THE COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SALE OF AN AUCTION RATE SECURITY (ARS) THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE WIDESPREAD ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY 2008.

$125,000.00

THE COMPLAINT AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INDUSTRY WIDE BREAKDOWN OF THE LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKET FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIES ("ARS"). THE FIRM AGREED TO REPURCHASE THE ARS SECURITIES AT ISSUE AT PAR VALUE FROM THE CLIENT PURSUANT TO A GLOBAL REPURCHASE AGREEMENT IT ENTERED INTO WITH SEVERAL REGULATORY BODIES. THIS WAS NOT A SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS NOT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLIENT'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR ANY FINDING OF FAULT OR WRONGDOING BY THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT A PARTY TO, AND DID NOT AGREE TO OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE RELEVANT REGULATORY BODIES. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CLIENT AND THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. THE LISTED "SETTLEMENT AMOUNT" REPRESENTS ONLY THE GROSS INITIAL PAR VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AT THE TIME THE FIRM RECEIVED IT BACK FROM THE CLIENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT. THIS MATTER IS BEING REPORTED AS A SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.

THE COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SALE OF AN AUCTION RATE SECURITY (ARS) THAT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE WIDESPREAD ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY 2008.

$800,000.00

THE COMPLAINT AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INDUSTRY WIDE BREAKDOWN OF THE LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKET FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIES ("ARS"). THE FIRM AGREED TO REPURCHASE THE ARS SECURITIES AT ISSUE AT PAR VALUE FROM THE CLIENT PURSUANT TO A GLOBAL REPURCHASE AGREEMENT IT ENTERED INTO WITH SEVERAL REGULATORY BODIES. THIS WAS NOT A SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS NOT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLIENT'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR ANY FINDING OF FAULT OR WRONGDOING BY THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT A PARTY TO, AND DID NOT AGREE TO OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE RELEVANT REGULATORY BODIES. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CLIENT AND THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. THE LISTED "SETTLEMENT AMOUNT" REPRESENTS ONLY THE GROSS INITIAL PAR VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AT THE TIME THE FIRM RECEIVED IT BACK FROM THE CLIENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT. THIS MATTER IS BEING REPORTED AS A SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.

CLIENT'S COUNSEL ALLEGES THE SECURITIES [AUCTION RATE SECURITIES] WERE RECOMMENDED AND TOUTED AS SAFE, CASH EQUIVALENT, AND COMPLETELY LIQUID INVESTMENTS? JUST LIKE A MONEY MARKET. COUNSEL FURTHER ALLEGES THE CLIENT GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO HOLD THE FUNDS LIQUID UNTIL SHE FOUND A SUITABLE HOME. DAMAGES ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $5,000.

$5,000.00

$1,025,000.00

THE COMPLAINT AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INDUSTRY WIDE BREAKDOWN OF THE LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKET FOR AUCTION RATE SECURITIES ("ARS"). THE FIRM AGREED TO REPURCHASE THE ARS SECURITIES AT ISSUE AT PAR VALUE FROM THE CLIENT PURSUANT TO A GLOBAL REPURCHASE AGREEMENT IT ENTERED INTO WITH SEVERAL REGULATORY BODIES. THIS WAS NOT A SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS NOT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE CLIENT'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR ANY FINDING OF FAULT OR WRONGDOING BY THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT A PARTY TO, AND DID NOT AGREE TO OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE RELEVANT REGULATORY BODIES. THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO THE CLIENT AND THE NAMED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ASKED TO AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. THE LISTED "SETTLEMENT AMOUNT" REPRESENTS ONLY THE GROSS INITIAL PAR VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE ARS POSITION AT THE TIME THE FIRM RECEIVED IT BACK FROM THE CLIENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT. THIS MATTER IS BEING REPORTED AS A SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA REGULATORY NOTICE 09-12.

CLIENT ALLEGES THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR FAILED TO FOLLOW HER INSTRUCTIONS TO PURCHASE SHARES OF PARKERVISION AS SHE INSTRUCTED. CLIENT FURTHER STATES SHE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED IMMEDIATELY.

$22,500.00

$14,500.00

BASED ON MY ORIGINAL CONVERSATION WITH THE CLIENT, I EXECUTED THE ORDER AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. CLIENT THEN SENT AN EMAIL (WHIEH WE DO NOT ACT UPON) TO PUT 100% OF THE ACCOUNT VALUE INTO THE STOCK. BASED ON MY RESEARCH AND ON MY 31 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, I CONSIDERED THE TRASACTION INAPPROPRIATE AND TOO AGGRESSIVE. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY ACCUMULATE MORE SHARES AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.