New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: C vSTof^lr^ . v Goldman Sachs, Karen Gelfand & Pamela Kendall Attorneys: For Clalmant(s): Cassandra M. Hanley Esq. - San Francisco, CA For Respondent(s): Judith G. Belash Esq. - New York, NY Michael J. Lawson Esq. - San Francisco, CA Date Filed: 07/20/2001 First Scheduled: 04/08/2002 Decided: 10/07/2002 Case Summary: Claimant, a customer, brings this action for b

•V York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Customer V. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Martin Kaplan Esq. - New York, NY For Respondent(s): Barry Welner Esq. - Boston, MA Date Filed: 11/05/1999 First Scheduled: 06/06/2000 - Decided: 3/20/2003 Case Summary: The claimants were customers of Merrill Lynch and its stockbroker Donald J. Martineau. The dalmants allege

NYSE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OF AIBITRATION BETWEEN Case: Mark Goldstein v. Salomon Smith Bamey Attomeys: For Claimant(s): David B. Wechsler, Esq. - New York, New York For Respondent(s): Marcie S. Mintz, Esq. - New York, New York Christopher A. Parlo, Esq. - New York, New York Date Filed: 04/24/2002 First Scheduled: 11/18/2002 Decided: 12/19/2002 Case Summary: Claimant, a former employee, has alleged that Respondent failed to p

Award NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Dain Rauscher Incorporated, Claimant v. H. Michael Johnson, Respondent Case Number: 01-04945 Hearing She: Not Applicable REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES For Claimant: Jonathan Harris, Esq. Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. Minneapolis, Minnesota For Respondent: H. Michael Johnson Philomath, Oregon CASE INFORMATION Statement of Claim filed on or about: September 13, 2001 Clai

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: V Morgan Stenley Dean Witter & Co., and Lawrence Potter Attomeys: For Ciaimant(s): James Ecdeston Esq. - Chicago, IL For Respoiident(s): Joseph C. Coates, III Esq. - West Palm Beach, FL Date Filed: 02A)2/200l First Scheduled: 10/I8/2001 Decided: 1 XHJ 02. Case Summary: Clalnnant alleges ttiat Respondents vidated the Illinois Securities Law of 1953, th

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Sandor J. Romick v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. and Gary Chiate Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Steven M Gluck Esq - Calabasas, CA i=ior Respondent(s): Eugene L Small Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 05/23/91 First Sciieduled: 11/07/91 Decided: 01/21/92 Case Summary: Customer v member firm and registered representative for alleged negligent misrepresentation. Respondents alleg

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Harriet Tropea v Prudential-Bache Securities Inc. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Joseph /^ngelo Esq. - Newport Beach, CA ¥ot Respondent(s): Elizabeth P Beazley Esq. - Long Beach, CA V. James Mann Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 05/13/91 First Scheduled: 11/07/91 Decided: 01/23/92 Case Summary: Customer v Member Firm for al

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between ^ " NYSE Case: I kv First Unkn Securities, Inc. arxl DavM Coyte t Attorneys: For Claiinant(s): Charlie J. Risch Esq. - Chicago, IL For Respondeiit(s): Christopher J. Barber Esq. - Chicago. IL Date Filed: OBOBOOOO First Scheduled: 09/27/2000 Decided: loflt^/oi Case Summary: Claimants, ^ B I ^ H H H B M I I i

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Prudential Securities Incorporated v. Joseph P. Drier, Attomeys: For Claimanl(s): Arthur BaumgartnerEsq. - New York, NY For Respoiident(s): David A. DeLuca, Esq. - Quincy, MA Date Filed: 03/17/2000 First Scheduled: 02/20/2001 Decided: 06/01/2001 Case Summary: Member firm claimant alleges breach of Employment Agreement and non-paymentof Promissory Note. Respondentfile

New York Stock Exchange NYSE In the Matter of Arbitration Between Case: Thomas L Sweeney, Trustse of the Sweeney Family 1989 Trust v Cowen and Company Attorneys: For Clairmnl(s): Thomas L Sweeney - Merced, CA For Re8pondent(s): Lawrence Leibowitz Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: I2A)2/91 First Scheduled: 02/21/92 Decided: 03/31/92 Case Summary: Customer against Member Firm for alleged failure to execute, failure to follow claimants instructio