS ACCEPTED AND I WAS DISCHARGED. BECAUSE MY RECEIPTS AND SIGNED MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE FIRM WERE LABELED 'RULES OF THE ROAD' AND NOT 'DEMYSTIFYING THE DEFICIT', THEY FELT I HAD PRESENTED PROSCRIBED MATERIAL AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT. NO ARGUMENT THAT I OR MY ASSISTANT MADE ON MY BEHALF WAS SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE THAT OPINION.