New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between y NYSE Case: Anthony Curreri v. Kenneth Gatto and Shearson Lehman Brothers Attorneys: For ClainMuit(s): Anthony Curreri - Bridgewater, NJ For nespondent(B): Paul Williams - Mineola, NY Date Filed: 01/22/91 Rrst Scheduled: < i \\o\'\\ Decided: 02/19/92 Case Summary: customer against Member Rrm for aitoged misrepresentatkm in the purchase of North Skle Savings Bank-NY. Claiman

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Mary M. and Frank J. Milazzo vs. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. vs. Louis Centore Attorneys: For Clain»nt(s): Grant Bohl Esq. - Sarasota, F Fbr Respondent(s): Kenneth A. Rtoh Esq. Bhmmfield Hills, Ml For 3rd Party: Louis Centore - Houston, TX Date Filed: 02/26/91 Case Summary: Customers} misrepresentations and omission! First Scheduled: 10/28/91 Decid

y New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Byron Cartozian v Lynch. Jones & Ryan Attorneys: For Clajmant(s): John D. Rapoport Esq. - New York, NY For Respondent(s): Louis M. Sotomon Esq. - New York. NY Date Filed: 02/01/91 First Scheduled: 12/05/91 Decided: O6/25/92 Case Summary: Registered Representative against Member Rrm for alleged failure to pay commisstons and compensatton. Member Rrm counter

New York Stock Exchange :i the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Edith Nadas Kovats and Leslie Kovats vs. Wedbush Morgan Securities and R. Mitchell Young Attorneys: For Clainnnt(8): Victoria Gruver Esq. - Phoenix, AZ Fbr Respondent(s): Marie E. Eaton Esq. - Los /\ngeles, CA R. Mitchell Young - Phoenix, AZ Date Filed: 02/11/91 First Scheduled: 06/19/91 Decided: 05/14/92 Case Summary: Customers vs. Member Rrm and Registered Rep

New York Stock Exchange in the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Edward R. and Mary J. Schmocker vs. PaineWebber, Inc. and J. Clark Tobin Attorneys: For Clainnnt(s): Edwanj R. Schmocker - Park Falls, Wl For Respondent(s): J. Clark Tobin - New York, NY J. Clark Tobin - Princeton Junctton, NJ Edward G. Werner Esq. - Weehawken, NJ Date Fiied: 02/12/91 Case Summary: customers vs. and R J Reynolds bonds. First Scheduled: 07

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between / NYSE Case: Gruntal & Company vs. Martin Koch Attorneys: For ClaJmant(s): Davki S. Gorobetz Esq. - New York, NY For Respondent(s): Martin Koch - New York, NY Date Filed: 02/14/91 First Scheduled: 08/12/91 Decided: 03/20/02 Case Summary: CLAIMANT ALLEGES RESPONDENT FAILED TO FULRLL DEBIT BALANCE OBLIGATIONS Product: PROMISSORY NOTE Market: nyse Claim Data Cl

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Gruntal & Co. v Daniel Dailey Attorneys: For Claimart(s): Eric Humor Esq. - New York, NY For Raspondant(s): Daniel Oa'dey - DeerfleU Beach, FL Date Filed: 01/11/91 First Scheduled: omamz Decided: 09/15/92 Case Summary: Member Firm V Registered Representative for allagad breach of employment agreemem and failure to repay promissory note after Respondent left cialm

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: smith Bamay Harris Upham & Co v. John Egan Attorneys: For Claimiant(s): Scott Kresch, Esq. - New York, NY Fbr Respondent(s): Kenneth Upman - Boca Raton, FL Date Fiied: 12/17/90 Case Summary: Member Firm v. Rrst Scheduled: 02^)6/92 . Registered Representative for alleged failure to Product: Decided: 2/6/92 repay promissory nota after respondent

"^w York Stock Exchange id the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Gruntal ft Co., Inc. v Edward J. aRourke Attorneys: f^ CtaknaMti): Eric S. Hunter Esq. - Nwv York. NY POT wwafonmntfiN' John P. Fitzgerald Esq. - Boaion, MA Date Filed: 01/07/91 Rrst Scheduled: i2/io«i Oecided: 04/07/92 Case Summary: Member Rrm agalnat Raglatarad RapnaantatKn for heiinca ef prainaaory note. Product: Mad^et: Claim Data '^ Claim: $37,00

STIPULATED AWARD NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Name of Claimant Mavis Sutherland and 01-04821 Phoenix, Arizona Name of Respondents Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. John S. Simonson Kirk J.Gill Nature of the Dispute: Customer vs. Member and Associated Persons. REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES Mavis Sutherland ("Claimant") was represented by David C. Anson, Esq. of Anson, Lammers and Barkley and