BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, SUITABILITY, MISREPRESENTATIONS, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE AND FAILURE TO SUPERVISE.

$125,000.00

Claimants alleges-- Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Negligent Supervision, Violation of Securities Laws, and Fraud.

$75,000.00

$10,750.00

Claimant alleges: Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unsuitable Recommendations, Misrepresentation along with Breach of Contract and Omission of Material Fact.

$50,000.00

$33,000.00

Claimant alleges: unsuitability, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence

$160,000.00

failure to conduct due diligence, unsuitable, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation.

$75,000.00

$30,000.00

NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

$99,000.00

$15,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION.

$200,000.00

$100,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT.

$99,000.00

$175,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES USE OF DISCRETION, EXCESS TURNOVER OF ACCOUNTS, EXCESS COMMISSION AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES IMPROPER INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.

$150,000.00

$40,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS, FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ASSOCIATED RISK.

$143,000.00

$80,000.00

Arizona Corporation Commission Securities Division

LaBine's conduct is grounds to revoke his license as an investment adviser representative with the Commission pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-320l(A)(l0) and to revoke his registration as a securities salesman with the Commission pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-l962(A)(8). Specifically, LaBine is subject to an order of the SEC denying, revoking or suspending membership, licensure or registration as a broker or dealer in securities or as an investment adviser or investment adviser representative for at least six months and revocation of LaBine's license would be in the public interest.

Order

Revocation

In a letter dated April 12, 2016, client indicated that the UDF IV investment recommended was an unsuitable investment. Based on Reps advice client indicates their desire to be withdrawn from the investment and is seeking a return of their investment. Investigation of the clients' allegations uncovered the following - Initial investment made January 2013, UDF IV became a publicly traded security in June 2014 at which time client was free to sell their shares. Client transferred their account from Newbridge in November 2014, at which time, their investment was being monitored by their new Financial Advisor. It is the Firm's opinion that the client should have discussed this investment with this Advisor and not waited until such time that the shares are halted and seeking restitution.

$41,000.00

CLAIMANTS ALLEGE UNSUITABILITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, COMMON LAW FRAUD, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA SECURITIES ACT.

$35,000.00

The registered representative denies the allegations in the Statement of Claim. All transactions were authorized by and suitable for the client based on the client's stated investment objectives.

FINRA

LABINE WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT WHILE ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMBER FIRM, LABINE SOLD SENIOR DEBENTURES (SERIES D) ISSUED BY A COMPANY THAT DEVELOPED SOFTWARE FOR REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND MADE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACT TO CUSTOMERS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF SERIES D. AT THE TIME OF THOSE SALES, LABINE WAS RECEIVING REGULAR UPDATES ABOUT THE COMPANY'S POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION FROM SENIOR MANAGEMENT AT THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY'S LEAD INVESTMENT BANKER, AND HAD ARRANGED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION FROM THE COMPANY SUCH AS A SEAT ON ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS - FOR MEETING SERIES D FUNDRAISING TARGETS HE HAD ARRANGED WITH THE COMPANY. THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY'S PERILOUS FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LABINE'S PERSONAL INCENTIVE TO SELL SERIES D WAS MATERIAL TO SERIES D INVESTORS, YET LABINE FAILED TO DISCLOSE IT TO THESE CUSTOMERS WHEN HE RECOMMENDED SERIES D TO THEM. THE COMPANY ULTIMATELY FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, HOWEVER, LABINE MADE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACT TO CUSTOMERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF SECURITIES OF AN ENTITY HE HAD FORMED WITH OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO ACQUIRE THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY IN BANKRUPTCY. THESE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS INCLUDED, AT LEAST, THAT SERIES D INVESTORS WHO INVESTED IN THE ENTITY HE FORMED WOULD OBTAIN THE RETURN OF THE PRINCIPAL THEY HAD INVESTED IN SERIES D. AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT, LABINE WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT ALTERNATIVELY, BY REASON OF THE ABOVE, IN CONNECTION WITH SALES OF SERIES D AND HIS ENTITY'S SECURITIES, LABINE MADE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS TO CUSTOMERS, AND THEREFORE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 17(A)(2) AND (A)(3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT LABINE MADE UNSUITABLE SALES OF NON-TRADED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS (REITS) AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING SERIES D AND HIS ENTITY'S SECURITIES, TO CUSTOMERS, WHO WERE ELDERLY AND/OR INEXPERIENCED INVESTORS. LABINE'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF SERIES D, HIS ENTITY'S SECURITIES, REITS, AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS TO THE CUSTOMERS WERE UNSUITABLE, GIVEN THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE ILLIQUID, HARD TO VALUE, COMPLEX AND HIGH RISK. LABINE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THE SECURITIES HE RECOMMENDED WERE SUITABLE IN LIGHT OF THE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES THESE CUSTOMERS HAD COMMUNICATED TO LABINE AND THEIR OVERALL FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NET WORTH, INCOME, RISK TOLERANCE AND INVESTMENT EXPERIENCE. THREE OF THESE CUSTOMERS HAD LIMITED FINANCIAL MEANS AND TWO DID NOT MEET SUITABILITY STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE PROSPECTUSES FOR THE NON-TRADED REITS THAT LABINE RECOMMENDED AND SOLD TO THEM. LABINE EARNED HIGH COMMISSIONS FROM THE SALES OF THESE SECURITIES TO HIS CUSTOMERS.

Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

Indefinite

4/8/2016

The settlement includes a finding that LaBine willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that under Article III, Section 4 of FINRA's By-Laws, that makes him subject to a statutory disqualification with respect to association with a member.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, LaBine consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) (1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and FINRA Rules 2020 and 2010. The findings stated that that while associated with a member firm, LaBine sold senior debentures (Series D) issued by a company that developed software for real estate management companies and made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact customers, in connection with the sale of Series D at the time of those sales, LaBine was receiving regular updates about the company's poor financial condition from senior management at the company and the company's lead investment banker, and had arranged to receive compensation and other valuable consideration from the company such as a seat on its board of directors - for meeting Series D fundraising targets he had arranged with the company. This information about the company's perilous financial condition and LaBine's personal incentive to sell Series D was material to Series D investors, yet LaBine failed to disclose it to these customers when he recommended series d to them. The company ultimately filed for bankruptcy, however, LaBine made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to customers in connection with the sale of securities of an entity he had formed with others in an effort to acquire the assets of the company in bankruptcy. These fraudulent statements included, at least, that Series D investors who invested in the entity he formed would obtain the return of the principal they had invested in Series D. The findings also stated LaBine made unsuitable sales of non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments, including Series D and his entity's securities, to customers who were elderly and/or inexperienced investors. LaBine's recommendations of Series D, his entity's securities, REITs, and other alternative investments to the customers were unsuitable, given that the investments were illiquid, hard to value, complex and high risk. LaBine did not have a reasonable basis to believe the securities he recommended were suitable in light of the investment objectives these customers had communicated to LaBine and their overall financial circumstances, including net worth, income, risk tolerance and investment experience. Three of these customers had limited financial means and two did not meet suitability standards specified in the prospectuses for the non-traded REITs that LaBine recommended and sold to them. LaBine earned high commissions from the sales of these securities to his customers. By reason of the above, in connection with Series D, his entity's securities, and other investments, including non-traded REITs, LaBine made unsuitable recommendations to elderly and/or inexperienced customers. No findings were made regarding the allegations of making negligent misrepresentations and omissions of material facts to customers, and therefore failing to comply with Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.

THE ALLEGATIONS MAINLY RELATE TO THE DOMIN-8 INVESTMENT I SOLD, THE SERIES D SENIOR SECURED DEBENTURES. DOMIN-8'S PROSPECTUS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTS FULLY DISCLOSED ALL OF THE RELEVANT RISK FACTORS. EVEN IN CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY WHEN ALL OTHER INVESTOR CLASSES WERE WIPED OUT, THE ONLY DOMIN-8 INVESTORS TO RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL BACK WERE THOSE WHO INVESTED IN THE SERIES D INCLUDING MY CLIENTS. ADDITIONALLY, MY BONDHOLDERS SIGNED PAPERWORK TO REMAIN INVESTED IN THE COMPANY AFTER THEY HAD SHED MOST OF THEIR OTHER DEBT. DOMIN-8 OFFERED WHAT CAN ONLY BE ASSUMED AS A TERRIFIC SERVICE AS IT WAS PURCHASED BY REALPAGE, INC. AND IS NOW PART OF A COMPANY THAT HAS A MARKET CAPITALIZATION IN EXCESS $1.2 BILLION. I AM DISAPPOINTED AT BEING SINGLED OUT, AS I AM THE ONLY PERSON NAMED BY FINRA ALTHOUGH OTHER CLASSES OF INVESTORS LOST ALL OF THEIR INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SOLD TO THEM BY OTHER ADVISORS. AS OF TODAY, THE REGULATORS HAVE NOT PURSUED ACTION AGAINST OTHER BROKERS WHO SOLD UNSECURED INTERESTS, INCLUDING PREFERRED STOCK, COMMON STOCK, AND UNSECURED BONDHOLDERS, IN THIS COMPANY AND THEIR INVESTORS THAT LOST 100% OF THEIR INVESTMENT.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC ADMIN RELEASES 33-9611, 34-72562; IA RELEASE 40-3873; INVESTMENT COMPANY RELEASE 40-31151, JULY 8, 2014: THE SEC DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS BE, AND HEREBY ARE, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTIONS 15(B) AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, SECTIONS 203(F) AND 203(K) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, AND SECTION 9(B) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AGAINST LAWRENCE M. LABINE. AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT ALLEGES THAT LABINE AGGRESSIVELY RECOMMENDED AND SOLD SERIES D DEBENTURES TO HIS CLIENTS FOR A START-UP COMPANY. HE DID NOT DISCLOSE TO HIS CLIENTS THE MATERIAL INFORMATION THAT HIS SALES EFFORTS, INCLUDING HIS ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY CLOSE SALES OF THE SERIES D DEBENTURES TO THOSE CLIENTS, WERE CRITICAL TO THE COMPANY'S SOLVENCY. HE ALSO DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT HE HAD A FINANCIAL AND POTENTIAL OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE START-UP COMPANY VIA THE WARRANTS. LABINE KNEW THAT THE COMPANY COULD NOT PAY ITS CURRENT OBLIGATIONS WITHOUT HIS SALES EFFORTS, AND THAT ITS MANAGEMENT WAS DEPENDING ON HIS PERSONAL SALES EFFORTS TO CONTINUE OPERATING AND TO AVOID BANKRUPTCY. LABINE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS MATERIAL INFORMATION TO HIS CLIENTS. LABINE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS CLIENTS WOULD HAVE REGARDED IT AS MATERIAL THAT, BUT FOR HIS ABILITY TO SELL TO THEM THE SERIES D DEBENTURES, THE COMPANY WOULD NOT SURVIVE, AND THAT HE WAS INCENTIVIZED TO AGGRESSIVELY SELL HIS CLIENTS THE DEBENTURES. BECAUSE HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS MATERIAL INFORMATION, LABINE'S CLIENTS WERE DEPRIVED OF THE ABILITY TO ASSESS WHETHER THE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AFFECTED LABINE'S INDEPENDENCE AND TRUSTWORTHINESS. AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE, LABINE WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940. LABINE FALSELY REPRESENTED TO HIS CLIENTS THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS SAFE, SECURED, AND THEY WOULD NOT LOSE ANY OF THE MONEY THEY INVESTED IN THE COMPANY, IN CONTRADICTION TO THE RISK DISCLOSURES IN THE PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM AND SUPPLEMENTS. AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE, LABINE WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTION 17(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, SECTION 10(B) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER.

Decision

Bar (Permanent)

any investment adviser, broker, or dealer

Indefinite

with the right to reapply in two years

4/22/2016

Cease and Desist

Disgorgement

$100,000.00

Prohibition

THE ALLEGATIONS RELATE ENTIRELY ONLY TO THE DOMIN-8 INVESTMENT I SOLD, THE SERIES D SENIOR SECURED DEBENTURES. DOMIN-8'S PROSPECTUS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTS FULLY DISCLOSED ALL OF THE RELEVANT RISK FACTORS. EVEN IN CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY WHEN ALL OTHER INVESTOR CLASSES WERE WIPED OUT, THE ONLY DOMIN-8 INVESTORS TO RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL BACK WERE THOSE WHO INVESTED IN THE SERIES D INCLUDING MY CLIENTS. ADDITIONALLY, MY BONDHOLDERS SIGNED PAPERWORK TO REMAIN INVESTED IN THE COMPANY AFTER THEY HAD SHED MOST OF THEIR OTHER DEBT. DOMIN-8 OFFERED WHAT CAN ONLY BE ASSUMED AS A TERRIFIC SERVICE AS IT WAS PURCHASED BY REALPAGE, INC. AND IS NOW PART OF A COMPANY THAT HAS A MARKET CAPITALIZATION IN EXCESS $1.2 BILLION. I AM DISAPPOINTED AT BEING SINGLED OUT, AS I AM THE ONLY PERSON NAMED BY THE SEC ALTHOUGH OTHER CLASSES OF INVESTORS LOST ALL OF THEIR INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SOLD TO THEM BY OTHER ADVISORS. AS OF TODAY, THE REGULATORS HAVE NOT PURSUED ACTION AGAINST OTHER BROKERS WHO SOLD UNSECURED INTERESTS, INCLUDING PREFERRED STOCK, COMMON STOCK, AND UNSECURED BONDHOLDERS, IN THIS COMPANY AND THEIR INVESTORS THAT LOST 100% OF THEIR INVESTMENT. ---- 03/07/2016 ---- IT IS ORDERED THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL ISSUE AN INITIAL DECISION NO LATER THAN 300 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, PURSUANT TO RULE 360(A)(2) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE. SEC Initial Decision Release No. 973, March 2, 2016: It is ordered that pursuant to Section 8A(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21C(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, LaBine shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act; pursuant to Section 8A(e) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 21B(e) and 21C(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 203(j) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; LaBine shall disgorge $100,000 plus prejudgment interest; pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; LaBine is barred from association with any investment adviser, broker, or dealer, with a right to reapply for association in two years; and pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Lawrence M. LaBine is prohibited for two years from serving or acting as an employee, officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter. Payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest shall be made no later than 21 days following the day this initial decision becomes final, unless the Commission directs otherwise. This initial decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule of Practice 360. The initial decision will not become final until the Commission enters an order of finality.

$11,136.00

Tax

FIRM LEARNED OF THIS LIEN ON 9/12/2013 AT WHICH TIME THE REP. WAS NOTIFIED. PRIOR TO THIS, THE REP. NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF THIS LIEN.

$51,598.00

Tax

FIRM LEARNED OF THIS LIEN ON 9/12/2013 AT WHICH TIME THE REP. WAS NOTIFIED. PRIOR TO THIS, THE REP. NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF THIS LIEN.

[CUSTOMER] SUBMITTED A WRITTEN CUSTOMER COMPLAINT REGARDING MR. LABINE'S RECOMMENDATION OF CBONQ.

$50,000.00

$103,068.33

CLIENT WAS AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR WITH MANY YEARS OF INVESTING EXPERIENCE. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY INVESTMENTS THAT HE HAD WITH ME AND REPRESENTED LESS THAN 1% OF HIS TOTAL NET WORTH. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE BANKING CRISIS THAT OUR COUNTRY WENT THROUGH, THIS WAS ONE OF THE BANKS THAT GOT TAKEN OVER BY THE FDIC, WHICH WAS NOT FORESEEN.(COMPENSATORY DAMAGES TOTALED $50,249.25- MY CONTRIBUTION $12,562.31, INTEREST AMOUNT $26,380.86- MY CONTRIBUTION $6,595.22, FEES/COSTS $26,213.22- MY CONTRIBUTION $6,553.30, REIMBURSE FILING FEE $225.00- MY CONTRIBUTION $56.26)

THE CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE RECOMMENDED VARIOUS UNSUITABLE REIT INVESTMENTS BEGINNING IN 2007.

$540,000.00

CLIENTS DID NOT NEED LIQUIDITY FROM INVESTMENTS AS EXPENSES WERE COVERED BY OTHER SOURCES AND HOME SALE PROCEEDS OF APPROXIMATELY $489.000. SON IS A REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS ACTIVE IN CLIENT'S INVESTMENTS. MOST INVESTMENTS HAVE LIQUIDITY PROVISIONS IF CLIENTS DESIRE.

$526,689.54

Tax

IRS HAS POSTPONED COLLECTION FOR TWO YEARS TO ALLOW FOR RECOVERY AND REBOUND OF MY BUSINESS DUE TO THE FINANCIAL TURMOIL GIVEN THE MARKET CONDITIONS OF THE LAST FEW YEARS.

CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE THEY WERE RECOMMENDED VARIOUS UNSUITABLE PRODUCTS, THAT WERE MISREPRESENTED TO THEM.

$5,000.00

CLIENTS UNDERSTOOD RISKS OF INVESTMENTS AND SIGNED PAPERWORK ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH. THEY READ PROSPECTUSES AND ATTENDED MEETINGS REGARDING THE INVESTMENTS. MOST INVESTMENTS HAVE LIQUIDITY PROVISIONS IF CLIENTS DESIRE.

07/2008 - 08/2008, MISMANAGEMENT AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT.

$67,068.00

$50,000.00

CLIENTS WERE ACCREDITED INVESTORS WITH MANY YEARS OF INVESTING EXPERIENCE. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY INVESTMENTS THAT THEY HAD WITH ME. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE BANKING CRISIS THAT OUR COUNTRY WENT THROUGH, THIS WAS ONE OF THE BANKS THAT GOT TAKEN OVER BY THE FDIC, WHICH WAS NOT FORESEEN.

CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT SHE WAS RECOMMENDED AN INVESTMENT IN A NON-TRADED REIT, IN WHICH SHE PURCHASED IN 2007 WHICH HAS NOT PERFORMED AS EXPECTED.

$100,000.00

THIS IS JUST ONE OF HER INVESTMENTS WITH US. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE REAL ESTATE MARKET DROP, THIS INVESTMENT IS NOT PERFORMING AS EXPECTED.

CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS IN 2008.

$200,000.00

CUSTOMERS HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS OVER THE YEARS. CUSTOMERS UNDERSTOOD THE INVESTMENTS AND RISKS, INCLUDING LACK OF LIQUIDITY, AND SIGNED ALL PAPERWORK ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH. CLIENTS STILL OWN THE LAND ON BOTH OF THESE INVESMENTS WITHOUT DEBT. AS THESE INVESTMENTS ARE STILL ONGOING, IT IS YET TO BE DETERMINED HOW THEY WILL PERFORM.

2009: CLAIMANT ALLEGES NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF DUTY, MISREPRESENTATIVON AND UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.

$85,000.00

$35,000.00

CLIENT WAS AN ACCREDITED INVESTOR WITH MANY YEARS OF INVESTING EXPERIENCE. CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF THE INVESTMENTS AND SIGNED PAPERWORK ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH.

DEWAAY FINANCIAL NETWORK LLC

Discharged

COMPLAINTS ALLEGE FRAUD

DEWAAY FINANCIAL NETWORK LLC

Discharged

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF INVESTMENT RELATED REGULATIONS, RULES OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

CLAIMANT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, MISREPRESENTATION AND OMMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE AND VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LAWS.

$200,000.00

$80,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGING WRONGFUL CONDUCT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF CONTRACTS.

$281,000.00

$120,000.00

CLIENT IS A SOPHISTICATED, ACCREDITED INVESTOR WITH MANY YEARS OF INVESTMENT EXPERIENCE. HE TOOK IS TIME IN REVIEWING ALL PROSPECTUSES INCLUDING ADDRESSING THE RISKS AND SIGNED PAPERWORK THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THEM.

UNSUITABLE SECURITIES RECOMMENDATIONS AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. FEBRUARY 28, 2007 (BD CRD# 12969; ASSOCIATED)- INVESTMENT WITH FLORIDA CAPITAL REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 27. JUNE 20, 2007 (BD CRD# 12969; ASSOCIATED)- WELLS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST II, INC. OCTOBER 8, 2007 (BD CRD# 30767; DEWAAY)- INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST. DECEMBER 17, 2007 (BD CRD# 30767; DEWAAY)- DBSI HERNANDO SOUTH, LLC.

$400,000.00

$150,000.00

THE BROKER DEALER BOUGHT BACK THE THREE INVESTEMENTS. CLAIMANT WITHDREW THE MATTER AS TO THE REPRESENTATIVE AND HE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.

CLAIMANT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, MISREPRESENTATION AND OMMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE AND VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LAWS.

$398,000.00

$100,000.00

THE AWARD IS JOINTLY WITH DEWAAY FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC AND LAWRENCE LABINE WITH CLAIMANT ASSIGNING THE PROCEEDS OF HIS BOND LIQUIDATION BACK TO DEWAAY/LABINE.

UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT IN JUNE 2009 IN REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

$150,000.00

$295,000.00

CLIENT REQUESTED RESCISSION OF A TRANSACTION, CLAIMING THE PRODUCT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND NOT SUITABLE. CLIENT ALSO INDICATED INFORMATION WAS NOT DISCLOSED AT TIME OF SALE. THE TRANSACTION WAS RESCINDED; THE CLIENT WAS RELIEVED OF THEIR POSITION AND RECEIVED A RETURN OF THEIR PRINCIPAL.

$100,000.00

$99,877.80

UNSUITABLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS IN 2006-2008

$660,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, MISREPRESENTATION AND OMMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE AND VIOLATION OF ARIZONA SECURITIES LAWS. TIME PERIOD: 01/02/09 - 02/06/09.

$500,000.00

$175,000.00

CLIENT RECEIVED THE PROSPECTUSES, UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF THE INVESTMENTS AND SIGNED PAPERWORK ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH. MOST OF HIS INVESTMENTS HAVE LIQUIDITY PROVISIONS IF HE DESIRES.

ILLINOIS

1. RESPONDENT WILL WITHDRAW HIS SALESPERSON REGISTRATION IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT RE-APPLY FOR RE-REGISTRATION FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN 918) MONTHS. 2. RESPONDENT HAS PAID COST ON INVESTIGATION. 3. UPON BEING RE-REGISTERED AS A SALESPERSON IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THE RESPONDENT WILL PARTICIPATE IN AN ENHANCED AND HEIGHTENED SUPERVISION PROGRAM FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR.

Consent

NO NEW ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED, BUT WAS BASED ON PREVIOUS NASD ACTION. THE REGISTRATION WAS WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO THE ACTION BEING TAKEN BY THE STATE.

NASD

NASD CONDUCT RULES 2110, 2310 RESPONDENT RECOMMENDED AND EFFECTED SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF PUBLIC CUSTOMERS WITHOUT HAVING A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SUITABLE, BASED UPON CUSTOMERS INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, FINANCIAL SITUATION AND NEEDS.

Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement

Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)

Requalification

Suspension

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, LABINE CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS, THEREFORE HE IS SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY NASD MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 15 BUSINESS DAYS, FINED $25,000, AND REQUIRED TO REQUALIFY BY EXAM AS A GENERAL SECURITIES REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS OFFER OF SETTLEMENT. SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 19, 2005, TO JANUARY 6, 2006. FINES PAID.

CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT REPRESTNATIVE RECOMMENDED UNSUITABLE AND HIGH RISK INVESTMENT, RESULTING IN MARKET LOSSES.

$500,000.00

CUSTOMERS ALLEGE THAT THEY LOST MONEY THROUGH INVESTING IN VARIABLE ANNUITY, AND THAT INVESTMENTS WERE UNSUITABLE FOR THEM. THE VARIABLE ANNUITY WAS PURCHASED IN NOVEMBER OF 1999.

$25,430.54

CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT INVESTMENTS AND MUTUAL FUND TRADES IN HIS ADVISORY ACCOUNTS WERE INAPPROPRIATE. REP MAINTAINS THAT ALL INVESTMENTS WERE SUITABLE AND APPROPRIATE, AND THAT TRADES WERE PLACED AT CERTAIN TIMES GIVEN CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE CUSTOMER'S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE.

$6,492.00

CLIENTS MAINTAIN THAT INVESTMENTS IN VARIABLE ANNUITIES (AND SUB ACCOUNTS) AND MUTUAL FUNDS WERE UNSUITABLE AND THAT REP ENGAGED IN UNAUTHORIZED DISCRETIONARY TRADING. REP MAINTAINS THAT ALL INVESTMENTS AND TRADES WERE SUITABLE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLIENTS? INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND RISK TOLERANCE. AS EVIDENCE OF THE CLIENTS? INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, CLIENT PRIVATELY OWNED A GROWTH FUND INVESTMENT FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS (REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT ADVISE THEM ON THIS INVESTMENT). CLIENTS DID NOT SELL IT DURING THE MARKET DECLINE THAT OCCURRED IN 2000-2001, EVEN THROUGH THE VALUE DECLINED OVER 60% DURING THAT TIME. REP FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT ALL TRADES WERE AUTHORIZED AND THAT HE PROVIDED CUSTOMERS WITH FULL AND COMPLETE INFORMATION CONCERNING ALL INVESTMENTS.

$237,000.00

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE INFORMATION, REPRESENTATIVE MAINTAINS THAT THE CLIENTS DID NOT REALLOCATE THEIR SUB ACCOUNTS OR MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS, DESPITE THAT REPRESENTATIVE?S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY DO SO. THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE DISCRETION, CONTROL, OR THE ABILITY TO MAKE ANY REALLOCATING TRADES WHILE THE MARKET WAS DROPPING. ALTHOUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE SENT NUMEROUS LETTERS TO THE CLIENTS RECOMMENDING REALLOCATION, THE CLIENTS DECLINED TO FOLLOW THAT ADVICE AND INSTEAD REMAINED INVESTED, RESULTING IN DECLINED VALUES. FURTHERMORE, UPON THE DEATH OF CLIENT, CUSTOMER'S WIFE PROFITED BY OVER $100,000 ON ACCOUNT OF THE GUARANTEED DEATH BENEFIT FEATURES AFFORDED BY THE ANNUITY CONTRACTS THAT REPRESENTATIVE HAD OBTAINED FOR THE CLIENTS. THE CLIENTS SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDED TO WITHDRAW THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE REPRESENTATIVE.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT REP MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PRUCHASE OF VARIABLE ANNUITIES VERSUS MUTUAL FUNDS. CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT VARIABLE ANNUITIES WERE UNSUITABLE FOR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS.

NO SETTLEMENT WAS PAID TO THE CUSTOMER BY THE REP OR FIRM. ALL VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY LIQUIDATED, TWO MONTHS AFTER THE ACCOUNT HAD INCREASED $72,000, AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CUSTOMER. THE CUSTOMER RECEIVED FULL AND ADEQUATE DISCLOSURE WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF VARIABLE ANNUITY CONTRACTS VERSUS MUTUAL FUNDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EACH VARIABLE ANNUITY PROSPECTUS. THE CUSTOMER SIGNED NUMEROUS FORMS DISCLOSING THE PURCHASE OF A VARIABLE ANNUITY SUCH AS VARIABLE ANNUITY APPLICATIONS, PROSPECTUS RECEIPTS, VARIABLE ANNUITY TRANSFER REQUESTS. IN CONCLUSION, THE CUSTOMER WAS FULLY AWARE THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED VARIABLE ANNUITIES AND NOT MUTUAL FUNDS.

SECURITIES DIVISION, ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION

LABINE, A REGISTERED SECURITIES SALESMAN, OFFERED A SECURITY WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED AND WAS NOT EXEMPT.

Order

Cease and Desist/Injunction

CEASE AND DESIST FROM OFFER OR SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES.

AFTER 5 YEARS AND NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME, THOMAS TIMMER, WORKING AT THE TIME FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA WENT ON A "FISHING TRIP" AND CALLED ME IN TO QUESTION MY KNOWLEDGE OF A ROY HIGGS. HE USED THIS AS A PLATFORM TO ALLEGE IMPROPRIETIES AGAINST ME DUE TO OUR PERSONALITY CONFLICT. AFTER I SPENT $20,000 IN LEGAL FEES AND A HEARING TOOK PLACE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT I DROVE TO TUCSON FIVE YEARS HENCE TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE VENTURE WITH ONE INDIVIDUAL. THE INDIVIDUAL WASN'T INTERESTED. I SAID OK AND RETURN TO PHOENIX. I HAD TRUSTED THE LAWYERS WHO WERE PAID TO DRAW UP THE REAL ESTATE DOCUMENT HAD QUALIFIED THEM FOR EXEMPTION AS A PRIVATE PLACEMENT.