<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for bneville</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/bneville/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/bneville/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:15:14 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: &amp;quot;Principal Protected&amp;quot; Products Weren&amp;#39;t</title><link>http://registeredrep.com/advisorland/compliance/finance_principal_protected_1101/#comment-3553842</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Brokers may very well have sold these products in ways that were either unsuitable or with misrepresentations based upon the internal sales materials.  From the perspective an attorney that represents a lot of brokers and also individual investors, these cases strike me as a "product problem" case where the inidividual broker should not be named as a respondent, but rather the selling firm should be held responsible for their sales/marketing materials.  My firm represents both brokers and individual investors who were victimized by these Lehman "Principal Protected" Notes .  Concenred brokers and investors should contact a qualified attorney regarding concerns.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brian Neville&lt;br&gt;(212) 696-1999&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bneville</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:15:14 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>