STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

BEAUFORT COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

NANCY HELLSTROM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- )
) COMPLAINT
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT)
SERVICES, LLC, and HAROLD L. )
GLOVER, Jr., a/k/a LEE GLOVER )
)
Defendants. )
________________________)

1.This is an action which seeks redress by Defendants who, acting in their capacities as financial

advisers to Plaintiff, recklessly and negligently persuaded Plaintiff to invest her funds in an entity, to

wit: Parish Economics, upon information and belief owned and operated by one Al Parish, of

Summerville, South Carolina. Plaintiff lost her entire investment in Parish Economics as a result of

an ongoing fraud perpetrated by Al Parish. But for the advice and encouragement of Defendants to

invest her funds in such manner, Plaintiff never would have chosen to do so.

PARTIES

2.Plaintiff Nancy Hellstrom is a citizen and resident of Goose Creek, Charleston

County, South Carolina.

3.Upon information and belief Defendant Northwestern Mutual Investment

Services, LLC (hereinafter NMIS) is a Limited Liability Company organized

pursuant to the laws of Wisconsin and doing business in South Carolina.

4.Upon information and belief Defendant Harold L. Glover a/k/a Lee Glover is a

1
citizen and resident of Charleston County, South Carolina.

5.Upon information and belief, Defendant Glover was, at all times pertinent to

this action, a Financial Representative of NMIS and of the sales and distribution

arm of NMIS, to wit: Northwestern Mutual Financial Network.

6.Upon information and belief, NMIS and Northwestern Mutual Financial Network

were, at all times pertinent to this Action, legally indistinguishable.

FACTS

7. On or about November 18, 2003, Plaintiff met with Mr. Lee Glover, as agent for

NMIS, at Mr. Glover's office for the purpose of enhancing Plaintiff's investment

portfolio by investing in securities recommended by Mr. Glover

8.During their meeting on that day, Mr. Glover suggested that Plaintiff invest in

Parish Economics, explaining to Plaintiff what Parish Economics was and why it

would be a good investment.

9.Mr. Glover further advised Plaintiff that her investment in Parish Economics

would be protected because Mr. Parish maintained adequate life insurance, so

that in the event of his demise, she would receive proper remuneration.

10. Plaintiff elected to take Mr. Glover's advice, and informed Mr. Glover that she

would invest $15,000 in Parish Economics.

11. Following Mr. Glover's instruction, Plaintiff wrote a check payable to Parish

Economics and gave it to Mr. Glover.

12. Prior to her meeting with Mr. Glover on November 18, 2003, Plaintiff had no

thought of investing in Parish Economics.

2
13. Plaintiff was unaware that her investment in Parish Economics was in

jeopardy until she read newspaper accounts about about the Al Parish/Parish

Economics scandal in 2007.