If approached by your broker (or financial advisor or insurance agent) to purchase an indexed annuity there are some things an investor should consider.  First, an indexed annuity (also known as, equity-indexed annuity or fixed indexed annuity) is a fixed annuity, either immediate or deferred, that earns interest or provides benefits that are often linked to an equity or stock market index.  In 2008, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), an association of state insurance regulatory officials, issued a buyers guide to indexed annuities, which provides educational information on indexed annuties.  Did your broker provide you with one?  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) also published an investor alert on indexed annuities.

Unscrupulous brokers take advantage of naïve, unsuspecting investors, especially seniors, and heavily pitch purchases into indexed annuities.  Often they will tout indexed annuities as being better than bank CDs and will convince investors to liquidate their CDs to buy an indexed annuity.  Investors with variable annuities are often approached by a broker to buy indexed annuities, touting them as being safer than then variable annuity, which has investment choices whose principal can be subject to market volatility.  Did the broker recommend you to consider moving money into the fixed account of the variable annuity?  If not, the broker is probably only motivated to earn a commission which can be as high as 5%.  Another fraudulent tactic is to entice an investor with an “upfront bonus” to buy an indexed annuity but what a devious broker may not tell you is that often you would have to annuitize the annuity in order to take advantage of the bonus benefit – it’s not free money, there’s a cost to every benefit in an annuity.  Other brokers may convince you that the annuity they sold you earlier is now out-of-date and try to sell you another annuity claiming to have “better and more features.”

http://suemyadvisor.com/blog/investor-alerts/fraudulent-practices-indexed-annuities-61

A Michigan Court of Appeals judge urged lawmakers Wednesday to clarify the state's medical marijuana law, saying the "inartfully drafted" measure has resulted in confusion and arrests.

Judge Peter O'Connell issued his call Wednesday in a 30-page opinion on an Oakland County case in which the court upheld marijuana possession charges against two Madison Heights residents. The judge said the law is so confusing that users "who proceed without due caution" could "lose both their property and their liberty."

The appeals court decision comes as Metro Detroit leaders struggle to interpret the law, which was intended to allow marijuana prescriptions for medical purposes. But O'Connell argued in his separate, concurring opinion that sections of the law contradict Public Health Codes that make possession and manufacture of the drug illegal.

Raids last month on clinics in Ferndale and Waterford Township resulted in arrests and the seizure of marijuana and medical records. A week later, Lapeer County Sheriff's deputies searched a medical marijuana dispensary in Dryden, confiscating marijuana and cash.

Bibb County Commissioner Lonzy Edwards brought up a possible name change Tuesday after receiving complaints.

Lustful Court resident Michelle Washington says the name sparks laughter and confusion when she tells people where she lives.

Yoshonda Patterson says she thinks the name gives people the wrong idea about the neighborhood on the east side of Macon.

After listening to residents, commissioners decided they'll consider the change if neighbors start a petition.

The street is in a subdivision and no one could recall where the name originated.

Law firm Shapiro & Fishman has accused Attorney General Bill McCollum of pre-election grandstanding and “abuse of power” in connection with McCollum’s recent announcement that his office is conducting a foreclosure fraud investigation into that firm and two others.

The allegations are in response to a coordinated investigation announced by McCollum during an Aug. 10 press conference. McCollum said his office is looking at whether the three South Florida firms engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in their handling of foreclosure cases.

The other firms were the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. in Plantation.

The firm’s response came Friday in a motion to quash a subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

A $10 billion toxic tort class action lawsuit has been filed against BP over alleged emissions from its troubled Texas City oil refinery, alleging that workers and residents in the area were exposed to benzene and other chemicals.  

More than 2,200 workers at the refinery and residents from the surrounding area filed the BP class action lawsuit on August 3 in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that for 40 days earlier this year, the company illegally released the chemical benzene into the atmosphere.

The benzene lawsuit comes just as BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, was finally able to stop the flow of oil from a well a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, which has caused a massive oil spill that is expected to cost the company tens of billions of dollars in oil spill lawsuits and clean up costs.

Plaintiffs in the BP Texas City refinery class action lawsuit say the company has been releasing benzene into the atmosphere at the plant due to a hydrogen compressor that broke down on April 6. The 2,212 plaintiffs allege that they suffered serious injuries and illnesses from benzene exposure.

Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been linked to the development of cancer, leukemia and other life-threatening health problems. It is a known carcinogen used as an industrial solvent in the production of plastic and synthetic rubber, as well as drugs and dyes.

BP’s Texas City Refinery is the third-largest oil refinery in the United States, and has been the subject of several major safety incidents. As recently as September, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration hit BP with an $87.4 million fine for not complying with a safety agreement made after a March 23, 2005 explosion and fire that killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others.