AN OPEN LETTER TO BRUCE KELLY AT INVESTMENT NEWS: Irealize that you have a duty to report the news and I must acknowledge that you do an excellent job of investigation. Atthe same time, on behalf of myself, our 400 exceptional advisors and 60 outstanding employees we respectfully request that you honor the U.S. legal system and allowall parties to have their day in court before you rush to judgment. Specifically, your headline on the artide reporting our dispute with Catlin leads the casual reader to get the impression that QA3 is going out of business. In fact, one of our leading advisors reported that he received a call from a recruiter ata competitor within 45 minutes of the online artide being published saying words to that effect. Since QA3 has been transparent in disseminating information to our advisors he knewbetter and told the recruiter to put him on his “do not call list.” Of course recruiters read the headline to their advantage and no doubt will misconstrue the entire article. My concern is the false impression it leaves and that the casual reader will not be discerning enough to pick up on the subtleties of “insurer pushing’ or “brink.” To your further credit, your artide accurately quoted b oth Greg Bolton, General Counsel, and myself. However, I must strongly object to two statements in the artide and request that you issue a correction: 1. “QA3...said it was veering toward bankruptcy protection due to the dispute with Catlin.” There was no statement of any kind in our lawsuit, which made that statement. As Greg Bolton explained (most of which was quoted in the artide) the issue stemmed from Catlin not paying legal invoices that were due our lead lawfirm. Our law firm was threatening to withdraw if they were not paid and that would have left QA3 defenseless. Even by Catlin’s interpretation of the policy the payment was due, yet they were not making payment. 2. You quoted the allegation in the lawsuit from the liquidating trustee that the firms “failed miserably in upholding their fiduciary obligations” when selling the series of Provident private placements. While I sincerely appreciate you quoting my response that QA3 has exceeded regulatory requirements, our defense of the allegation is contained in an objection filed with the Provident Bankruptcy Court, yet there was nothing quoted from ourfiling. Please be advised that QA3 has an exceedingly strong position and we categorically deny all ofthe trustee's allegations. Arelated concern to number two above is that QA3 is defenseless in the court of public opinion. My attorneys have advised me not to make publicstatements as it, relates to the specifics of any case. Because of this I cannot fully state our very strong position, which leaves us vulnerable to false allegations being made by unscrupulous competitors.In addition to my ab ove objections and concerns, all of us at QA3 would like to know why every artide always focuses on the issues Broker Dealers are facing, yet never make mention of the failures of these offerings due to the general economic malaise or the allegations of the principals behind some of the offerings. QA3 and most other independent Broker Dealers take our responsibilities seriously and are committed to providing the highest-level service to the investing public. QA3 always acts with the highest level of integrity, but we are not fortunetellers. Itisthe people responsible for the economic crisis and the failure of some of the sponsors that should be the focus of attention. While I strongly disagree with the Provident Trustee’s allegations with regard to QA3, at least we all share the common goal of seeking protection for the investing public.