Private company

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC

Last updated Oct 21, 2026.

Overview

Corporate structure

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC is part of a group headed by Kkr North America Fund Xiii. 12 entities, 1 country on record. Switch between the flow chart and the network, and select any entity to see its details.

Major holders of Janney Montgomery Scott LLC

  • K-pec June Aggregator Gp LLC Owns control (general partner, trustee or manager) of Kkr June Aggregator L.P. Partner Gp LLC, since 08/2024 (Form ADV)
  • KKR Private Equity Conglomerate LLC Owns 75% or more of K-pec Holdings LLC, since 01/2023 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr June Aggregator Gp LLC Owns control (general partner, trustee or manager) of Kkr June Aggregator L.P. Partner, since 11/2024 (Form ADV)
  • June Topco Gp LLC Owns control (general partner, trustee or manager) of Kkr North America Fund Xiii (june) L.P. Partner, since 11/2024 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr North America Xiii (june) Owns 50% to 75% of Kkr North America, since 11/2024 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr Group Assets Holdings III Owns 75% or more of Kkr Private Equity, since 12/2022 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr Group Assets III Gp LLC Owns 75% or more of Kkr Group Assets Holdings III L.P. LLC L.P. Partner, since 08/2020 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr Group Holdings Corp. Owns control (general partner, trustee or manager) of Kkr Group Holdings L.P. Partner L.P. Partner, since 05/2022 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr Group Co. Inc. Owns 75% or more of Kkr Group Holdings L.P. Partner, since 05/2022 (Form ADV)
  • Kkr North America Fund Xiii
    • Kkr June Aggregator L.P.
      • June Topco, LLC
        • June Intermediate, LLC
          • 1 more

Built from major holders from Schedules 13D and 13G; stakes of 5% or more it reported on Schedules 13D and 13G (5 companies); owners and owned firms from Form ADV, the registration investment advisers file with the SEC. Each entity in the chart links to its source.

Investment adviser

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser. This is what it reports on Form ADV, the registration every adviser files and keeps current.

  • Assets it manages$110.1B2 243,808 accounts, $76.2B with discretion
  • Employees2,404 1,614 in investment advice or research
  • ClientsHigh net worth individuals: 100,743 ($76.5B); Individuals (other than high net worth individuals): 139,021 ($21.1B); Pension and profit sharing plans (but not the plan participants or: 664 ($7.0B); Corporations or other businesses not listed above: 1,425 ($2.7B); Charitable organizations: 1,810 ($2.1B); State or municipal government entities (including government pension: 145 ($717.3M)
  • How it is paidA percentage of assets under its management; Fixed fees (other than subscription fees); Commissions; Other: FEE PLUS COMMISSION
  • What it doesFinancial planning services; Portfolio management for individuals and/or small businesses; Portfolio management for businesses (other than small businesses) or institutional clients (other than registered investment companies and other pooled investment vehicles); Pension consulting services; Selection of other advisers (including private fund managers); Educational seminars/workshops
  • Holds client assetsYes: cash and securities
  • RegistrationSEC 801-7258, CRD 463 IAPD record

Who owns it

Owners of 5% or more as the firm lists them (Schedule A), and the owners of those owners up the chain (Schedule B).

  • JUNE PURCHASER LLCowns 75% or more, since 11/2024
  • JUNE TOPCO GP LLCowns general partner, trustee or manager of KKR NORTH AMERICA FUND XIII (JUNE) L.P. PARTNER, since 11/2024
  • JUNE TOPCO GP LLCowns general partner, trustee or manager of KKR NORTH AMERICA XIII (JUNE) BLOCKER PARENT PARTNER L.P., since 11/2024
  • K-PEC JUNE AGGREGATOR GP LLCowns general partner, trustee or manager of KKR JUNE AGGREGATOR L.P. PARTNER GP LLC, since 08/2024
  • KKR GROUP HOLDINGS CORP.owns general partner, trustee or manager of KKR GROUP HOLDINGS L.P. PARTNER L.P. PARTNER, since 05/2022
  • KKR JUNE AGGREGATOR GP LLCowns general partner, trustee or manager of KKR JUNE AGGREGATOR L.P. PARTNER, since 11/2024
  • JUNE HOLDCO, LLCowns 75% or more of JUNE PURCHASER, LLC, since 11/2024
  • JUNE INTERMEDIATE, LLCowns 75% or more of JUNE HOLDCO, LLC, since 11/2024
  • JUNE TOPCO, LLCowns 75% or more of JUNE INTERMEDIATE, LLC, since 11/2024
  • KKR & CO. INC. (public company)owns 75% or more of KKR GROUP CO. INC., since 05/2022
  • KKR GROUP ASSETS HOLDINGS IIIowns 75% or more of KKR PRIVATE EQUITY, since 12/2022
  • KKR GROUP ASSETS III GP LLCowns 75% or more of KKR GROUP ASSETS HOLDINGS III L.P. LLC L.P. PARTNER, since 08/2020
  • KKR GROUP CO. INC.owns 75% or more of KKR GROUP HOLDINGS CORP. SHAREHOLDER, since 07/2018
  • KKR GROUP CO. INC.owns 75% or more of KKR GROUP HOLDINGS L.P. PARTNER, since 05/2022
  • KKR JUNE AGGREGATOR L.P.owns 75% or more of JUNE TOPCO, L.L.C., since 11/2024
  • KKR NORTH AMERICA FUND XIIIowns 75% or more of KKR JUNE AGGREGATOR, since 11/2024
  • KKR NORTH AMERICA XIII (JUNE)owns 75% or more of KKR NORTH AMERICA XIII, since 11/2024
  • KKR PRIVATE EQUITY CONGLOMERATE LLC (public company)owns 75% or more of K-PEC HOLDINGS LLC, since 01/2023
  • KKR NORTH AMERICA XIII (JUNE)owns 50% to 75% of KKR NORTH AMERICA, since 11/2024

Disciplinary record

The firm answered yes to 7 of the disciplinary questions on Form ADV (Item 11). A yes can concern the firm itself or an affiliate.

  • The SEC or the CFTC has found the firm or an advisory affiliate to have been involved in a violation of SEC or CFTC regulations or statutes.
  • The SEC or the CFTC has entered an order against the firm or an advisory affiliate in connection with investment-related activity.
  • The SEC or the CFTC has imposed a civil money penalty on the firm or an advisory affiliate, or ordered the firm or an advisory affiliate to cease and desist from any activity.
  • Any other federal regulatory agency, any state regulatory agency, or any foreign financial regulatory authority has found the firm or an advisory affiliate to have been involved in a violation of investment-related regulations or statutes.
  • In the past ten years, any other federal regulatory agency, any state regulatory agency, or any foreign financial regulatory authority has entered an order against the firm or an advisory affiliate in connection with an investment-related activity.
  • Any other federal regulatory agency, any state regulatory agency, or any foreign financial regulatory authority has denied, suspended, or revoked the firm's or an advisory affiliate's registration or license, or otherwise prevented the firm or an advisory affiliate, by order, from associating with an investment-related business or restricted the firm's or an advisory affiliate's activity.
  • Any self-regulatory organization or commodities exchange has found the firm or an advisory affiliate to have been involved in a violation of its rules (other than a violation designated as a "minor rule violation" under a plan approved by the SEC).

Each event as the firm describes it on its Disclosure Reporting Pages:

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS · Dec 1, 2004 · final

Allegations: RESPONDENT'S REGISTRATION AS A DEALER IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS SUBJECT TO PROHIBITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 8.E(1)(K) OF THE ILLINOIS SECURITIES LAW BECAUSE RESPONDENT CONSENTED TO A SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ORDER.

Sanction: Revocation

How it ended: Consent

Detail: RESPONDENT IS CENSURED AND WILL PAY $7,500 FOR THE COST OF THE INVESTIGATION.

Summary: THE FORMAL HEARING SCHEDULED ON THIS MATTER IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

Resolved: Jun 2, 2005

STATE OF DELAWARE · Jun 29, 2015 · fine $105,000 · final

Allegations: IT WAS ALLEGED THAT FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR, WHO LEFT THE FIRM ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, RECOMMENDED CERTAIN UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT BLOCK WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPERVISED.

Sanction: Cease and Desist

How it ended: Order

Detail: THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $75,000, $30,000 TOWARD THE COST OF THE STATE'S INVESTIGATION AND REFRAIN FROM ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS.

Summary: THE STATE OF DELAWARE, OFFICE OF INVESTOR PROTECTION, AND JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ENTERED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ORDER, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE OFFICE THROUGH A FINAL ORDER DATED JUNE 10, 2015 AND RECEIVED BY THE FIRM ON JUNE 29, 2015. THE FIRM CONSENTED TO FINDINGS THAT ONE OF ITS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, WHO LEFT THE FIRM ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, RECOMMENDED CERTAIN UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPERVISED. THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $75,000, $30,000 TOWARD THE COST OF THE STATE'S INVESTIGATION AND REFRAIN FROM ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS.

Resolved: Jun 29, 2015

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Jul 2, 2003 · fine $875,000 · final

Allegations: IN THREE INSTANCES IN 1999 AND 2000, THE FIRM FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT IT HAD RECEIVED A PAYMENT FOR PUBLISHING RESEARCH. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN INTERNAL ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATIONS FROM JULY 1999 THROUGH JUNE 2001.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Settled

Detail: A FINE OF $875,000 WAS PAID IN FULL 09/16/2004.

Summary: DURING 1999 AND 2000, JANNEY MONTGOMERY RECEIVED THREE PAYMENTS IN CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLISHING RESEARCH ON THREE PUBLIC COMPANIES. JANNEY MONTGOMERY DID NOT DISCLOSE THOSE PAYMENTS IN ITS RESEARCH REPORTS. THE FIRM'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THESE PAYMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17(B) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. IN ADDITION, FROM JULY 1999 THROUGH JUNE 2001, JANNEY MONTGOMERY FAILED TO PRESERVE BUSINESS-RELATED INTERNAL ELECTRONIC MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PURSUANT TO SECTION 17(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 17A-4 THEREUNDER.

Resolved: Sep 16, 2004

STATE OF COLORADO-SECURITIES COMMISSION · May 4, 2005 · final

Allegations: JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT (JMS) ALLOWED ALBERT COPPERSTONE, AN UNLICENSED SALES REPRESENTATIVE IN COLORADO, TO CONDUCT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH A COLORADO RESIDENT.

How it ended: Consent

Detail: JMS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT 4 INTERNAL AUDITS OF BOCA RATON BRANCH; JULY - DECEMBER, 2005, JAN-JUNE 2006, AND JAN- JULY 2007. BRANCH MANAGER TERRY METZGER, REQUIRED TO COMPLETE CONTINUING ED PROGRAM WITH TWO YEARS OF ORDERS. RESTITUTION OF $259,227.82

Summary: JMS ALLOWED ALBERT COPPERSTONE, AN UNLICENSED SALES REPRESENTATIVE IN COLORADO, TO CONDUCT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WITH A COLORADO RESIDENT.

Resolved: May 4, 2005

NASD · Jul 21, 2005 · fine $1,200,000 · final

Allegations: THE NASD ALLEGED THAT JANNEY ENGAGED IN CONDUCT WHICH PERMITTED TWO HEDGE FUND CLIENTS TO ENGAGE IN MARKET-TIMING. THE NASD ALSO ALLEGED THAT JANNEY FAILED TO APPROPRIATELY RESPOND TO MARKET TIMING THAT WAS OCCURRING AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT AND DETECT MARKET TIMING AND LATE TRADING. FURTHER, THE NASD ALLEGED THAT JANNEY, FROM MAY 2, 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 18, 2003, FAILED TO CREATE RECORDS REFLECTING THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF MUTUAL FUND ORDERS. FINALLY, THE NASD ALLEGED THAT JANNEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT IT CONDUCTED ADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCE FOR ITS RESPONSES TO REGULATORY INQUIRIES.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 7 ABOVE JANNEY CONSENTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN NASD AWC IMPOSING A CENSURE, A FINE OF $1,200,000, AND RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $998,285.81.

Resolved: Jul 21, 2005

PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE · Jul 17, 2002 · fine $20,000 · final

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY ALLEGATIONS OR VIOLATIONS, RESPONDENT CONSENTED TO FINDINGS THAT FROM DECEMBER 3, 2001, THROUGH MAY 8, 2002, IT VIOLATED PHLX RULES 707, 708, AND 748. SPECIFICALLY, (I) AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT REPRESENTED AND EXECUTED FOR RESPONDENT 46 ORDERS ON THE PHLX FLOOR AT A TIME WHEN SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE PHLX ELIGIBLE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS ON THE PHLX FLOOR; (II) ANTHER EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT REPRESENTED AND EXECUTED FOR RESPONDENT 41 ORDERS ON THE PHLX FLOOR AT A TIME WHEN SUCH EMPLOYEE HAD NOT BECOME AN EFFECTIVE MEMBER OF THE PHLX BY TEMPORARILY ASSUMING LEGAL TITLE TO ONE OF RESPONDENT'S PHLX MEMBERSHIPS; (III) RESPONDENT AVOIDED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ACQUIRING EQUITABLE TITLE TO A THIRD PHLX MEMBERSHIP AND AVOIDED HAVING PAY TO THE PHLX CERTAIN DUES, FEES AND CHARGES; AND (IV) RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, AND A SYSTEM TO ENFORCE SUCH PROCEDURES, REGARDING ITS OPERATIONS ON THE PHLX FLOOR.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement

Detail: RESPONDENT CONSENTED TO: (I) A CENSURE; (II) A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000; AND (III) COMPLETION OF THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKINGS: (1) ISSUANCE OF WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (INCLUDING SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES) PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS BY RESPONDENT ON THE PHLX FLOOR. SUCH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHOULD INFORM RESPONDENT'S EXCHANGE FLOOR PERSONNEL AND SUPERVISORS OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, RESPONDENT'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING INACTIVE NOMINEE STATUS ON THE PHLX FLOOR; AND (2) ISSUANCE OF A COMPLIANCE BULLETIN, NOT UNACCEPTABLE TO PHLX STAFF, TO ALL MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT'S EXCHANGE FLOOR OPERATIONS, EXPLAINING RESPONDENT'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING INACTIVE NOMINEE STATUS ON THE PHLX FLOOR.

Resolved: Nov 24, 2003

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS · May 7, 2004 · fine $5,000 · final

Allegations: RESPONDENT'S REGISTRATION AS A DEALER IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION BECAUSE OF AN INADVERTENT REGISTRATION ERROR RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF TWO FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS OF THE FIRM.

Sanction: Revocation

How it ended: Consent

Detail: CONSENT ORDER OF CENSURE ISSUED. RESPONDENT IS CENSURED AND WILL PAY FOR THE COST OF INVESTIGATION.

Summary: CONSENT ORDER OF CENSURE ISSUED. RESPONDENT, WHILE NEITHER ADMITTING NOR DENYING THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE REGISTRATION OF TWO OF ITS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, CONSENTED TO A CENSURE AND WILL PAY FOR THE COST OF INVESTIGATION.

Resolved: Aug 16, 2004

THE STATE OF GEORGIA · May 13, 2004 · fine $3,000 · final

Allegations: IT WAS ALLEGED JANNEY MONTGOMERY FAILED TO KEEP THE REQUIRED REGISTRATION RECORDS OF LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS PERTAINING TO TWO REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Order

Detail: THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $3,000 PLUS $2,000 FOR COST OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS PAID 08/13/2004. RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,096.50 WAS PAID TO TWO CUSTOMERS ON 09/08/2004.

Summary: JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES THE FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED HEREIN, BUT CONSENTS TO THE ENTRY OF THE FOREGOING CONSENT ORDER.

Resolved: Aug 18, 2004

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND · Oct 12, 2006 · fine $10,250 · final

Allegations: IT WAS ALLEGED THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 203 OF RIUSA IN JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC EMPLOYMENT OF ONE INDIVIDUAL AS AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO SERVICED ONE RHODE ISLAND ACCOUNT JANUARY 2006 WITHOUT EFFECTIVE LICENSING.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Consent

Detail: THE FINE WAS PAID ON DECEMBER 4, 2006

Summary: DUE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR A VIOLATION OF SECTION 203 OF RIUSA OCCURRED WHEN JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC PERMITTED ONE INVESTMENT ADVISOR REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVICE ONE RHODE ISLAND ACCOUNT IN JANUARY 2006 WITHOUT EFFECTIVE LICENSING.

Resolved: Dec 21, 2006

NASD · Jul 27, 2007 · fine $5,000 · final

Allegations: SEC RULE 604 OF REGULATION NMS (FORMERLY SEC RULE 11AC1-4) RESPONDENT MEMBER FAILED FROM APRIL 1, 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 TO DISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQ SECURITIES IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS AT A PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SECURITY; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TO THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOR EACH SECURITY AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTED MORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SECURITY.

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC, CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTION AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS, THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS FINED $5,000.

Resolved: Jul 27, 2007

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT · Jul 27, 2006 · fine $2,500,000 · final

Allegations: THE NYSE ALLEGED THAT JANNEY (1) ENGAGED IN AWAY-FROM-MARKET STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS; (2) COMPENSATED ALLEGED FINDERS IN CONNECTION WITH STOCK LOAN TRANSACTIONS WHEN THOSE FINDERS HAD PURPORTEDLY NOT PERFORMED ANY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE TRANSACTIONS; (3) FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE OR CONTROL CERTAIN OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES; (4) FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OF SUPERVISION AND CONTROL AND ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SYSTEM OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW TO DETERMINE THAT DELEGATED AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY WAS BEING PROPERLY EXERCISED; AND (5) FAILED TO MAKE AND KEEP ACCURATE RECORDS REFLECTING ITS STOCK LOAN ACTIVITIES.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Stipulation and Consent

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING GUILT, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO (1) A CENSURE; (2) A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500,000; AND (3) AN UNDERTAKING TO REQUIRING THE FIRM TO CONTINUE TO RECORD THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS OF ITS STOCK LOAN DEPARTMENT AND RETAIN THE RECORDINGS FOR A PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN ONE YEAR.

Summary: IN RESOLVING THIS MATTER, THE NYSE CONSIDERED (1) THAT THE FIRM IMMEDIATELY AND VOLUNTARILY UNDERTOOK NUMEROUS REMEDIAL EFFORTS, (2) IMPLEMENTED REVISED AND ENHANCED WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES, (3) VOLUNTARILY COMMENCED RECORDING ALL TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS IN THE STOCK LOAN DEPARTMENT, (4) THE FIRM'S COOPERATION WITH NYSE REGULATION AND (5) THAT NO CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS WERE AFFECTED BY THE ALLEGED IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE STOCK LOAN DEPARTMENT.

Resolved: Aug 10, 2007

FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION · Apr 19, 2011 · fine $10,000 · final

Allegations: IT WAS ALLEGED THAT JANNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE REGISTRATION AGREEMENTS OF SEVERAL REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Order

Detail: ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $10,000.00 PAID IN FULL BY JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ON 04/19/2011.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICE, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE OFFICE THROUGH A FINAL ORDER DATED APRIL 19, 2011. JANNEY CONSENTED TO THE FINDING THAT IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH CERTAIN TERMS OF THE REGISTRATION AGREEMENTS BELONGING TO SEVERAL OF ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND PAID AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $10,000. THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION AGREED TO RELEASE THREE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THEIR REGISTRATION AGREEMENTS.

Resolved: Apr 19, 2011

FINRA · May 10, 2011 · fine $75,000 · final

Allegations: IT IS ALLEGED THAT JANNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH MSRB RULES G-8, G-17, G-27, G-32, RELATED TO THE DELIVERY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS; THEREFORE, THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $75,000.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $75,000 RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULES G-32, G-8, G-27 AND G-17, STEMMING FROM ITS UNTIMELY DELIVERY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS WHO PURCHASED MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DURING THE PRIMARY OFFERING DISCLOSURE PERIOD, IN TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH JANNEY WAS NEITHER AN UNDERWRITER NOR PART OF THE UNDERWRITING SYNDICATE. IN RESPONSE, JANNEY ENHANCED ITS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO TIMELY DELIVERY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND PROVIDED STAFF TRAINING ON RULE REQUIREMENTS AND THE ENHANCED PROCEDURES. JANNEY ALSO NOTIFIED CLIENTS WHO MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY SETTLEMENT DATE AND PROVIDED INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW ONE MIGHT BE OBTAINED. JANNEY IS CONFIDENT THAT THESE MEASURES DEMONSTRATE ITS ONGOING COMMITMENT TO COMPLIANCE IN ALL AREAS OF ITS BUSINESS, INCLUDING ITS OBLIGATIONS AS TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS.

Resolved: May 10, 2011

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Jul 11, 2011 · fine $850,000 · final

Allegations: IT IS ALLEGED THAT JANNEY FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF ITS BUSINESS, TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF MATERIAL, NONPUBLIC INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(G) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, FAILED TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE SUCH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Order

Detail: CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY OF $850,000 PAID IN FULL BY JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ON JULY 12, 2011.

Summary: JANNEY SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, AND CONSENTED TO THE FINDING THAT FROM 2005 THROUGH 2009, THE FIRM FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE POLICITES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLE DESIGNED, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS, TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF MATERIAL, NONPUBLIC INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(G) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, SUCH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WERE NOT PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED OR ENFORCED. THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS MATTER, JANNEY COMMITTED SIGNIFIGANT RESOURCES TO IMPROVING ITS SECTION 15(G) POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WILL CONTINUE TO EVALUATE THESE PROCEDURES WHILE WORKING WITH AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT.

FINRA · Dec 16, 2011 · fine $12,500 · final

Allegations: BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2007 AND MAY 31, 2009, IT IS ALLEGED THAT JANNEY REPORTED 12,733 TRANSACTIONS ON OTC SECURITIES WHICH IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT AND THAT THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM WAS NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS CONCERNING TRADE REPORTING.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: $12,500.00 PAID BY CREDIT CARD ON 12/28/2011.

Summary: THE FIRM HAS UPDATED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO TRADE REPORTING TRANSACTIONS BY WAY OF A GIVE UP AGREEMENT.

Resolved: Dec 16, 2011

FINRA · Nov 3, 2010 · fine $175,000 · final

Allegations: JANNEY ENTERED INTO AN AWC ARISING FROM ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN FINRA'S ROUTINE CYCLE EXAMINATIONS OF THE FIRM IN THE YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2005. THE VIOLATIONS SET FORTH IN THE AWC, WHICH JANNEY NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED, INCLUDE 1) A FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR AND SUPERVISE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ITS AML PROGRAM AND 2) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF ITS BRANCH SUPERVISION PROGRAM RELATED TO REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PERSONS, INCLUDING FAILURE TO SUPERVISE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF BRANCH MANAGERS, FAILURE TO REVIEW BLOOMBERG EMAILS AND INSTANT MESSAGES OF SOME EMPLOYEES, FAILURE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF USE OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS, FAILURE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF OUTSIDE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY EMPLOYEES , IN 2003 A FAILURE TO DOCUMENT SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF TRADING IN OPTIONS ACCOUNTS, AND SEVERAL INSTANCES EACH YEAR OF FAILURE TO PRE-REVIEW AND APPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $175,000, WITH $25,000 RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF MSRB RULE G-41. JANNEY ALSO SUBMITTED A CORRECTIVE ACTION STATEMENT WHICH SETS FORTH THE ENHANCEMENTS MADE TO THE FIRM'S COMPLIANCE AND SUPERVISORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THE ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDE IMPLEMENTING NEW PROCEDURES, CONTRACTING NEW VENDORS, AND ADOPTING NEW TECHNOLOGIES, AS WELL BOLSTERING SUPERVISORY EFFORTS IN CERTAIN AREAS. IN ADDITION, JANNEY PLACED A FIRM-WIDE EMPHASIS ON ITS AML PROGRAM, INCLUDING FIRM-WIDE AML TRAINING AND ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE TOOLS. JANNEY IS CONFIDENT THAT THESE MEASURES DEMONSTRATE ITS ONGOING COMMITMENT TO COMPLIANCE IN ALL AREAS OF ITS BUSINESS.

Resolved: Nov 3, 2010

FINRAFINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FINRA) · fine $5,000 · final

Allegations: RESPONDENT JANNEY FAILED IN 2007 TO REPORT TO TRACE LARGE BLOCK TRANSACTIONS IN TRACE-ELIGIBLE SECURITIES WITHIN 15 MINUTES OF THE TIME OF EXECUTION IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULES 2110 AND 6230(A)

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, JANNEY CONSENTED TO A FINE OF $5,000,DESCRIBED SANCTION AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS.

Resolved: Jan 20, 2010

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY · May 6, 2009 · fine $200,000 · final

Allegations: THE VIOLATIONS SET FORTH IN THE AWC WHICH JANNEY ENTERED INTO WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING WERE: 1) FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE THE RISK OF INVESTING IN ARS, THAT ARS COULD BECOME ILLIQUID AND THAT CUSTOMERS MIGHT BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO FUNDS INVESTED IN ARS FOR SUBSTANTIAL PERIODS OF TIME; 2) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT ARS WERE MARKETED AND SOLD IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE RULES AND LAWS; 3) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF ARS TO CUSTOMERS DURING SALES PRESENTATIONS; AND 4) FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TRAINING TO REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING ARS CHARACTERISTICS.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY FINRA OF THE AWC, JANNEY COMPLETED ITS VOLUNTARY REPURCHASE OF ELIGIBLE ARS, REPAID THE DIFFERENCE TO THE SINGLE INVESTOR IT REASONABLY IDENTIFIED WHO SOLD FOR LESS THAN PAR DURING THE RELEVANT CLASS PERIOD. JANNEY ALSO COMPLETED AN OFFER AND REPURCHASE TO 14 FORMER CUSTOMERS WHO HAD PURCHASED WITHIN THE RELEVANT CLASS PERIOD BUT TRANSFERRED THEIR POSITION. JANNEY PAID THE FINE ON MAY 11, 2009.

Summary: JANNEY ENTERED INTO THE AWC WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS. IN THE AWC FINRA TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE SIGNIFICANT STEPS JANNEY HAD TAKEN TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL HARM SUSTAINED BY CUSTOMERS AS A RESULT OF THE ILLIQUIDITY IN THE ARS MARKET THAT BEGAN IN FEBRUARY 2008. ADDITIONALLY JANNEY BEGAN THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS PRIOR TO FINRA INVESTIGATION: EXTENDING COST NEUTRAL MARGIN OR NONPURPOSE LOANS TO CUSTOMERS WHO HAD LIQUIDITY NEEDS. IN AUGUST 2008 JANNEY CHOSE TO REPURCHASE ALL CUSTOMERS' ARS HOLDINGS THAT WERE PART OF NONFUNCTIONING MARKETS ARS HOLDINGS THAT WERE NOT PURCHASED AT JANNEY AS LONG AS THEY WERE IN A JANNEY ACCOUNT BY AUGUST 15, 2008.

Resolved: May 6, 2009

FINRA · Apr 24, 2012 · fine $55,000 · final

Allegations: FINRA RULE 2010, 6380A, 6182, 7450; NASD RULE 2111(A), 2320, 3010; SEC RULE 17A-3, 17A-4, 200(G), AND RULE 611(A)(1). IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2009 IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE FIRM FAILED TO EXECUTE ORDERS FULLY AND PROMPTLY AND FAILED TO USE REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE BEST INTERDEALER MARKET AVAILABLE. ADDITIONALLY IN DECEMBER 2009 IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE FIRM INCORRECTLY MARKED ITS LEDGER AS LONG WHEN THE FIRMS POSITION WAS SHORT, FAILED TO MAINTAIN CUSTOMER CONFIRMATIONS, FAILED TO ACCURATELY DOCUMENT PROPRIETARY POSITIONS, FAILED TO SHOW CORRECT ORDER ENTRY AND FAILED TO PROVIDE ORDER MEMORANDA. THE FIRM ALSO INCORRECTLY REPORTED THE SECOND LEG OF CERTAIN RISKLESS PRINCIPAL TRANSACTIONS AND TRANSMITTED INACCURATE FORMATTED ORDERS TO OATS. THE FIRM EXECUTED SHORT SALE TRANSACTIONS AND FAILED TO APPEND A SHORT SALE MODIFIER TO TRF AND EXECUTED SHORT SALE ORDERS AND FAILED TO MARK THE ORDER AS SHORT. ADDITIONALLY THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RULES OF FINRA AND THE SEC IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT AREAS: ORDER HANDLING; BEST EXECUTION; ANTI-INTIMIDATION; TRADE REPORTING; SALE TRANSACTIONS; TRADE HALTS; ERRORS; SOFT DOLLAR ACCOUNTS; OATS; SUB-PENNY RULES; ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; TRADE THROUGHS OF PROTECTED QUOTATIONS IN NMS STOCKS; BACKING AWAY; AND INFORMATION BARRIERS.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS THE FIRM CONSENTED TO A CENSURE, A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 AND AN UNDERTAKING TO REVISE ITS WSPS WITH RESPECT TO ORDER HANDLING; BEST EXECUTION; ANTI-INTIMIDATION; TRADE REPORTING; SALE TRANSACTIONS; TRADE HALTS; ERRORS; SOFT DOLLAR ACCOUNTS; OATS; SUB-PENNY RULES; ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; TRADE THROUGHS OF PROTECTED QUOTATIONS IN NMS STOCKS; BACKING AWAY; AND INFORMATION BARRIERS.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, JANNEY ENTERED INTO AN AWC CONSENTING TO A CENSURE AND FINE OF $55,000 RELATED TO NASD AND FINRA RULE VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A MARKET ORDER TIMELINESS("MOT") SWEEP FOR THE 3RD QUARTER OF 2009 AS WELL AS FINDINGS RELATED TO THE TRADING AND MARKET MAKING SURVEILLANCE ("TMMS") EXAMINATION OF THE FIRM IN JANUARY 2010. THE FIRM HAS UPDATED ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THESE FINDINGS.

Resolved: Apr 24, 2012

NASDAQ STOCK MARKET · Apr 24, 2012 · fine $10,000 · final

Allegations: NASDAQ RULES 4755, 2110, AND 3010: DURING DECEMBER 2009 THE FIRM ENTERED 29 ORDERS TO THE NASDAQ MARKET THAT FAILED TO CORRECTLY INDICATE WHETHER THE ORDERS WERE A BUY, LONG SALE OR SHORT SALE. IN ADDITION THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RULES OF NASDAQ IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT AREAS: ACCURACY OF NASDAQ ORDER ENTRY INFORMATION; REFRAINING FROM LOCKING OR CROSSING AN EXISTING QUOTE ON NASDAQ; AND CLEARLY ERRONEOUS TRANSACTIONS.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS THE FIRM CONSENTED TO A CENSURE, A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 AND AN UNDERTAKING TO REVISE ITS WSPS WITH RESPECT TO NASDAQ ORDER ENTRY INFORMATION, QUOTE SURVEILLANCE AND CLEARLY ERRONEOUS TRANSACTIONS.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, JANNEY ENTERED INTO AN AWC WITH NASDAQ CONSENTING TO A CENSURE AND FINE OF $10,000 FOR VIOLATIONS OF NASDAQ RULES 4755, 2110, AND 3010. THESE VIOLATIONS RELATING TO FINDINGS FROM THE FIRM'S JANUARY 2010 TRADING AND MARKET MAKING SURVEILLANCE ("TMMS") EXAMINATION. THE FIRM HAS UPDATED IT WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THESE FINDINGS.

Resolved: Apr 24, 2012

FINRA · Aug 8, 2012 · fine $52,500 · final

Allegations: IN CONNECTION WITH A SETTLEMENT OF MATTERS ARISING OUT OF AN EXAMINATION FOR THE 2009-2010 PERIOD, FINRA ALLEGED THE FIRM VIOLATED REG SHO RULES 204(A) AND 204(B) BY FAILING TO CLOSE OUT FAILS TO DELIVER RESULTING FROM SALE TRANSACTIONS IN CERTAIN PROPRIETARY ACCOUNTS AND AS A RESULT NOT DETERMINING SECURITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED FROM FURTHER SHORT SALES, FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE CLOSE-OUT REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS AND FAILING TO MAINTAIN AND APPLY CERTAIN CORRESPONDING WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED BY FINRA RULE 3010, 3010(A) AND (B). FINRA ALSO ALLEGED THE FIRM VIOLATED MSRB RULES IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN OFFERINGS DURING THE PERIOD BY FILING FORM G-32 WITH THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD (MSRB) CONTAINING AN INCORRECT DATE FOR THREE OFFERINGS AND LATE TO EMMA FOR TEN OFFERINGS, FAILING TO TIMELY SEND THE FINAL SETTLEMENT LETTERS TO ACCOMPLISH FINAL SETTLEMENT REQUIRED BY G-11 FOR TWO OFFERINGS, AND AMENDING BY ONE DAY LATE THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT WITH MSRB REQUIRED BY G-36 IN THREE OFFERINGS. FINALLY FINRA ALLEGED THE FIRM VIOLATED RULE 3010 AND MSRB G-27 BY FAILING TO ENFORCE ITS WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO DEPOSITS OF LOW-PRICED SECURITIES THAT TRADED ON THE OTCBB BY ACCEPTING A CERTIFICATE FOR 5 MILLION SHARES IN ONE BRANCH OFFICE WITHOUT OBTAINING AN EXCEPTION AS REQUIRED AND EXECUTING FOUR RETAIL VARIABLE RATE DEMAND OBLIGATION (VRDO) SECURITIES TRADES WITHOUT UPDATING ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) TO ADDRESS THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL INFORMATION TO CUSTOMERS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSACTIONS.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS. THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $52,500 ($5,000 OF WHICH PERTAINS TO THE MSRB RULE VIOLATIONS).

Resolved: Aug 8, 2012

FINRA · Dec 12, 2012 · fine $45,000 · final

Allegations: FINRA ALLEGED THE FIRM DID NOT CLOSE OUT FAIL-TO-DELIVER POSITIONS BY PURCHASING SECURITIES OF LIKE KIND AND QUANTITY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME PRESCRIBED BY REG SHO AND RULE 204 AND 204T. FURTHER, THE FIRM DID NOT PROPERLY TRANSMIT REPORTABLE ORDER EVENTS (ROES) TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS) WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD DUE TO CONTEXT OR SYNTAX ERRORS. THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT PROPERLY REPAIR OR RESUBMIT CERTAIN INACCURATE ROES WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED BY FINRA RULE 7450 . FINALLY, AS REQUIRED BY MSRB RULE G-17 AND G-30(A), THE FIRM DID NOT REASONABLY PRICE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES THAT WERE PURCHASED IN THE AGGREGATE FROM CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS.

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS. THE FIRM WAS ALSO CENSURED, FINED $45,000, ORDERED TO PAY $5,758.36 IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS RELATING TO THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES PRICING, AND REQUIRED TO REVISE ITS WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING OATS.

Resolved: Dec 12, 2012

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DIVISION OF INSURANCE · May 28, 2013 · final

Allegations: THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF INSURANCE ALLEGES JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT FAILED TO ACCURATELY ANSWER A BACKGROUND QUESTION ON ITS 2010 LICENSE APPLICATION IN VIOLATION OF M.G.L. C.175 162R(A)(1).

Sanction: Cease and Desist

How it ended: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement

Detail: CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE ALLEGED CONDUCT.

Summary: THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF INSURANCE ALLEGES JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT FAILED TO ACCURATELY ANSWER A BACKGROUND QUESTION ON ITS 2010 LICENSE APPLICATION IN VIOLATION OF M.G.L. C.175 162R(A)(1). IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DIVISION PROPOSED TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER THROUGH A SETTLEMENT IF JANNEY, WITHOUT ADMITTING TO ANY VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAWS, AGREES TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE ABOVE ALLEGED CONDUCT. THIS MATTER WAS RESOLVED ON MAY 28, 2013.

Resolved: May 28, 2013

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY ("FINRA") · Mar 2, 2015 · fine $17,500 · final

Allegations: FINRA ALLEGED THE FIRM FAILED TO SHOW THE CORRECT TIME OF ENTRY AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE MEMORANDUM OF 50 BROKERAGE ORDERS DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD IN VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 17A-3 AND FINRA RULE 4511. ADDITIONALLY, DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM TRANSMITTED TO OATS 50 REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORTS CONTAINED 50 INACCURATE ORDER RECEIPT TIMESTAMPS, 33 INACCURATE ACCOUNT TYPE CODES, 33 INACCURATE CAPACITY CODES, AND 50 INCOMPLETE SPECIAL HANDLING CODES IN VIOLATION OF FINRA RULE 7450(A).

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: THE FIRM PAID THE REQUIRED PENALTY OF $17,500.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO SHOW THE CORRECT TIME OF ENTRY AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE MEMORANDUM OF 50 BROKERAGE ORDERS AND TRANSMITTED 50 REPORTS THAT CONTAINED INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, OR IMPROPERLY FORMATTED DATA TO THE ORDER AUDIT TRAIL SYSTEM (OATS). THE FIRM HAS PAID THE REQUIRED PENALTY ($17,500) AND THE PROCESSES IN QUESTION HAVE SINCE BEEN AUTOMATED AND THE FIRMS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.

Resolved: Mar 2, 2015

NASDAQ STOCK MARKET · Jul 11, 2014 · fine $12,500 · final

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO DISPLAY IMMEDIATELY CUSTOMER LIMIT ORDERS IN NASDAQ SECURITIES (INCLUDING THE ORDERS' FULL SIZE AND PRICE) IN ITS PUBLIC QUOTATION, WHEN EACH SUCH ORDER WAS AT A PRICE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY; OR WHEN THE ORDER WAS PRICED EQUAL TO THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER AND THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER FOR EACH SUCH SECURITY, AND THE SIZE OF THE ORDER REPRESENTED MORE THAN A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN RELATION TO THE SIZE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRM'S BID OR OFFER IN EACH SUCH SECURITY, IN VIOLATION OF SEC RULE 604 OF REGULATION NMS.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, JANNEY ENTERED IN AN AWC WITH NASDAQ IN WHICH IT CONSENTED TO A CENSURE AND FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,500 RELATED TO SEC RULE 604 OF REGULATION NMS. THE FIRM HAS UPDATED ITS SUPERVISORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THESE FINDINGS.

Resolved: Jul 11, 2014

FINRA · Oct 27, 2015 · final

Allegations: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION CUSTOMERS ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE CERTAIN MUTUAL FUNDS AT A DISCOUNT WERE NOT ISSUED APPLICABLE DISCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS FURTHER STATED THAT THE FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO ENSURE SUCH DISCOUNTS WERE OFFERED AS APPROPRIATE.

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND AGREED TO PAY APPROXIMATELY $1,030,235, IN RESTITUTION PLUS INTEREST TO ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS.

Summary: IN MAY 2015, THE FIRM SELF-REPORTED THAT SOME ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS HAD NOT RECEIVED AVAILABLE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM ESTIMATES THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WERE OVERCHARGED BY APPROXIMATELY $1,030,235 FOR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE BETWEEN JULY 1, 2009 AND JUNE 24, 2015. AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT, THE FIRM AGREES TO PAY RESTITUTION PLUS INTEREST. THE FIRM WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT RETIREMENT AND CHARITABLE ACCOUNT MUTUAL FUND FEE WAIVERS ARE APPROPRIATELY APPLIED TO ALL FUTURE TRANSACTIONS. IN RESOLVING THIS MATTER, FINRA HAS RECOGNIZED THE EXTRAORDINARY COOPERATION OF THE FIRM FOR HAVING: (1) INITIATED, PRIOR TO DETECTION OR INTERVENTION BY A REGULATOR, AN INVESTIGATION TO IDENTIFY WHETHER ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED SALES CHARGE WAIVERS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD; (2) PROMPTLY ESTABLISHED A PLAN OF REMEDIATION FOR ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WHO DID NOT RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SALES CHARGE WAIVERS; (3) PROMPTLY SELF-REPORTED TO FINRA; (4) PROMPTLY TAKEN ACTION AND REMEDIAL STEPS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT; AND (5) EMPLOYED SUBSEQUENT CORRECTIVE MEASURES, PRIOR TO DETECTION OR INTERVENTION BY A REGULATOR, TO REVISE ITS PROCEDURES TO AVOID RECURRENCE OF THE MISCONDUCT.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Feb 2, 2016 · fine $500,000 · final

Allegations: RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT. THIS MATTER INVOLVES VIOLATIONS OF AN ANTIFRAUD PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT'S UNDERWRITING OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES OFFERINGS. RESPONDENT, A REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, CONDUCTED INADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCE IN CERTAIN OFFERINGS AND AS A RESULT, FAILED TO FORM A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CERTAIN MATERIAL REPRESENTATIONS IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE OFFERINGS. THIS RESULTED IN RESPONDENT OFFERING AND SELLING MUNICIPAL SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALLY MISLEADING DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS. THE VIOLATIONS WERE SELF-REPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT'S (THE "DIVISION") MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COOPERATION (MCDC) INITIATIVE.

How it ended: Order

Detail: THE RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(A) (2)OF THE SECURITIES ACT, PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 AND COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.

Summary: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE VIOLATIONS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE ENTRY OF AN SEC ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE CEASE AND DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 15(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (THE "ORDER"). THE ORDER STEMS FROM THE FIRM'S SELF-REPORTING OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATED TO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED IN RULES 15C2-12 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT WHEREBY THE FIRM MUST 1) CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(A)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, 2) PAY A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000, AND 3) COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS, INCLUDING RETENTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE FIRM'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS THEY RELATE TO MUNICIPAL SECURITIES UNDERWRITING DUE DILIGENCE.

Resolved: Feb 2, 2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · Jul 18, 2016 · fine $125,000 · final

Allegations: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION OF JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ("JANNEY") REGARDING A FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR, WHO WAS TERMINATED BY THE FIRM ON JULY 27, 2010. IT IS ALLEGED THAT JANNEY FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR DURING THE TERM OF HER EMPLOYMENT, RESULTING IN FAILURE TO DETECT AND PREVENT A FRAUDULENT SCHEME CONDUCTED BY THE FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

Sanction: Other

How it ended: Order

Detail: THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $125,000 AND $10,000 TOWARDS THE COST OF THE INVESTIGATION.

Summary: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND SECURITIES, AND JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ENTERED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH A FINAL ORDER FILED ON JULY 18, 2016. BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION, WHICH INCLUDED THE FULL COOPERATION OF JANNEY, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE FINDINGS, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, THAT THE FIRM OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES ACT OF 1972, HAVING FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE THE SECURITIES ACTIVITIES OF THE FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

Resolved: Jul 18, 2016

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Mar 11, 2019 · final

Allegations: IN JUNE OF 2018, THE FIRM VOLUNTARILY SELF-REPORTED THAT SOME CUSTOMERS ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DID NOT CHARGE 12B-1 FEES DID NOT RECEIVE THE AVAILABLE LESS EXPENSIVE SHARE CLASS. AS A RESULT, THE FIRM ESTIMATED THAT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WERE OVERCHARGED $215,761 PLUS PRE JUDGEMENT INTEREST FOR MUTUAL FUND PURCHASES MADE SINCE JANUARY 1, 2014. THE FIRM AGREES TO PAY RESTITUTION PLUS INTEREST, AS WELL AS TO REVIEW ITS RELATED DISCLOSURES AND PROCEDURES. THE FIRM HAS HAD PROCEDURES IN PLACE INTENDED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

Sanction: Cease and Desist

How it ended: Other

Detail: THE FIRM HAS SUBMITTED AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION. THE FIRM SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM COMMITTING OR CAUSING ANY VIOLATIONS AND ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 206(2) AND 207 OF THE ADVISERS ACT. RESPONDENT IS CENSURED, SHALL PAY DISGORGEMENT OF $215,761.17 AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST OF $25,465.87, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS ENUMERATED IN THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.

Resolved: Mar 11, 2019

MASSACHUSETTS · May 7, 2019 · fine $286,622.02 · final

Allegations: SALES PRACTICE VIOLATIONS INVOLVING SHORT TERM TRADING IN CLASS A SHARES OF MUTUAL FUNDS BY AN ADVISOR WHO LEFT JANNEY IN 2018.

Sanction: Cease and Desist

How it ended: Consent

Detail: THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $286,622.02. PAYMENT WAS MADE ON APRIL 3, 2020.

Summary: ON APRIL 1, 2020, JANNEY ENTERED INTO A CONSENT ORDER WITH THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY FINDINGS, THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $286,622.02 IN CONNECTION WITH AN ALLEGED FAILURE TO SUPERVISE THE MUTUAL FUND A SHARE SALES PRACTICES OF A FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR UNDER SECTION 204(A)(2)(J) OF THE MASS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 110A. THE FIRM FURTHER AGREED TO PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING OF IMPACTED CUSTOMERS AND SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDE WRITTEN OFFERS OF RESTITUTION; REVIEW ITS WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO TRADING OF CLASS A SHARES OF MUTUAL FUNDS; ACCEPTED A CENSURE AND AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

Resolved: Apr 1, 2020

NASDAQ STOCK MARKET · Mar 22, 2019 · fine $27,500 · final

Allegations: ON MARCH 21, 2019, THE FIRM ENTERED INTO AN AWC WITH NASDAQ. WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY FINDINGS BY NASDAQ, THE FIRM AGREED TO A FINE OF $27,500 WITH RESPECT TO ITS FAILURE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2017 TO MAINTAIN A CONTINUOUS TWO-SIDED TRADING INTEREST DURING REGULAR MARKET HOURS AT PRICES WITHIN CERTAIN PERCENTAGES AWAY FROM THE NATIONAL BEST BID OR OFFER (NBBO).

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED AND FINED $27,500.

Summary: CASE NO. 20160511406 (INCLUDES 20170545706 (INCLUDES 20170567114) AND 20180594816). SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVIEW PERIOD, THE FIRM UPDATED ITS SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING T+1 SURVEILLANCE AND AN INTRADAY REVIEW, THEREFORE, ENFORCEMENT IS NOT RECOMMENDING AN UNDERTAKING.

Resolved: Mar 22, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE · Jun 29, 2015 · fine $105,000 · final

Allegations: IT WAS ALLEGED THAT FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR, WHO LEFT THE FIRM ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, RECOMMENDED CERTAIN UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT BLOCK WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPERVISED.

Sanction: Cease and Desist

How it ended: Order

Detail: THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $75,000, $30,000 TOWARD THE COST OF THE STATE'S INVESTIGATION AND REFRAIN FROM ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS.

Summary: THE STATE OF DELAWARE, OFFICE OF INVESTOR PROTECTION, AND JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ENTERED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ORDER, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE OFFICE THROUGH A FINAL ORDER DATED JUNE 10, 2015 AND RECEIVED BY THE FIRM ON JUNE 29, 2015. THE FIRM CONSENTED TO FINDINGS THAT ONE OF ITS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, WHO LEFT THE FIRM ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, RECOMMENDED CERTAIN UNSUITABLE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT FINANCIAL ADVISOR WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPERVISED. THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OF $75,000, $30,000 TOWARD THE COST OF THE STATE'S INVESTIGATION AND REFRAIN FROM ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS.

Resolved: Jun 29, 2015

PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES COMMISSION · Dec 9, 1993 · fine $100,000 · final

Allegations: FAILURE TO SUPERVISE; VIOLATION OF SECTION 305(A)(VII) OF THE PA SECURITIES ACT.

Sanction: Censure

How it ended: Consent

Detail: THE FINE OF $100000.00 AND COSTS OF $28550.24 WAS PAID 10/30/1998.

Summary: JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, CONSENTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF AND ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SECURITIES COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE TO PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTS OF CERTIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS.

Resolved: Nov 6, 1996

FINRA · Sep 8, 2020 · fine $90,000 · final

Allegations: IT IS ALLEGED THE FIRM SUBMITTED INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE REPORTABLE ORDER EVENTS (ROES) TO OATS, FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OATS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND FAILED TO REASONABLY RESPOND TO IDENTIFIED OATS REPORTING DEFICIENCIES. THE FINDINGS STATE THE FIRM TRANSMITTED DESK REPORTS INCLUDING INACCURATE DESK TYPE CODE AND NEW ORDER TYPE EVENTS THAT FAILED TO REPORT AN INFORMATION BARRIER ID, SUBMITTING DESK REPORTS CODING ITS EQUITY RETAIL DESK AS DESK TYPE CODE OF "T", INDICATING ITS TRADING DESK RECEIVED THE RELEVANT ORDERS FOR EXECUTION. SINCE ALL ORDERS SENT THROUGH THE FIRM'S AGENCY DESK WERE ROUTED TO OTHER MARKET DESTINATIONS FOR EXECUTION, THE FIRM SHOULD HAVE USED THE DESK TYPE CODE OF "A" FOR AGENCY WHEN REPORTING THESE ORDERS TO OATS. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) DID NOT REQUIRE A REVIEW OF THE OATS DATA SUBMISSIONS TO ASSESS THE ACCURACY OF THE DESK TYPE CODE AND INFORMATION BARRIER IDS. THE FIRM'S REVISED WSPS FAILED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE GUIDANCE ON HOW THE OATS REVIEW SHOULD OCCUR AND WERE NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OATS REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: HE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $90,000 AND REQUIRED TO REVISE ITS WSPS WITH RESPECT TO OATS COMPLIANCE.

Resolved: Sep 8, 2020

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING · Oct 21, 2020 · fine $100,000 · final

Allegations: ON OCTOBER 21, 2020, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC ("JANNEY") AGREED TO ENTRY OF AN ORDER ALLEGING THAT JANNEY PERMITTED A FORMER EMPLOYEE TO ACT AS EXECUTOR OF A CLIENT'S ESTATE IN CONTRAVENTION OF WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES. THE CONSENT ORDER ALSO ALLEGED THAT JANNEY FAILED TO TIMELY PRODUCE RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE AGENCY OR AMEND THE FORM U-5 PREVIOUSLY FILED RELATED TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Consent

Detail: N/A

Resolved: Oct 21, 2020

STATE OF MAINE, OFFICE OF SECURITIES · Mar 29, 2021 · fine $2,500 · final

Allegations: THE STATE PUBLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2020-45 THAT PROVIDES FIRMS LICENSED IN MAINE TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM ON-SITE BRANCH OFFICE INSPECTIONS DUE TO ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC. THE ORDER REQUIRED FIRMS WITH BRANCH OFFICES IN MAINE TO PROVIDE THE STATE WITH A LIST OF THE DATE(S) ON WHICH THE FIRM LAST CONDUCTED AN ON-SITE INSPECTION AT EACH BRANCH OFFICE IN MAINE. JANNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY PROVIDING A RESPONSE TO THE STATE; THOUGH JANNEY DID CONDUCT AN ON-SITE INSPECTION OF ITS SINGLE BRANCH OFFICE IN MAINE IN 2019 AND 2020. THE STATE DEEMS JANNEY IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE DUE TO ITS LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE ORDER REQUIRED BY NOVEMBER 13, 2020.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Consent

Detail: THE FIRM WAS FINED $2,500.

Resolved: Mar 29, 2021

FINRA · Oct 19, 2022 · fine $100,000 · final

Allegations: FROM DECEMBER 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 2016, JANNEY FAILED TO REASONABLY SUPERVISE TWO FORMER REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES WHO RECOMMENDED THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS INVEST AN UNSUITABLY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THEIR ASSETS IN ENERGY-SECTOR SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF NASD RULE 3010 AND FINRA RULES 3110 AND 2010.

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: THE FIRM WAS CENSURED, FINED $100,000, AND ORDERED TO PAY $145,019, PLUS INTEREST, IN RESTITUTION TO CUSTOMERS.

Resolved: Oct 19, 2022

STATE OF DELAWARE · Nov 2, 2022 · fine $72,255 · final

Allegations: IN NOVEMBER 2022, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO A CONSENT ORDER WITH THE STATE OF DELAWARE RELATED TO FAILURE TO SUPERVISE THE SUITABILITY OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES BY A FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Consent

Detail: SEE SANCTIONS ABOVE

Resolved: Nov 2, 2022

FINRA · Jul 23, 2024 · fine $150,000 · final

Allegations: FINRA ALLEGED THAT JANNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY REPORT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD ("MSRB") FROM JULY 2019 TO MAY 2021; AND TRADE REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE ENGINE ("TRACE") FROM MARCH 2022 TO MARCH 2023. FINRA ALSO ALLEGED THAT JANNEY DID NOT HAVE PROPER SUPERVISORY SYSTEMS AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REGARDING SUCH TRADE REPORTING.

Sanction: Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)

How it ended: Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Detail: THE FIRM AGREED TO A $150,000 SETTLEMENT.

Summary: ON JULY 23, 2024, JANNEY ENTERED INTO AN AWC WITH FINRA, WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING ANY FINDINGS, THE FIRM AGREED TO A $150,000 SETTLEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATIONS AND UPDATED APPLICABLE WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES.

Resolved: Jul 23, 2024

Another 2 records concern PARKER/HUNTER (1), GLOBAL ATLANTIC (1), which report the details on their own Form ADV.

In its own words: the client brochure

Form ADV Part 2A, the plain-English document an adviser must give its clients, quoted as filed 6/30/2026.3 It covers the firm’s services, fees, investment strategies and their risks, and its conflicts of interest. The firm also files 1 other brochure.

Item 4: Advisory business Services

Janney currently offers eleven (11) fee-based advisory “wrap” programs that are broadly characterized as professional money management, asset allocation and internal portfolio management (each a “Program” and collectively, the “Programs”). Your Janney Financial Advisor will assess the potential suitability of the wrap fee program and establish whether one of the Programs may be appropriate for you based on your stated investment objectives and goals. General Fee Information In general, Janney’s fee is negotiable and may vary based upon a number of factors discussed further below. Janney generally charges a wrap fee based on a percentage of the assets in a Program account. A wrap fee is a bundled fee for services such as investment advice, including portfolio management, research, custodial services, reporting and trading and execution. A wrap fee is not based directly on the amount of transactions in a client’s account but rather the fee is calculated based on the asset value of the Client’s account. Accordingly, if there is little or no trading activity in the account, it is possible that a Client may pay more in advisory fees than he or she would have in commission charges if the account was a brokerage account, depending upon the number of trades that occur in an account from year to year. Each Program generally includes investment management, custody, reporting, performance-monitoring and trade execution services. Janney’s advisory fees are typically billed quarterly in advance, except as specifically noted below. The initial fee is charged on the date such assets are accepted for management and calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the days remaining in the calendar quarter. Thereafter, Janney calculates the fee at an annual rate based upon the market value of the Client’s account as of the last business day of the calendar quarter (i.e., March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st). Fees will be refunded if the account is terminated in writing by Janney or the Client for the pro-rata portion of the quarter for which no advisory services were provided. Additional deposits with a value of $15,000 or greater will be charged a pro-rata advisory fee for the partial calendar quarter, beginning on the date of the deposit. Intra-quarter contributions to 529 savings plans held away from Janney will not be assessed the pro-rated advisory fee. Withdrawals in any amount are not subject to a pro-rata refund of fees paid in advance. In computing the asset value of the Advisory Accounts held at Janney, the firm generally relies on pricing available from securities exchanges, third-party pricing sources, issuers, sponsors and other custodians. Advisory Account Assets traded on a national securities exchange or quoted on an automated quotation system are valued at the last sale price on the exchange or automated quotation system, or, if there has been no sale that day, at the last known bid price. Advisory Account Assets that are traded over-thecounter are valued according to the broadest and most representative market and valued at the known current bid price Janney believes most closely represents the current market value. Mutual fund shares are valued at their net asset value on the valuation date as described in the funds’ prospectuses. For mutual fund shares held away from Janney like those in 529 savings plans, Janney utilizes the most recent value reported to us by the 529 savings plan. The value of held away mutual funds is reported to Janney on a delay, which means that the value utilized by Janney to calculate your advisory fee may be more or less than the net asset value of the fund on the billing date. Additional deposits received intra-quarter will not be subject to a pro-rated fee for the remaining days of the quarter. Instead, the additional funds will be included in the account value during the next quarterly billing cycle.

PAGE - 4

For privately offered securities, Janney utilizes the most recent position value reported to us by each fund administrator. The value of privately offered securities is reported to Janney periodically and the timing of such reporting may vary between fund administrators. This means that the value utilized by Janney to calculate your advisory fee may be more or less than the net asset value of each fund on the billing date. Any other securities or investments in the Advisory Account are valued in a manner that Janney determines in good faith to reflect fair market value on the date of valuation. Janney relies, without verification, on valuations furnished by an independent party Janney selects that it believes to be reliable. These good faith valuations may vary between other independent parties and other factors not assessed may substantially affect the valuation(s). Therefore, valuations may reflect a higher or lower fair market value depending on the independent party selected and relied upon. There are no assurances that (i) these good faith valuations reflect the prices that the Advisory Account actually paid for the securities or investments or (ii) that this is the price that would be realized upon a sale of the assets in the Advisory Account. With respect to each Program, fees may be negotiated with the Janney Financial Advisor (“FA”) and are based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the size of the Client’s account, other related accounts with Janney, the extent of services to be provided by Janney to the Client’s account, and the projected nature of trading in the Client’s account. Janney offers the following Programs, which are described in greater detail below:

Professional Money Management

Asset Allocation

Internal Portfolio Management

Adviser’s

Keystone Discretionary

Partners Advisory

Janney UMA (Formally Adviser’s MSP)

ETF Advantage

Compass

Classic

Janney Goals-Based Portfolio Solutions (GPS)

Investors Select (formerly FIED)

Janney Capital Management Direct

Pioneer

Janney offers Clients a choice between two primary advisory fee structures: a flat fee schedule and a tiered fee schedule, each based on a percentage of assets under management and subject to negotiation. Under the flat fee schedule, a single asset-based fee is applied to the entire value of the Client’s account. Under the tiered fee schedule, the advisory fee is calculated based on the total value of the Client’s household advisory assets under management, with different fee rates applied incrementally to portions of assets within specified tiers, such that the effective fee rate may decrease as assets increase. Individual account fees reflect a proportional allocation of the total household advisory fee.

PAGE - 5

The fee schedule set forth below is the current fee schedule for new Clients and represents the portion of the fee payable to the Janney Financial Advisor. Additional fees may be applied by a Third-Party Manager, if applicable. Other fee schedules may go into effect from time to time, which may provide for lower or higher fees, as the case may be, than that shown below. As new fee schedules are put into effect, they are made applicable only to new Clients, and fee schedules applicable to existing Clients are not affected. Therefore, some Clients may pay different fees than those shown below. Flat Fee Schedule* Program Type All Advisory Programs

Maximum FA Fee Up to 2.00%

Tiered Fee Schedule (Household-Based)* Advisory Household Assets First $500,000 next $500,000 next $1,000,000 next $3,000,000 next $5,000,000 next $15,000,000 over $25,000,000

Maximum FA Fee

Up to 2.00%

* Additional sub-advisory or third-party manager fees may apply and vary by program and strategy. In certain accounts managed pursuant to a strategy of a third-party manager (“Third-Party Manager”), Janney pays a portion of the fee received from Clients to the Third-Party Manager. In the Adviser’s Program, the fees paid to a Third-Party Manager for a Model-Based Strategy generally range from .25% to .45% and the fees paid to a Third-Party Manager in the Manager-Traded Strategy generally range from .15% to 1.00%. Janney will retain a portion of the Client fee when Clients choose to utilize a select Third-Party Manager in the Adviser’s Program that provides tax optimization services. Janney will retain .025% of the Client fee and the Third-Party Manager will receive .075% of the Client fee. The purpose of this fee-splitting arrangement is to offset the costs that Janney incurs for marketing and distribution of the investment strategy on behalf of the Third-Party Manager. Janney also offers its own tax optimization services in the Janney UMA designed to enhance after-tax returns by actively managing the tax impact of investment decisions. Janney’s tax optimization service does not utilize Third-Party Manager management; however, Janney utilizes a third-party technology provider to support portfolio rebalancing and tax optimization processes, while retaining full discretion over the applicable tax-loss harvesting thresholds, drift parameters, and portfolio management rules. Janney will retain .05% of the Client fee for portfolio management designed to enhance after-tax returns by actively managing the tax impact of investment decisions. This presents a conflict of interest as Janney has a financial interest in recommending either the Third-Party Manager’s tax optimization strategy or the Janney UMA tax optimization service to Clients. Janney mitigates this conflict of interest by requiring Janney Financial Advisors to act in accordance with their fiduciary obligations to serve the best interests of the Client and recommend the tax optimization

PAGE - 6

investment strategy only when doing so meets the Client’s goals and investment objectives as provided to Janney. In the Janney UMA Program, Janney retains .05% portion of the Client fee to support trade discretion and overlay management services (“the overlay fee”). Janney does not apply an overlay fee in Janney UMA accounts that only maintain a single sleeve ETF, mutual fund, or separate managed account. Fees paid to the Third-Party Manager are applied as a weighted average based on each sleeve’s allocation relative to the total portfolio and generally range from .25% to .45% per investment strategy including Janney that receives between .12% to .22% per investment strategy managed by JCM. Some Third-Party managed investment strategies and model portfolios available in the Janney UMA Program are also available in other wrap fee programs sponsored by Janney, including those managed by JCM (i.e., Advisers Program, Pioneer Program, and Janney Capital Management Direct). Because of the Janney UMA Program unique structure that offers Clients the ability to bundle multiple model portfolios and investment strategies together in one Janney account, the Client could pay more for an investment strategy in the Janney UMA Program than they would otherwise pay for the strategy in one of Janney’s other wrap fee programs. For JCM managed accounts, Janney receives .25% of the total Client fee, except for accounts in the Keystone Discretionary Program and Ladder Fixed Income Strategies accounts under the JCM Direct Program for which Janney receives .15% of the Client fee. Janney receives .10% of the Client fee for accounts in the Short Duration Income Strategy also under the JCM Direct Program. The Janney Client Service Center (“JCSC”) is an internal Janney team of licensed financial professionals that provides administrative services and trade execution for brokerage accounts and offers limited investment advisory services to eligible Clients through Janney’s call center. The JCSC provides advisory Clients with access to a limited number of third-party managed model portfolios available in Janney’s Pioneer Program, as well as financial planning services, ongoing monitoring of advisory accounts and performance reporting. The JCSC assesses an annual fee of 0.95% based upon the market value of the Client’s account as of the last business day of the calendar quarter and billed quarterly in advance. When the Client has entered into a dual contract agreement with a Third-Party Manager in Janney’s Classic Program, the Client maintains a separate agreement with the Third-Party Manager that governs the terms of the services to be provided by the Third-Party Manager as well as the fees to be charged by the manager for such services in addition to the Advisory Agreement they maintain with Janney. The Third-Party Manager fee is not included in the fee schedule above. Janney will not be a party to this agreement. In the Classic Program, Janney will generally deduct and pay the Third-Party Manager’s management fee from the Client’s account for each calendar quarter based on an invoice received from the Third-Party Manager, unless the Client elects to pay the Third-Party Manager directly. Clients in the Classic Program may select to pay commissions on trades to their Janney Financial Advisor instead of an asset-based fee. In certain cases, Clients may be able to negotiate a lower management fee with a Third-Party Manager for certain investment strategies available in the dual contract program. Similar strategies may also be available in a single contract (wrap fee) program; however, the total fees and expenses associated with each program may differ. Clients should be aware that any negotiated fee arrangements are determined between the Client and the Third-Party Manager, and not all Clients will receive the same or similar pricing. As a result, similarly, situated Clients may pay different fees for comparable services or strategies.

PAGE - 7

Read the rest in the brochure

Item 5: Fees and compensation Fees

Janney offers investment advisory services to a broad range of individual and institutional Clients including, but not limited to, individuals, families, trusts, estates, corporate and non-corporate entities, retirement plans, pension plans, profit-sharing plans, and government entities. In most cases, Janney requires a minimum initial investment to open a Program account which varies depending on the Program. The following chart sets forth the initial minimum investment by Program.

Program

Minimum Initial Investment

Professional Money Management Adviser’s

$100,000*

PAGE - 35

Janney UMA Classic

$50,000* $100,000*

Janney Capital Management Direct

$100,000*

Asset Allocation Keystone ETF Advantage

$25,000 $25,000

Goals-Based Portfolio Solutions (GPS)

$5,000

Pioneer

Varies* Internal Portfolio Management

Partners** Compass Investors Select

$10,000 $25,000 $25,000

*The initial minimum investment amount required for select strategies in the Pioneer, Adviser’s, Janney UMA, Janney Capital Management Direct and Classic Programs may be lower or higher than the Program minimums required by Janney for an account. For example, the minimum investment for a Janney Capital Management Direct account is generally $100,000, with the exception of account(s) in the Short Duration Income strategy which has an investment minimum of $250,000. Janney may waive, in its sole discretion, the initial minimum investment required by Janney for an account. In determining whether to waive an investment minimum, Janney considers the following factors: household asset value, investment vehicles and the anticipation of upcoming contributions and/or necessary withdrawals in the account. A ThirdParty Manager may have a higher minimum investment depending on the strategy selected. Janney UMA accounts must meet the minimums for each sleeve of the account. ** A minimum investment amount of $1,000 will be applied to Advisory 529 savings plans when held in the Partners Program.

Item 8: Methods of analysis, investment strategies and risk of loss Investment strategies and risks

Clients are permitted and encouraged to contact their Janney Financial Advisor at any time with questions about their account. If a Client utilizes a Third-Party Manager, the Third-Party Manager may be contacted through the Client’s Janney Financial Advisor, who will make arrangements for a consultation. Under the Classic Program, Clients have contracted separately with the Third-Party Manager and arrange their own contact with the Third-Party Manager.

Item 7: Types of clients

When a Client selects a Third-Party Manager, Janney provides information about the Client to the ThirdParty Manager to ensure the Client’s investment objectives are addressed. The Client information sent to an unrelated Third-Party Manager includes: (i) the investment advisory contract signed by the Client; (ii) current Client account holdings; and (iii) certain Client information such as name, address, and tax identification number. Janney will update this information with the Third-Party Manager on an as-needed basis. Janney maintains separate agreements with Third-Party Managers recommended under the Manager-Traded Strategies in the Adviser’s Program. These separate agreements require Third-Party Managers maintain confidentiality of Client information.

Item 6: Performance-based fees and side-by-side management Conflicts of interest

Janney Wealth Management Research is responsible for the initial research & due diligence as well as the ongoing monitoring of all model-based and manager traded strategies at Janney. All Separately Managed Accounts (“SMAs”) and Unified Managed Account (“UMA”) strategies available at Janney are actively monitored either internally by WM Research or by an independent third-party vendor. Single contract SMA and UMA strategies are monitored by both WM Research and the third-party vendor, while dual contract managers are only monitored by WM Research. All SMA and UMA strategies undergo an initial and ongoing due diligence process. Janney’s affiliated asset manager, Janney Capital Management, undergoes formal reviews by the independent third-party vendor on an ad hoc basis.

Strategy Identification SMA and UMA strategies are identified through a number of different sources, including third-party investment analysis databases, client recommendations, trade journals, industry conferences, as well as

PAGE - 36

personal and professional networks. All SMA strategies available on the Janney platform are labeled as either Recommended or Approved. Recommended strategies are backed by WM Research’s highest conviction and are published on the Outsourced Solutions Guide. The starting universe for investment strategies considered for inclusion on the Outsourced Solutions Guide is the Morningstar Direct database. Approved strategies have met basic due diligence standards. All single contract SMA/UMA strategies receive the same treatment from an ongoing due diligence perspective and are reviewed at least quarterly. Dual contract SMA managers on Janney’s Classic Platform also must undergo an initial review and are required to meet basic due diligence standards and are reviewed annually.

Initial Criteria An initial review of an investment strategy includes, but is not limited to, the following criteria, which is intended to represent the most basic due diligence requirements*. • Minimum of $100 million in firm assets under management • Minimum of 3 investment professionals at the firm • Minimum of a 3-year track record illustrating the investment manager’s ability to manage a portfolio in the same or similar fashion as the product under consideration • Consistency of style, philosophy, process, and risk-adjusted returns • Reasonable fee structures • Verifiable, reputable service providers *These criteria will serve as a guide and may vary depending on the reviewed strategy.

Initial Evaluation WM Research reviews the performance of a strategy with the goal of understanding how it is likely to behave throughout different points in the market cycle as evidenced by historical data. This involves close examination of both absolute and relative returns versus the style benchmark and peer returns, taking long-term performance into account but emphasizing the 3- and 5-year rolling time frames. Riskadjusted performance is crucial in this evaluation. The use of various risk-adjusted measures allows the team to study the returns of recommended managers relative to the various layers of risk investment to which portfolios are subjected. Some of these risk metrics include, but are not limited to, systematic risk (beta), absolute volatility (standard deviation), downside volatility (downside deviation) and active risk (tracking error). On a qualitative basis, WM Research reviews the following key areas of a strategy: Firm Characteristics: • The firm's size, assets under management, years in business, infrastructure, ownership, and service capabilities. • Whether the firm has a business plan which outlines its strategic direction, including future growth and succession plans. • If management incentives are in line with investors objectives. • The policies and procedures the firm has in place to address and limit the impact of conflicts of interest. Management personnel:

PAGE - 37

• • • •

The professional background, education, tenure, and experience of personnel making the investment decisions, as well as other departments within the firm such as Compliance, Operations, and Trading. Whether the investment professionals are transparent and accessible. Whether the compensation of the investment professionals align with the interests of investors. If the structure and geography of the team members promote effective communication and idea sharing.

Philosophy & Process: • Presence of an explainable, understandable philosophy that states the manager's longterm investment goals. • If and how the manager intends to add value. • Whether there is a clearly defined market inefficiency the manager seeks to exploit and if there is a repeatable investment process in place. • If the investment manager’s process has a strong buy/sell discipline to support the philosophy and if the manager has adhered to this discipline over time. • Whether the manager's philosophy has proven successful through performance and risk metrics. Progress: • How the strategy/product has evolved over time. • What changes, if any, the team has made to the philosophy and process in response to evolving market conditions and the lessons learned. Positioning: • Where the product fits within the firm's offerings and the amount of attention and resources is it likely to garnish. • How the strategy compares to its peers and the value that it could bring to the existing product lineup on the Janney platform. • How the strategy complements existing recommended strategies.

On-going Research On a recurring basis, but no less than quarterly, WM Research, in conjunction with a third-party investment consultant, assesses the qualitative characteristics referenced above and conducts a quantitative performance review to ensure the timely delivery of information to Janney’s existing or potential investors. Formal updates on Recommended or Approved strategies will be published when performance falls out of line with expectations or when there has been a meaningful change in process, investment team or firm that can reasonably be expected to impact performance in the future. Dual contract SMA managers on Janney’s Classic Platform are required to complete an annual due diligence questionnaire and are viewed by WM Research on an annual basis.

PAGE - 38

JCM Methods of Analysis and Investment Strategies JCM’s approach to security analysis is based primarily on fundamental research. This approach entails conducting an examination of the operating, financial and industry conditions affecting each company whose security is under consideration, all from a long-term perspective. On a recurring basis, the Investment Committee, comprised of the firm’s investment personnel, meets to evaluate global and domestic macroeconomic trends and the opportunities they present, and to identify asset allocation, asset class and sector weightings, strategic and tactical portfolio strategies and security selection. Investment monitoring, rebalancing, and portfolio management are an ongoing focus of the Investment Committee. The Investment Committee also strives to incorporate economic analysis into its overall views of the markets in general, to employ certain relative valuation disciplines and to utilize technical analysis as part of the overall process. JCM’s investment professionals take into account factors such as current yield, price attractiveness, earnings and dividend growth potential, and economic, political and sociological factors, as applicable. In portfolio construction, the investment managers seek a prudent level of diversification to reduce risk. While any or all sources of information may be used, JCM’s principal sources of information are: (i) issuerprepared information (annual reports, proxy materials, press releases, etc.); (ii) SEC filings; (iii) management interviews and contacts; (iv) industry trade association statistics; (v) government data; and (vi) financial publications. Additional research materials are obtained from equity research departments of other financial institutions and independent research services. JCM’s investment approach to ESG portfolio management focuses on identifying the leading ESG rated companies and then applying fundamental research analysis to enhance performance and manage investment risks. Security selection begins by utilizing a quantitative screening process that first groups the universe of eligible securities into economic sectors and then each individual stock is ranked by a thirdparty composite ESG score. Since JCM focuses on the overall composite score, ESG factor weights are not considered although in general, composite level scores tend to be weighted equally across the environmental, social, and governance segments. The highest-ranking securities then undergo a fundamental analysis for potential inclusion in the strategy. Fundamental analysis focuses on overall attractiveness of the company’s industry, competitive position, financials, leverage, growth outlook and valuation amongst other considerations. Portfolio construction is also considered in the selection process which will include but is not limited to, beta comparisons, end market exposures of existing holdings, and quantitative risk characteristics. At the time of purchase, a new position to the strategy will typically have a composite ESG score in the highest quartile of the company’s relevant sector, however, the highest absolute ESG rated company may not always be selected if fundamental research and portfolio construction considerations identify a more attractive option. Additionally, JCM employs a negative screening process that excludes from the strategy companies that derive a significant portion of their revenues through Tobacco, Alcohol or Firearms businesses. Portfolio holdings are monitored at least quarterly to identify changes in overall ESG composite ranks for individual securities as well as overall portfolio rank vs the benchmark and fundamental merit. Securities that experience a decline in ESG rating below the average for a specific sector will generally be replaced by a higher-ranking alternative. However, because the portfolio may continue to own below average rated ESG composite ranked securities, a high level of consideration is also given to fundamental and portfolio construction merits. JCM uses the ACWI benchmark to compare against the Global Sustainability Strategy.

PAGE - 39

Client accounts are managed independently of one another, and JCM is under no obligation or requirement to buy or sell the same investments for all or some of the accounts, even when the investment strategy may be similar. JCM’s investment strategies involve certain risks. There can be no assurance that any particular strategy will be successful in achieving the client’s investment goals and objectives. Neither JCM, nor Janney, guarantees the future performance of a client’s account or any specific level of performance.

Mutual Fund Product Due Diligence All mutual funds available for sale on the Janney platform undergo an initial due diligence process to ensure that they meet certain criteria set forth by Janney. The Wealth Management Department utilizes a third-party vendor to perform the initial due diligence while Janney provides ongoing due diligence on a semi-annual basis once a fund is added to the Janney platform. Janney may vary the initial criteria depending on certain factors of the mutual fund however, it typically includes, but is not limited to, length of active management, amount of assets under management and also incorporates independent thirdparty product analysis. Funds that fail to meet the due diligence standards are moved to a liquidation only status and will be closed to new investments until they meet the due diligence standards during a subsequent semi-annual review. Although new purchases are not permitted in mutual funds that fail to meet the aforementioned criteria, it’s important to note that Janney does not force liquidation of existing positions and continues to accept incoming transfers of these funds.

Exchange Traded Products Due Diligence All ETFs available on the Janney platform must first meet several initial requirements, including but not limited to, length of performance history and a minimum value of AUM. All ETFs on the Janney platform are surveyed daily and are restricted from new purchases if they fall below the minimum required thresholds. Restrictions may be lifted daily if the ETF achieves the minimum requirements. No new purchases will be allowed in ETFs that fail to meet Janney’s due diligence standards; however, Janney does not force liquidations of existing positions and incoming transfers of these funds will be accepted.

Closed End Fund Due Diligence All closed-ended funds available on the Janney platform must meet initial minimum requirements as well as semi-annual due diligence requirements to remain active on the platform. Closed-end funds evaluated by Morningstar must achieve a 1-star Morningstar rating and an expense ratio of 2.0% or less in order to meet Janney’s minimum criteria. For funds not covered by Morningstar, Janney requires $100 million in AUM and an expense ratio less than 2.0% in order to remain available for new purchases on the Janney platform. As with ETFs, no new purchases will be allowed in closed-end funds that fail to meet Janney’s due diligence standards, but Janney does not force liquidations of existing positions and incoming transfers of these funds will be accepted.

Alternative Investment Due Diligence Due to the differences in product structure and corresponding legal implications, alternative investment products often require a more stringent gathering of product and firm documentation to be permitted for sale, when compared to mutual fund or managed account products. In addition to the evaluations conducted by WM Research, Janney utilizes an independent third-party consultant to assist in the

PAGE - 40

Read the rest in the brochure

Item 9: Disciplinary information

Other Financial Industry Activities and Affiliations Janney is registered with the SEC as a broker-dealer, a municipal adviser under the Exchange Act and as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Janney Financial Advisors are registered as both registered representatives for brokerage related services and investment advisory representatives for investment advisory related services. Janney may provide advice and take action as performing the actions of an

PAGE - 42

investment advisor with accounts in various investment advisory services/programs. Janney also may not be free to divulge or act upon certain information in our possession on behalf of other Clients. Under certain Advisory Programs, Janney may buy or sell securities of issuers that may also be brokerage clients. Any decisions to buy or sell such securities are made independent of any other relationship with Janney and Janney Financial Advisors do not participate in other services provided to such Clients. Additionally, many Third-Party Managers recommended by Janney are also Clients of Janney in its capacity as a brokerdealer.

Investment by the KKR Stockholder The KKR Stockholder acquired all of the issued and outstanding limited liability company interests of Janney in November 2024. The KKR Stockholder, which is indirectly controlled by investment funds, vehicles and/or accounts advised and managed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (“KKR”), holds its equity stake in Janney for investment purposes. Janney is not a direct or indirect subsidiary of KKR & Co. Inc. or of KKR. KKR is an affiliate of KKR Capital Markets LLC and MCS Capital Markets LLC, each of which is registered as a broker-dealer in the U.S. with the SEC and FINRA and is also affiliated with certain nonUS entities authorized to conduct broker-dealer activities. KKR does not participate in or manage the dayto-day management or operations of Janney. Janney acts autonomously and separately from KKR. KKR sponsors and manages investment funds that invest in private equity, credit, and real assets and has strategic partners that manage hedge funds. KKR also sponsors and manages investment funds and other vehicles that facilitate co-investment alongside proprietary investments or in specific or multiple portfolio companies and other assets invested in by investment funds managed by KKR. Janney Financial Advisors are able to recommend that eligible Janney clients invest in alternative investments, including investment funds advised and managed by KKR, including funds in which Janney Financial Advisors and employees are investors and have a financial interest. Janney and Janney Financial Advisors receive fees based on investment recommendations and management of client accounts. KKR and Janney are able to recommend investments in companies and products (which may be in the same or different levels of the capital structure) and recommend investments or take actions (or omit to take actions) that are inconsistent with or contrary to the interests of one another. Janney clients may make investments in companies and products in which KKR has also invested (and such investments by KKR may be in the same or different levels of the capital structure), and in connection with such investments, KKR may take actions (or omit to take actions) that are inconsistent with or contrary to (otherwise conflict with) Janney clients’ interests. Janney and Janney Financial Advisors stand to benefit from making investment recommendations to clients and customers that will result in financial benefits to Janney and Janney Financial Advisors as investors in KKR sponsored funds. Because certain Janney Financial Advisors have a financial interest in KKR-sponsored funds that invest in Janney, they benefit from Janney’s financial performance. Janney Financial Advisors and JCSC financial professionals also participate in an employee ownership plan in which they benefit from Janney’s financial performance. This results in a conflict of interest as Janney Advisors and JCSC financial professionals have a financial incentive to make recommendations that result in the accumulation of client assets in advisory accounts to generate greater fees and therefore greater returns for Janney. Janney mitigates this conflict of interest by requiring Janney Financial Advisors and JCSC financial professionals to act in accordance with their fiduciary obligations to serve the best interests of Clients and make account type recommendations based on the Client’s goals and investment objectives as provided to Janney. KKR’s affiliates that earn certain fees (i.e., management fees, incentive fees) in

PAGE - 43

connection with investments in KKR sponsored funds benefit from Janney client investments in such funds. KKR owns Global Atlantic Distributors, LLC and Global Atlantic Investment Advisors, LLC, (collectively “Global Atlantic”), which are the affiliated broker-dealer and investment adviser of Forethought Life Insurance Company (“Forethought”). Forethought is a wholly owned subsidiary of KKR and operates as a standalone insurance company. Janney Financial Advisors can recommend Forethought’s insurance investments to you, which creates a conflict of interest. Because Janney is owned by KKR Stockholder, Janney has an incentive to recommend its investments based on this ownership structure. To mitigate this conflict, Janney does not specifically promote the sales of Forethought, or any other KKR affiliated insurance products, over non-KKR affiliated insurance products. Neither Janney, nor its Financial Advisors, receive any special or additional compensation for recommending Forethought investment products over those issued by non-affiliated companies. Janney seeks to mitigate these conflicts through operational independence from KKR and through its policies and procedures reasonably designed so to ensure that recommendations are made in the best interest of Janney’s clients and are consistent with Janney’s and Janney Financial Advisors’ duty to act in the best interest of clients.

Other Affiliations Janney is a licensed insurance agency and certain Janney Financial Advisors are also licensed insurance agents. In this role, Janney offers insurance products to its Clients. In addition, as it relates to the financial planning services described above, Janney also provides advice from time to time with respect to insurance matters. Janney’s subsidiary, Janney Trust Co Inc., is a non-depository trust company which acts as a custodian for assets maintained in IRAs, Coverdell Education Savings Accounts and a small number of Qualified Retirement Plan accounts. Janney acts as sub-custodian for these assets. Janney Trust Co Inc. is a New Hampshire-chartered trust company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Janney.

Disciplinary Information Details of Janney’s disciplinary information, along with it’s affiliate, Global Atlantic, are described in more detail in Part 1 of its Form ADV, available on the SEC’s website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov. Consistent with the requirements of Form ADV Part 2A, please find information regarding the following disciplinary matters. On May 6, 2009, Janney entered into an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent agreement (“AWC”) with FINRA. Without admitting or denying any findings by FINRA, the firm agreed to a $200,000 monetary sanction with respect to certain Client transactions involving auction rate securities (“ARS”). The firm currently does not purchase ARS for Client accounts and has taken steps beyond those required by regulators to ensure that Clients were not harmed by the developments negatively impacting the ARS marketplace. On November 3, 2010, Janney entered into an AWC with FINRA. Without admitting or denying any findings by FINRA, the firm agreed to a $175,000 monetary sanction with respect to its failure to establish certain elements of an adequate anti-money laundering program, failure to follow procedures designed to prevent a supervisor or their subordinate from approving the supervisor’s activities, failure to approve

PAGE - 44

and maintain records of certain marketing and media activities, failure to document the review of certain discretionary option activity, and the failure to maintain certain records. On July 12, 2011, Janney entered into an AWC with FINRA. Without admitting or denying any findings by FINRA, the firm agreed to a $850,000 monetary sanction with respect to its failure to establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of its business, to prevent the misuse of material nonpublic information pursuant to Section 15(G) of the Exchange Act. In 2013, Global Atlantic Distributors, LLC (“GAD”), not Janney, entered into a AWC with FINRA, without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings that a brochure, prepared by a third-party but approved by a GAD affiliate, contained unwarranted and misleading statements in respect of conditions in the bank loan market and that GAD failed to establish and maintain supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with FINRA rules. Since 2013, GAD no longer distributes mutual funds and no longer is affiliated with the firm that approved the brochure for distribution. In 2014, GAD, not Janney, entered into an AWC, without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings that GAD failed to retain all business-related electronic communications. Specifically, on January 1, 2013, GAD began using a new outside vendor for its email retention system. On three separate occasions, in February, September, and November 2013, GAD discovered that, as a result of inadvertent gaps in internal processes, GAD had not properly set up a total of approximately 28 individual email accounts to journal automatically to the email retention system. In February 2013, after discovering 11 email accounts affected by the issue, the Firm took steps to correct and prevent its recurrence. However, in September 2013, after receiving a request from FINRA for email concerning a registered representative, the Firm discovered that the issue had reoccurred with respect to certain additional email accounts and reported the issue to FINRA in October 2013. In May 2015, the firm self-reported that some eligible customers had not received available sales charge waivers. As a result, the firm estimates that eligible customers were overcharged by approximately $1,030,235 for mutual fund purchases made between July 1, 2009 and June 24, 2015. As part of this settlement, the firm agrees to pay restitution plus interest. On June 29, 2015, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, KKR, not Janney, consented to the entry of an order to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and future violations of sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. According to the SEC order, during the period from 2006 to 2011 KKR did not expressly disclose in its flagship private equity fund limited partnership agreements that it did not allocate broken deal expenses to KKR co-investment vehicles (including co- investment vehicles established for third party co-investors and co-investment vehicles established for executives, certain consultants and others) and this lack of disclosure resulted in a misallocation of expenses to KKR’s flagship private equity funds for that period. The order also finds that KKR did not adopt and implement a written compliance policy or procedure governing its fund expense allocation practices until 2011. On February 2, 2016, Janney consented to the entry of an SEC order. Without admitting or denying any findings, the firm agreed to a $500,000 monetary sanction with respect to the firm’s self-reporting of antifraud provision violations and inadequate due diligence in connection with the underwriting of certain municipal securities offerings pursuant to Section 15(C)2-12 of the Exchange Act.

PAGE - 45

Read the rest in the brochure

Filings

23 filings to the SEC since October 2021: 23 other. The latest 20:

  1. Aug 5, 202613F-HR EDGAR
  2. Jul 31, 2026N-PX EDGAR
  3. Apr 22, 202613F-HR EDGAR
  4. Feb 11, 202613F-HR EDGAR
  5. Oct 27, 202513F-HR EDGAR
  6. Aug 11, 2025N-PX EDGAR
  7. Jul 17, 202513F-HR EDGAR
  8. Apr 17, 202513F-HR EDGAR
  9. Jan 17, 202513F-HR EDGAR
  10. Oct 29, 202413F-HR EDGAR
  11. Aug 30, 2024N-PX EDGAR
  12. Jul 25, 202413F-HR EDGAR
  13. May 1, 202413F-HR EDGAR
  14. Feb 8, 202413F-HR EDGAR
  15. Nov 8, 202313F-HR EDGAR
  16. Jul 26, 202313F-HR EDGAR
  17. Apr 28, 202313F-HR EDGAR
  18. Feb 1, 202313F-HR EDGAR
  19. Oct 25, 202213F-HR EDGAR
  20. Aug 3, 202213F-HR EDGAR

The 23 filings since October 2021 can be filtered by form type and year here when JavaScript is on.

Every filing from the last five years, summarized. The full record is on SEC EDGAR.

Stakes it holds

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC has told the SEC it owns more than 5% of 5 companies, latest first (Schedules 13D and 13G).