Firm profile

Supreme Alliance LLC

CRD 45348Registration Status: ApprovedEffective since January 23, 2017SEC # 801-108980Latest ADV June 29, 2026

Supreme Alliance LLC is an SEC registered investment adviser organized as a limited liability company. Its latest Form ADV filing, dated June 29, 2026, reports $35M in regulatory assets under management, 16 employees, 1 office, and 107 accounts.

Assets Under Management
$35M
Employees
16
Offices
1 office
Total Clients
109

Associated firm names

12 names listed
  • BMS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
  • THE RETIREMENT WIZ
  • THE DEUEL GROUP
  • SUPREME ALLIANCE LLC

Leadership

2 roles identified
CEOMichael Washington Jones
CCOMichael Washington Jones

Advisory services offered

4 types reported
Financial Planning Services
Pension consulting services
Portfolio management for individuals and small businesses

Fee models offered

5 types reported
Asset based fees
Commissions
Fixed fees

Offices & Contact

Primary office

Not reported

Additional office locations have not been imported yet.

Contact and digital presence

ADV profile links

Regulatory Assets Under Management Breakdown

Total regulatory assets under management$35Mas of June 29, 2026
Discretionary55.1%
$19M
55% of total RAUM55.1%
Non-discretionary44.9%
$16M
45% of total RAUM44.9%
Regulatory assets under management are split between discretionary and non-discretionary assets.

Client Coverage Demographics

Top client segmentIndividuals represent 78.9% of total clients.
Top client categories% of clientsClients
1
Individuals
78.9%
86
2
HNWI
21.1%
23

Assets under management Growth by Quarter

Quarterly points use the latest ADV filing or SEC roster snapshot available in each quarter.

Total AUM$35M
Total Accounts107
10Y AUM Change+$35M (+4992.2%)

Private Funds

Private funds reported by Supreme Alliance LLC

Loading private fund disclosures…

Employee Growth by Quarter

Quarterly points use the latest ADV filing or SEC roster snapshot available in each quarter.

Total Employees16
Clients per Employee7:1
10Y Employee Change-5 (-23.8%)

Historical AUM and employee figures reflect available SEC Form ADV filings under this CRD. Filing gaps may reflect registration status changes, dormant periods, state registration periods, firm restructuring, or other reporting changes. Rialytix does not interpolate missing periods.


Ownership

Reported direct and indirect ownership ranges

Each range applies to a separate reported relationship and should not be added together.

Reported ownership ranges

Highlighted bands show the percentage range reported in Form ADV.

0%25%50%75%100%
INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION CONSULTING LLCDirect owner · Schedule AInterest in SUPREME ALLIANCE LLC
75%+
MICHAEL WASHINGTON JONESIndirect owner · Schedule BInterest in INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION CONSULTING LLC
75%+

Bars represent the reported range at that individual ownership step, not an estimated percentage of the advisory firm. Indirect relationships may refer to intermediate entities rather than directly to Supreme Alliance LLC.

Reported ownership and control details

Form ADV · Filing date 2026-06-29 · Schedules A and B

5 entries
#Owner / person & roleInterest in entityReported interestControl personTitle / status acquiredSource
1MICHAEL WASHINGTON JONESFINOP / CEO / CCOIndividualSUPREME ALLIANCE LLCLess than 5%Code NAYesFINOP / CEO / CCO05/2012Schedule APDF page 19
2INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION CONSULTING LLCOWNERDomestic entitySUPREME ALLIANCE LLC75% or moreCode EYesOWNER02/2012Schedule APDF page 19
3JEROME ROBERT CORSIVICE PRESIDENT- INSURANCE, COMPLIANCE PRINCIPALIndividualSUPREME ALLIANCE LLCLess than 5%Code NANoVICE PRESIDENT- INSURANCE, COMPLIANCE PRINCIPAL03/2014Schedule APDF page 19
4ROGER BRENT HUSBANDSCOMPLIANCE PRINCIPALIndividualSUPREME ALLIANCE LLCLess than 5%Code NANoCOMPLIANCE PRINCIPAL07/2019Schedule APDF page 19
5MICHAEL WASHINGTON JONESOWNERIndividualINSURANCE DISTRIBUTION CONSULTING LLC75% or moreCode EYesOWNER05/2003Schedule BPDF page 19

Less than 5% may include zero. Code F identifies a role without specifying a percentage. Reported interests may overlap and may not include every owner. Total indirect ownership is not calculated.

Compliance & Disclosures

Filing dated 6/29/2026 1:36:17 PM

Responses were selected by the RIA in its filing. Questions are shortened for readability; “you” refers to the reporting firm, and some questions also cover advisory affiliates.

RIA or supervised-person involvementThe RIA reported that none of the events below involve the firm or its supervised persons.RIA responseNo
AFelonies2 No

In the past ten years, have you or any advisory affiliate:

  • A1Been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony?No
  • A2Been charged with a felony?No
BMisdemeanors2 No

In the past ten years, have you or any advisory affiliate:

  • B1Been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a misdemeanor involving investments, an investment-related business, fraud, false statements or omissions, wrongful taking of property, bribery, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, or extortion?No
  • B2Been charged with a misdemeanor of the kind listed above?No
CSEC or CFTC actions5 No

Has the SEC or CFTC ever:

  • C1Found you or an advisory affiliate made a false statement or omission?No
  • C2Found you or an advisory affiliate violated SEC or CFTC regulations or statutes?No
  • C3Found you or an advisory affiliate caused an investment-related business to have its authorization to do business denied, suspended, revoked, or restricted?No
  • C4Entered an order against you or an advisory affiliate in connection with investment-related activity?No
  • C5Imposed a civil money penalty on you or an advisory affiliate, or ordered you or an advisory affiliate to cease and desist from any activity?No
DOther regulatory actions1 Yes4 No

Has any other federal regulatory agency, state regulatory agency, or foreign financial regulatory authority ever:

  • D1Found you or an advisory affiliate made a false statement or omission, or was dishonest, unfair, or unethical?No
  • D2Found you or an advisory affiliate violated investment-related regulations or statutes?Yes
  • D3Found you or an advisory affiliate caused an investment-related business to have its authorization to do business denied, suspended, revoked, or restricted?No
  • D4In the past ten years, entered an order against you or an advisory affiliate in connection with investment-related activity?No
  • D5Denied, suspended, or revoked your or an advisory affiliate’s registration or license, or otherwise prevented association with an investment-related business or restricted activities?No
ESelf-regulatory organization actions1 Yes3 No

Has a self-regulatory organization or commodities exchange ever:

  • E1Found you or an advisory affiliate made a false statement or omission?No
  • E2Found you or an advisory affiliate violated its rules, other than a violation designated as a minor rule violation under an SEC-approved plan?Yes
  • E3Found you or an advisory affiliate caused an investment-related business to have its authorization to do business denied, suspended, revoked, or restricted?No
  • E4Disciplined you or an advisory affiliate by expulsion, suspension, barring association with other members, or otherwise restricting activities?No
FProfessional authorizations1 No
  • FHas an authorization to act as an attorney, accountant, or federal contractor granted to you or an advisory affiliate ever been revoked or suspended?No
GPending regulatory proceedings1 No
  • GAre you or any advisory affiliate now the subject of a regulatory proceeding that could result in a “Yes” answer to any part of C, D, or E?No
HCivil judicial actions and proceedings4 No

(1) Court actions

Has a domestic or foreign court:

  • H(1)(a)In the past ten years, enjoined you or an advisory affiliate in connection with investment-related activity?No
  • H(1)(b)Found that you or an advisory affiliate violated investment-related statutes or regulations?No
  • H(1)(c)Dismissed, pursuant to a settlement agreement, an investment-related civil action brought against you or an advisory affiliate by a state or foreign financial regulatory authority?No

(2) Pending civil proceedings

  • H(2)Are you or any advisory affiliate now the subject of a civil proceeding that could result in a “Yes” answer to any part of H(1)?No
Additional DRP filings 6 source blocks

Verbatim excerpts from supporting DRP filings, which may concern the firm or advisory affiliates. Amounts retain their filed labels; no total or attribution is inferred.

regulatory · block 1PDF pages 20–22
Regulator name — filed text
FINRA
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 65,000.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Action status / disposition — filed text

THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO DETECT, PREVENT, AND MITIGATE IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH OPENING OR MAINTAINING CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'S PROGRAM FAILED TO INCLUDE REASONABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY OR DETECT RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT, AND ITS PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT WERE NOT TAILORED TO ITS BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH NOTFORMALLY TITLED IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM, THE FIRM HAD WRITTEN PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT. THE PROGRAM FAILED TO PROVIDE ASSOCIATED PERSONS ANY GUIDANCE REGARDING STEPS TO TAKE IN THE EVENT HEOR SHE SUSPECTED THAT AN INCIDENT OF IDENTITY THEFT HAD OCCURRED. MOREOVER, THE FIRM'S PROGRAM CONSISTED OF GENERIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WAS NOT TAILED TO THE FIRM'S ACTUAL BUSINESS MODEL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT UPON LEARNING OF AN EMAIL SECURITY BREACH INVOLVING THE FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN ITS PROGRAM TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT DUE TO THE EXPOSURE OF ITS CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY. THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE HUNDREDS OF NOTIFICATIONS IN HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT MAILBOX STATING THAT EMAIL MESSAGES SENT FROM HIS FIRM ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO A CERTAIN EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO DIDNOT RECOGNIZE THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS, HE IGNORED THEUNDELIVERABLE NOTIFICATIONS. HE FORWARDED ONE OF THEUNDELIVERABLE MESSAGES TO THE FIRM'S OUTSIDE EMAIL VENDOR, INFORMING THE VENDOR THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN 100 SUCH MESSAGES. THE VENDOR INFORMED HIM THERE WAS AN AUTOMATED RULE SET UP ON HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT THAT BLIND-COPIED ALL EMAILS HE RECEIVED TO THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. THE VENDOR FURTHER INFORMED HIM THAT HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT HAD LIKELY BEEN COMPROMISED. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE TIME IT DISCOVERED THE BREACH, THE FIRM MADE NO EFFORT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY EMAILS HAD BEEN BLIND COPIED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT, OR WHETHER CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAD BEEN EXPOSED. IT WAS NOT UNTIL FINRA STAFF INQUIRED ABOUT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THIS EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS DURING THE FIRM'S CYCLE EXAM, THAT THE FIRM ATTEMPTEDTO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE BREACH. TO DATE, THE FIRM HAS NOT NOTIFIED ANY CUSTOMERS WHOSE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT. APPROXIMATELY 17,000 EMAILS WERE BLIND COPIED FROM THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO'S FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. AT LEAST200 OF THE BLIND-COPIED EMAILS CONTAINED IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FIRM'S CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' SOCIAL SECURITY, ACCOUNT NUMBERS, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERS, AND DATES OF BIRTH. TWENTY-ONE OF THE EMAILS CONTAINING CUSTOMER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WERE BLIND COPIED PRIOR TO THE DATE THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE MESSAGES THAT THE EMAILS TO THE EXTERNAL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE DELIVERED.

Sanction detail — filed text

FINE OF $65,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID THROUGH FINRA'S INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN.
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to

the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
FINRA
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $65,000, AND AGREES TO THE UNDERTAKINGS THAT IT WILL CERTIFY IN WRITING THAT IT HAS NOTIFIED THOSE
CUSTOMERS WHOSE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EMAIL ACCOUNT, THAT IT HAS REVISED ITS IDENTITY
THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED HEREIN, AND COMPLY WITH REGULATION S-ID, AND THAT THE FIRM HAS
ENHANCED IT'S EMAIL SECURITY SYSTEMS.
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
12/18/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
2019062898302
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
No Product
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO DETECT, PREVENT, AND
MITIGATE IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH OPENING OR MAINTAINING CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'S PROGRAM
FAILED TO INCLUDE REASONABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY OR DETECT RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT, AND ITS PROCEDURES FOR
RESPONDING TO SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT WERE NOT TAILORED TO ITS BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH NOTFORMALLY TITLED IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION
PROGRAM, THE FIRM HAD WRITTEN PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT. THE PROGRAM FAILED TO PROVIDE
ASSOCIATED PERSONS ANY GUIDANCE REGARDING STEPS TO TAKE IN THE EVENT HEOR SHE SUSPECTED THAT AN INCIDENT OF IDENTITY THEFT HAD
OCCURRED. MOREOVER, THE FIRM'S PROGRAM CONSISTED OF GENERIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WAS NOT TAILED TO THE FIRM'S ACTUAL
BUSINESS MODEL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT UPON LEARNING OF AN EMAIL SECURITY BREACH INVOLVING THE FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT OF THE
FIRM'S CEO AND CCO, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN ITS PROGRAM TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT DUE
TO THE EXPOSURE OF ITS CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY. THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE
HUNDREDS OF NOTIFICATIONS IN HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT MAILBOX STATING THAT EMAIL MESSAGES SENT FROM HIS FIRM ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE
DELIVERED TO A CERTAIN EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO DIDNOT RECOGNIZE THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS, HE
IGNORED THEUNDELIVERABLE NOTIFICATIONS. HE FORWARDED ONE OF THEUNDELIVERABLE MESSAGES TO THE FIRM'S OUTSIDE EMAIL VENDOR,
INFORMING THE VENDOR THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN 100 SUCH MESSAGES. THE VENDOR INFORMED HIM THERE WAS AN AUTOMATED RULE
SET UP ON HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT THAT BLIND-COPIED ALL EMAILS HE RECEIVED TO THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. THE VENDOR FURTHER
INFORMED HIM THAT HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT HAD LIKELY BEEN COMPROMISED. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF
IDENTITY THEFT RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE TIME IT DISCOVERED THE BREACH, THE FIRM MADE NO EFFORT TO DETERMINE
HOW MANY EMAILS HAD BEEN BLIND COPIED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT, OR WHETHER CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAD BEEN
EXPOSED. IT WAS NOT UNTIL FINRA STAFF INQUIRED ABOUT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THIS EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS DURING THE FIRM'S
CYCLE EXAM, THAT THE FIRM ATTEMPTEDTO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE BREACH. TO DATE, THE FIRM HAS NOT NOTIFIED ANY CUSTOMERS WHOSE
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT. APPROXIMATELY 17,000 EMAILS WERE BLIND COPIED FROM THE FIRM'S CEO
AND CCO'S FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. AT LEAST200 OF THE BLIND-COPIED EMAILS CONTAINED
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FIRM'S CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' SOCIAL SECURITY, ACCOUNT NUMBERS, DRIVER'S
LICENSE NUMBERS, AND DATES OF BIRTH. TWENTY-ONE OF THE EMAILS CONTAINING CUSTOMER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WERE BLIND COPIED
PRIOR TO THE DATE THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE MESSAGES THAT THE EMAILS TO THE EXTERNAL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE
DELIVERED.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.

10. How was matter resolved:
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
12/18/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 65,000.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $65,000, AND AGREES TO THE UNDERTAKINGS THAT IT WILL CERTIFY IN WRITING THAT IT HAS NOTIFIED THOSE
CUSTOMERS WHOSE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EMAIL ACCOUNT, THAT IT HAS REVISED ITS
IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED HERE IN AND COMPLY WITH REGULATION S-ID,AND THAT
THE FIRM HAS ENHANCED ITS EMAIL SECURITY SYSTEMS.
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
FINE OF $65,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID THROUGH FINRA'S INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN.
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
regulatory · block 2PDF pages 22–24
Regulator name — filed text
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 250.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Settled

Action status / disposition — filed text

FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FINRA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING ON 2021 NORTH CAROLINA LICENSE APPLICATION.

Sanction detail — filed text

FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the

adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
11/20/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
1000114587
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Annuity(ies) - Variable
Other Product Types: 
MUTUAL FUNDS, INSURANCE
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FINRA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING ON 2021 NORTH CAROLINA LICENSE APPLICATION.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Settled
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
11/20/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 250.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension

B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
NONE
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
regulatory · block 3PDF pages 24–26
Regulator name — filed text
FINRA
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 80,000.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Action status / disposition — filed text

THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IS FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASES AND EXCHANGES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2330 AND REG BI (FOR CONDUCT POSTDATING JUNE 30, 2020). THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OR WSPS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THE FIRM'S REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER PROFILE INFORMATION AND OTHER INFORMATION NEEDED TO REASONABLY ASSESS THE SUITABILITY OF A TRANSACTION AND WHETHER THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTERESTS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' RISK TOLERANCES AND INFORMATION ABOUT LOST RIDER BENEFITS, PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES. THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PROCEDURES SUFFICIENT TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT CUSTOMERS WERE ACCURATELY INFORMED ABOUT VARIOUS FEATURES OF THE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES THEY WERE RECOMMENDED, AS REQUIRED UNDER FINRA RULE 2330(B)(1)(A)(I), AND AS A RESULT, FIRM SUPERVISORS APPROVED ANNUITY TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS LISTING INACCURATE COSTS, FEES, SURRENDER PERIODS, AND RIDER INFORMATION. GIVEN THESE ISSUES, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS WERE NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN RULE 2330(B)(1) TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES WERE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS OR IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTEREST. SUPREME ALLIANCE ALSO FAILED TO DOCUMENT PRINCIPAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE VARIABLE ANNUITY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA RULES 2330(C). FURTHER, BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2020 AND APRIL 25, 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH REG BI. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS RELATING TO REG BI DURING THAT PERIOD. FINALLY, BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND APRIL 2022, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY IF ANY OF ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES HAD INAPPROPRIATE EXCHANGES. THE FIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN POLICIES OR GUIDANCE EXPLAINING HOW THE FIRM WOULD MONITOR RATES OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY EXCHANGES, INCLUDING WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SURVEILLANCE, HOW OFTEN IT WOULD TAKE PLACE, WHAT TOOLS TO USE TO CONDUCT THE SURVEILLANCE, OR WHAT PARAMETERS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER EXCHANGE RATES WERE INAPPROPRIATE. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND MAY 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S INVESTIGATIONS, DURING THE HIRING PROCESS, INTO THE CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF PROSPECTIVE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DESCRIBED THE USE OF A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE CERTAIN STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING HIRING, INCLUDING STEPS FOR VERIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE'S UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES REGISTRATION (FORM U4), DETAILS RELATED TO CONTACTING THE CANDIDATE'S FORMER EMPLOYERS, AND FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEW HIRE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, IN PRACTICE, THE FIRM DID NOT USE THIS CHECKLIST AND FAILED TO OTHERWISE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THAT THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING THE HIRING PROCESS. FURTHER, THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO KEEP APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AT HIRING, INCLUDING RECORDS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE FORMS REQUIRED UNDER THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES.

Sanction detail — filed text

A FINE OF $80,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID TO FINRA.
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:

SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
FINRA
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
CENSURE MONETARY/FINE $80,000.00 ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER & CONSENT (AWC), UNDERTAKING.
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
10/31/2025
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
2020065125001
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Annuity(ies) - Variable
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IS FAILED TO
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASES AND EXCHANGES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2330 AND REG BI (FOR
CONDUCT POSTDATING JUNE 30, 2020). THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OR WSPS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE
WHETHER THE FIRM'S REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER PROFILE INFORMATION AND OTHER
INFORMATION NEEDED TO REASONABLY ASSESS THE SUITABILITY OF A TRANSACTION AND WHETHER THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE
CUSTOMERS' BEST INTERESTS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' RISK TOLERANCES AND INFORMATION ABOUT LOST RIDER BENEFITS, PRIOR TO
RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES. THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PROCEDURES
SUFFICIENT TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT CUSTOMERS WERE ACCURATELY INFORMED ABOUT VARIOUS
FEATURES OF THE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES THEY WERE RECOMMENDED, AS REQUIRED UNDER FINRA RULE 2330(B)(1)(A)(I), AND AS A RESULT,
FIRM SUPERVISORS APPROVED ANNUITY TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS LISTING INACCURATE COSTS, FEES, SURRENDER PERIODS, AND RIDER
INFORMATION. GIVEN THESE ISSUES, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS WERE NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN RULE 2330(B)(1) TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE
OR EXCHANGE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES WERE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS OR IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTEREST. SUPREME ALLIANCE
ALSO FAILED TO DOCUMENT PRINCIPAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE VARIABLE ANNUITY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED DURING THE RELEVANT
PERIOD, CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA RULES 2330(C). FURTHER, BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2020 AND APRIL 25, 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE
FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH REG
BI. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS RELATING TO REG BI DURING THAT PERIOD. FINALLY, BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 2019 AND APRIL 2022, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY IF ANY OF ITS REGISTERED
REPRESENTATIVES HAD INAPPROPRIATE EXCHANGES. THE FIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN POLICIES OR GUIDANCE EXPLAINING HOW THE FIRM WOULD
MONITOR RATES OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY EXCHANGES, INCLUDING WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SURVEILLANCE, HOW OFTEN IT
WOULD TAKE PLACE, WHAT TOOLS TO USE TO CONDUCT THE SURVEILLANCE, OR WHAT PARAMETERS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER
EXCHANGE RATES WERE INAPPROPRIATE. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND MAY 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A
SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S INVESTIGATIONS, DURING THE
HIRING PROCESS, INTO THE CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF PROSPECTIVE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DESCRIBED THE USE OF A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE CERTAIN STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING HIRING,
INCLUDING STEPS FOR VERIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE'S UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES REGISTRATION (FORM U4), DETAILS RELATED TO
CONTACTING THE CANDIDATE'S FORMER EMPLOYERS, AND FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEW HIRE INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, IN PRACTICE, THE FIRM DID NOT USE THIS CHECKLIST AND FAILED TO OTHERWISE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO
SUPERVISE THAT THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING THE HIRING PROCESS. FURTHER, THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A
SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO KEEP APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AT HIRING, INCLUDING RECORDS OF BACKGROUND
CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE FORMS REQUIRED UNDER THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
10/31/2025
 Exact
 Explanation

If not exact, provide explanation:
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 80,000.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
A FINE OF $80,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID TO FINRA.
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
regulatory · block 4PDF pages 26–28
Regulator name — filed text
FINRA
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 65,000.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC) p ( )

Action status / disposition — filed text

THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO DETECT, PREVENT, AND MITIGATE IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH OPENING OR MAINTAINING CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'S PROGRAM FAILED TO INCLUDE REASONABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY OR DETECT RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT, AND ITS PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT WERE NOT TAILORED TO ITS BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH NOT FORMALLY TITLED IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM, THE FIRM HAD WRITTEN PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT. THE PROGRAM FAILED TO PROVIDE ASSOCIATED PERSONS ANY GUIDANCE REGARDING STEPS TO TAKE IN THE EVENT HE OR SHE SUSPECTED THAT AN INCIDENT OF IDENTITY THEFT HAD OCCURRED. MOREOVER, THE FIRM'S PROGRAM CONSISTED OF GENERIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WAS NOT TAILED TO THE FIRM'S ACTUAL BUSINESS MODEL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT UPON LEARNING OF AN EMAIL SECURITY BREACH INVOLVING THE FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN ITS PROGRAM TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT DUE TO THE EXPOSURE OF ITS CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY. THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE HUNDREDS OF NOTIFICATIONS IN HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT MAILBOX STATING THAT EMAIL MESSAGES SENT FROM HIS FIRM ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO A CERTAIN EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS, HE IGNORED THE UNDELIVERABLE NOTIFICATIONS. HE FORWARDED ONE OF THE UNDELIVERABLE MESSAGES TO THE FIRM'S OUTSIDE EMAIL VENDOR, INFORMING THE VENDOR THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN 100 SUCH MESSAGES. THE VENDOR INFORMED HIM THERE WAS AN AUTOMATED RULE SET UP ON HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT THAT BLIND-COPIED ALL EMAILS HE RECEIVED TO THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. THE VENDOR FURTHER INFORMED HIM THAT HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT HAD LIKELY BEEN COMPROMISED. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE TIME IT DISCOVERED THE BREACH, THE FIRM MADE NO EFFORT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY EMAILS HAD BEEN BLIND COPIED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT, OR WHETHER CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAD BEEN EXPOSED. IT WAS NOT UNTIL FINRA STAFF INQUIRED ABOUT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THIS EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS DURING THE FIRM'S CYCLE EXAM, THAT THE FIRM ATTEMPTEDTO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE BREACH. TO DATE, THE FIRM HAS NOT NOTIFIED ANY CUSTOMERS WHOSE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT. APPROXIMATELY 17,000 EMAILS WERE BLIND COPIED FROM THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO'S FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. AT LEAST200 OF THE BLIND-COPIED EMAILS CONTAINED IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FIRM'S CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' SOCIAL SECURITY, ACCOUNT NUMBERS, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERS, AND DATES OF BIRTH. TWENTY-ONE OF THE EMAILS CONTAINING CUSTOMER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WERE BLIND COPIED PRIOR TO THE DATE THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE MESSAGES THAT THE EMAILS TO THE EXTERNAL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE DELIVERED.

Sanction detail — filed text

A FINE OF $65,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID THROUGH FINRA'S INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN.
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 

B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
FINRA
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
CENSURE MONETARY/FINE $65,000.00 ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER & CONSENT (AWC), UNDERTAKING.
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
12/18/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
2019062898302
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
No Product
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IT FAILED TO
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A WRITTEN IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM (PROGRAM) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO DETECT, PREVENT, AND
MITIGATE IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH OPENING OR MAINTAINING CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS STATED THAT THE FIRM'S PROGRAM
FAILED TO INCLUDE REASONABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY OR DETECT RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT, AND ITS PROCEDURES FOR
RESPONDING TO SUSPECTED IDENTITY THEFT WERE NOT TAILORED TO ITS BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH NOT FORMALLY TITLED IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION
PROGRAM, THE FIRM HAD WRITTEN PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS OF IDENTITY THEFT. THE PROGRAM FAILED TO PROVIDE
ASSOCIATED PERSONS ANY GUIDANCE REGARDING STEPS TO TAKE IN THE EVENT HE OR SHE SUSPECTED THAT AN INCIDENT OF IDENTITY THEFT HAD
OCCURRED. MOREOVER, THE FIRM'S PROGRAM CONSISTED OF GENERIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WAS NOT TAILED TO THE FIRM'S ACTUAL
BUSINESS MODEL. THE FINDINGS ALSO STATED THAT UPON LEARNING OF AN EMAIL SECURITY BREACH INVOLVING THE FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT OF THE
FIRM'S CEO AND CCO, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN ITS PROGRAM TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF IDENTITY THEFT DUE
TO THE EXPOSURE OF ITS CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY. THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE
HUNDREDS OF NOTIFICATIONS IN HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT MAILBOX STATING THAT EMAIL MESSAGES SENT FROM HIS FIRM ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE
DELIVERED TO A CERTAIN EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. ALTHOUGH THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS, HE
IGNORED THE UNDELIVERABLE NOTIFICATIONS. HE FORWARDED ONE OF THE UNDELIVERABLE MESSAGES TO THE FIRM'S OUTSIDE EMAIL VENDOR,
INFORMING THE VENDOR THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN 100 SUCH MESSAGES. THE VENDOR INFORMED HIM THERE WAS AN AUTOMATED RULE
SET UP ON HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT THAT BLIND-COPIED ALL EMAILS HE RECEIVED TO THE EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. THE VENDOR FURTHER
INFORMED HIM THAT HIS FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT HAD LIKELY BEEN COMPROMISED. THE FIRM FAILED TO TAKE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF
IDENTITY THEFT RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENT. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE TIME IT DISCOVERED THE BREACH, THE FIRM MADE NO EFFORT TO DETERMINE
HOW MANY EMAILS HAD BEEN BLIND COPIED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT, OR WHETHER CUSTOMERS' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAD BEEN
EXPOSED. IT WAS NOT UNTIL FINRA STAFF INQUIRED ABOUT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THIS EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS DURING THE FIRM'S
CYCLE EXAM, THAT THE FIRM ATTEMPTEDTO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE BREACH. TO DATE, THE FIRM HAS NOT NOTIFIED ANY CUSTOMERS WHOSE
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT. APPROXIMATELY 17,000 EMAILS WERE BLIND COPIED FROM THE FIRM'S CEO
AND CCO'S FIRM EMAIL ACCOUNT TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EXTERNAL EMAIL ADDRESS. AT LEAST200 OF THE BLIND-COPIED EMAILS CONTAINED
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FIRM'S CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' SOCIAL SECURITY, ACCOUNT NUMBERS, DRIVER'S
LICENSE NUMBERS, AND DATES OF BIRTH. TWENTY-ONE OF THE EMAILS CONTAINING CUSTOMER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WERE BLIND COPIED
PRIOR TO THE DATE THE FIRM'S CEO AND CCO BEGAN TO RECEIVE MESSAGES THAT THE EMAILS TO THE EXTERNAL ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE
DELIVERED.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

p
(
)
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
12/18/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 65,000.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
THE FIRM IS CENSURED, FINED $65,000, AND AGREES TO THE UNDERTAKINGS THAT IT WILL CERTIFY IN WRITING THAT IT HAS NOTIFIED THOSE
CUSTOMERS WHOSE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE UNAUTHORIZED EMAIL ACCOUNT, THAT IT HAS REVISED IT'S
IDENTIFY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED HEREIN, AND COMPLY WITH REGULATION S-ID, AND THAT
THE FIRM HAS ENHANCED IT'S EMAIL SECURITY SYSTEMS.
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
A FINE OF $65,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID THROUGH FINRA'S INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN.
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
regulatory · block 5PDF pages 28–30
Regulator name — filed text
FINRA
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 80,000.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)

Action status / disposition — filed text

THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IS FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASES AND EXCHANGES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2330 AND REG BI (FOR CONDUCT POSTDATING JUNE 30, 2020). THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OR WSPS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THE FIRM'S REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER PROFILE INFORMATION AND OTHER INFORMATION NEEDED TO REASONABLY ASSESS THE SUITABILITY OF A TRANSACTION AND WHETHER THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTERESTS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' RISK TOLERANCES AND INFORMATION ABOUT LOST RIDER BENEFITS, PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES. THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PROCEDURES SUFFICIENT TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT CUSTOMERS WERE ACCURATELY INFORMED ABOUT VARIOUS FEATURES OF THE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES THEY WERE RECOMMENDED, AS REQUIRED UNDER FINRA RULE 2330(B)(1)(A)(I), AND AS A RESULT, FIRM SUPERVISORS APPROVED ANNUITY TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS LISTING INACCURATE COSTS, FEES, SURRENDER PERIODS, AND RIDER INFORMATION. GIVEN THESE ISSUES, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS WERE NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN RULE 2330(B)(1) TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES WERE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS OR IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTEREST. SUPREME ALLIANCE ALSO FAILED TO DOCUMENT PRINCIPAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE VARIABLE ANNUITY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA RULES 2330(C). FURTHER, BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2020 AND APRIL 25, 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH REG BI. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS RELATING TO REG BI DURING THAT PERIOD. FINALLY, BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND APRIL 2022, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY IF ANY OF ITS REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES HAD INAPPROPRIATE EXCHANGES. THE FIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN POLICIES OR GUIDANCE EXPLAINING HOW THE FIRM WOULD MONITOR RATES OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY EXCHANGES, INCLUDING WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SURVEILLANCE, HOW OFTEN IT WOULD TAKE PLACE, WHAT TOOLS TO USE TO CONDUCT THE SURVEILLANCE, OR WHAT PARAMETERS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER EXCHANGE RATES WERE INAPPROPRIATE. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND MAY 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S INVESTIGATIONS, DURING THE HIRING PROCESS, INTO THE CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF PROSPECTIVE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DESCRIBED THE USE OF A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE CERTAIN STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING HIRING, INCLUDING STEPS FOR VERIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE'S UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES REGISTRATION (FORM U4), DETAILS RELATED TO CONTACTING THE CANDIDATE'S FORMER EMPLOYERS, AND FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEW HIRE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, IN PRACTICE, THE FIRM DID NOT USE THIS CHECKLIST AND FAILED TO OTHERWISE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THAT THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING THE HIRING PROCESS. FURTHER, THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO KEEP APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AT HIRING, INCLUDING RECORDS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE FORMS REQUIRED UNDER THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES.

Sanction detail — filed text

A FINE OF $80,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID TO FINRA.
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.

If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
FINRA
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
CENSURE MONETARY/FINE $80,000.00 ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER & CONSENT (AWC), UNDERTAKING.
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
10/31/2025
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
2020065125001
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Annuity(ies) - Variable
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE FINDINGS, THE FIRM CONSENTED TO THE SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS THAT IS FAILED TO
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES (WSPS) REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASES AND EXCHANGES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2330 AND REG BI (FOR
CONDUCT POSTDATING JUNE 30, 2020). THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OR WSPS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE
WHETHER THE FIRM'S REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER PROFILE INFORMATION AND OTHER
INFORMATION NEEDED TO REASONABLY ASSESS THE SUITABILITY OF A TRANSACTION AND WHETHER THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE
CUSTOMERS' BEST INTERESTS, INCLUDING CUSTOMERS' RISK TOLERANCES AND INFORMATION ABOUT LOST RIDER BENEFITS, PRIOR TO
RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OR EXCHANGE OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES. THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PROCEDURES
SUFFICIENT TO SUPERVISE WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT CUSTOMERS WERE ACCURATELY INFORMED ABOUT VARIOUS
FEATURES OF THE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES THEY WERE RECOMMENDED, AS REQUIRED UNDER FINRA RULE 2330(B)(1)(A)(I), AND AS A RESULT,
FIRM SUPERVISORS APPROVED ANNUITY TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS LISTING INACCURATE COSTS, FEES, SURRENDER PERIODS, AND RIDER
INFORMATION. GIVEN THESE ISSUES, THE FIRM'S SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WSPS WERE NOT REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN RULE 2330(B)(1) TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE
OR EXCHANGE DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITIES WERE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS OR IN THE CUSTOMERS' BEST INTEREST. SUPREME ALLIANCE
ALSO FAILED TO DOCUMENT PRINCIPAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE VARIABLE ANNUITY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED DURING THE RELEVANT
PERIOD, CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FINRA RULES 2330(C). FURTHER, BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2020 AND APRIL 25, 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE
FAILED TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND ENFORCE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH REG
BI. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS RELATING TO REG BI DURING THAT PERIOD. FINALLY, BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 2019 AND APRIL 2022, THE FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES TO IDENTIFY IF ANY OF ITS REGISTERED
REPRESENTATIVES HAD INAPPROPRIATE EXCHANGES. THE FIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN POLICIES OR GUIDANCE EXPLAINING HOW THE FIRM WOULD
MONITOR RATES OF DEFERRED VARIABLE ANNUITY EXCHANGES, INCLUDING WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SURVEILLANCE, HOW OFTEN IT
WOULD TAKE PLACE, WHAT TOOLS TO USE TO CONDUCT THE SURVEILLANCE, OR WHAT PARAMETERS TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER
EXCHANGE RATES WERE INAPPROPRIATE. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2019 AND MAY 2022, SUPREME ALLIANCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A
SUPERVISORY SYSTEM AND WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SUPERVISE THE FIRM'S INVESTIGATIONS, DURING THE
HIRING PROCESS, INTO THE CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF PROSPECTIVE REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS. THE FIRM'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DESCRIBED THE USE OF A CHECKLIST TO ENSURE CERTAIN STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING HIRING,
INCLUDING STEPS FOR VERIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE'S UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES REGISTRATION (FORM U4), DETAILS RELATED TO
CONTACTING THE CANDIDATE'S FORMER EMPLOYERS, AND FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEW HIRE INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, IN PRACTICE, THE FIRM DID NOT USE THIS CHECKLIST AND FAILED TO OTHERWISE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO
SUPERVISE THAT THE APPROPRIATE STEPS WERE TAKEN DURING THE HIRING PROCESS. FURTHER, THE FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A
SYSTEM REASONABLY DESIGNED TO KEEP APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AT HIRING, INCLUDING RECORDS OF BACKGROUND

CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE FORMS REQUIRED UNDER THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Acceptance, Waiver & Consent(AWC)
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
10/31/2025
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
THE FIRM IS CENSURED AND FINED $80,000.
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 80,000.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
A FINE OF $80,000 ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPLICANT, TO BE PAID TO FINRA.
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE FIRM SETTLED THIS MATTER WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION.
regulatory · block 6PDF pages 30–32
Regulator name — filed text
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
Monetary/Fine Amount — filed text
$ 250.00
How was matter resolved — filed text
Settled
Other filed details

Description of allegations — filed text

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FINRA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING ON 2021 NORTH CAROLINA LICENSE APPLICATION.

Sanction detail — filed text

FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
Full extracted filing text

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.

ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
No Information Filed
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign
(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
11/20/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
1000114587
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Annuity(ies) - Variable
Other Product Types: 
MUTUAL FUNDS, INSURANCE
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FINRA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING ON 2021 NORTH CAROLINA LICENSE APPLICATION.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
Settled
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
11/20/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
12. Resolution Detail:

A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 250.00
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
FINE PAID ON 11/14/2024
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).

* Metrics are based on the latest available data, including Form ADV filings, brochures, and relationship summaries pulled from the SEC IAPD, and may be subject to change. Learn what is included in the Rialytix data. Please refer to the firm's official disclosures for the most accurate information using their CRD number. This is not investment advice.