5J10 6^--"^ New Yorlt Stock Exchang:c In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case \/ ' • Oite Filed. ay4i£ a!^y i99f first Schsduled: ^i(^4.yA A ' ^ ^ OtcJdsd: a^6/^,/9yAi Case Summaiy:* .asc summary. i^ t , i -7*- y, 1/ ^S^u/i^7iutytfi^'/yC'/^^'/yya^Uf^x^ Stisiont Clahi Data. Award Osts Amarri Piinrliva. , Pgniiiva. , Punilw«. .CCSrdl'lY. . Pimiiive AltyFsat Daposil.

.Vew York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: dfershan Wolf v Bear Stearns & Co. Attorneys: For Claintant(8): Howard Sirote Esq. - New Yoric, NY Fbr Re8pondent(8): Daniel S. Taub Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 05/07/91 First Scheduled: 11/12/91 Decided: 05/19/92 Case Summary: Clalmam alleges Respondem improperly executed an order to redeem Weyerhauser Preferred Stock, so that Claimam received common stock

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Padflc Resources, Incorporated v Mark Rosenberg, James McConnon, William Weinrauch and Kenneth Stocker Attorneys: For Clain»nt(s): Harold Bacon Esq. - New York, NY Fbr Respondent(s): Ira Sorkin Esq. - New York, NY Date Fiied: 04/04/88 First Scheduled: 02/22/89 Decided: 02/28/92 Case Summary: Customer against Registered Represemative for recklessly handling Claimam's

/ New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Steven Lucas v Merrill Lynch Futores, Inc. and Merrill Lynch Attorneys: For Clainunt(s): Rex Whiteker Esq. - Waco, TX Fbr Respondent(s): Robert L. Wright Esq. - Dallas, TX Date Filed: 04/oi/9i First Scheduled: 11/19/91 Decided: -7/r/^2. Case Summary: Customer v Member Firm and Non Member for alleged fraud and unsuttability in the purchase of futures contrac

Award NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Gregory L. Woods, Claimant v. T.D. Waterhouse Securities, Inc., Respondent Case Number: 01-04837 Hearing Site: Los Angeles, California REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES For Claimant: Gregory L. Woods In Propria Persona Los Angeles, California For Respondent: Asha Dhiilon, Esq. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald L.L.P. Los Angeles, California CASE INFORMATION S

y New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: PalneWebbar, IncorporstMl v. Jamea Stephen Walkar Attorneys: For CtaiRHflKa); MH:tiaBl Alford Esq. - Miami, FL ror naiponoem|B|. Richard J. Haya P.A. - LaudarhiV, FL Date Fiiad: 03/1 er«i Case Summary: Mamfaar Rnn v First Scheduled: 04/oa«i Decided: 06/11/92 , Registerad Repreaantaiivie for alleged failure to repay promisiory note altar respondent left cUma

c New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Ellen S. citron v Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. f/k/a Shearson Ljehman Hution Inc. and James R. Abraham Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Roger S. Davis Esq. - Boston, MA Fbr Respondent^): John R. Snyder Esq. - Boston, MA Date Fiied: 04/22/91 First Scheduled: ii/i8«i Decided: 06/05/92 Case Summary: customer against Member Firm and Registered Representative for allege

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Wall street Clearing Co. v Robert LaRusso Attorneys: For Clainuuit(8): Davkl A. GoMman Esq. - Garden City, NY For Re8pondent(s): Martin S. Berglas Esq. - New Yorit, NY Date Fiied: 04/i5/9i First Scheduled: 11/22/91 Decided: 03/19/92 Case Summary: Member Firm (clearing house) alleges Customer owes for purchase of stock (debit balance after Ikiuklatnn of hoMings).

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Gruntal & Company vs. Owen May Attorneys: For Cialntai«(s): Erte Hutner Esq. - New York, NY For Raaaondaiatel' Owen May - Mount Vernon, NY Owen May-New York, NY Date Filed: io/09«i Case Summary; Member Finn vs. First Scheduled; 12/16/91 Decided: os/28/92 Former Registered Representative, claimant alleges breach of emptoyment agreement Product: PROMISSORY

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: George Greco vs. Shearson Lehman Hutton and Gary Owens Attorneys: For Claimant(s): John K. Moss Esq. - Garden City, NY For Respondent(s): Arthur C. Schupbach Esq. - Mineola, NY Date Filed: 03/O8/91 First Scheduled: 10/29/91 Decided: 01/28/02 Case Summary: Customer vs. Member Firm and Registered Representative alleging Respondents made nusrepresertattons atiout an ear