CLIENT CLAIMS THAT REPRESENTATIVE REALLOCATED FUNDS IN THE SUBACCOUNTS WITHIN HIS VARIABLE ANNUITY WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.

$1,154,176.00

RR WAS DISMISSED FROM THE LAWSUIT PRIOR TO FINAL CONSUMMATION OF THE SETTLEMENT WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF WRONG DOING.

CLIENT ALLEGED INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UNSUITABLE. SHE ALSO ALLEGED THAT INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DID NOT PROVIDE DIVERSIFICATION OR LIQUIDITY. SHE CLAIMED TOTAL DAMAGES OF $34,905.00 WHICH REPRESENTED LOST PRINCIPAL, REASONABLE APPRECIATION, LEGAL FEES AND ACCOUNTING FEES.

$34,905.00

$14,000.00

MATTER WAS SETTLED FOR $14,000.00 TFR AND RR DENIED ANY LIABILITY FOR THE MATTERS ALLEGED IN CUSTOMER`S CLAIM. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE MATTER, AND TO AVOID THE EXPENSE OF ARBITRATION,TFR AND RR AGREED TO SETTLE THE MATTER FOR $14,000.

ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION TO THE GUARANTEE OF PRINCIPAL, AS WELL AS LACK OF SUITABILITY REGARDING CLIENT'S 11-21-89 PURCHASE OF THE MFS GOVERNMENT INCOME PLUS TRUST. DAMAGES CLAIMED WERE $15,255.49.

$15,255.49

$11,943.39

TSF AND RR DENIED ANY AND ALL LIABILITY FOR THE MATTERS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE MATTER TFR AGREED TO PAY THE CLIENT $11,943.39. RR AGREED TO SHARE IN 50% OF THIS FINAL SETTLEMENT. THE INDIANA DIVISION OF SECURITIES CLOSED THE FILE ON THE CASE ON MARCH 3, 1993, WITH NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN.IN RR 25 YEARS IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, THERE ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO CLIENTS THAT POSSIBLY RECEIVED MORE ATTENTION AND SERVICES FROM ME THAN THE CUSTOMERS. ALL TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE OVER A MULTI-APPOINTMENT FORMAT. INFORMATION WAS TYPICALLY DISCUSSED TWO OR THREE TIME BEFORE A DECISION WAS MADE. THE CLIENT WAS NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THE NAV DECREASE IN THE MFS FUNDS, AND LET IT BECOME AN OBSESSION. RR FIRMLY DENY AND DISMISS ANY AND ALL ALLEGATIONS THAT I IN ANY WAY SET OUT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CLIENT OR DO ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS.