y^ New York Stock Exchange NYSE In the Matter of Arbitration Between Case: Ya Sun V. Fidelity Brokerage Services Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Ya Sun - Dallas, TX F=or ftospondefit(s): Asma Marie Gillette Esq. - Boston, MA Date Filed: os/i 1/94 First Scheduled: 10/28/94 Decided: 10/28/94 Case Summary: claimant, a publk: customer, alleges respondent, a member firm, engaged in unauthorized trading and made misrepresentations with respect to shar

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between y NYSE Case: Isabel Medina vs. Smith Bamey Shearson and AmoM Ledertaramer Attorneys: For Claln»ni(s): Isabel Medina - Melville, NY Fbr Re8pondent(8): Ann Parry Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 08^)9/94 First Scheduled: i2/28«4 Case Summary: Claimant alleges that respondent made unauthorized trades in Product: IRA her IRA account Decided: Madtet: 12/28/94

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between Case: Jacob L. Lichter and Sue Lichter Trust v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Attorneys: For Claimant($): Jacob L. Lichter - West Palm Beach, FL For Respondent(8): Christopher D. Cavuoti Esq. - New York, NY y NYSE Date Filed: 07/14/94 Case Summary: Claimant. a customer. First Scheduled: has alleged that respondent made an Product: BONDS Decided:

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Prudential Securities Incorporated v Michael D. Freitag Attorneys: For Claimantls): Denis McCarthy - New York, NY For Ftospondent(s): Michael D. Freitag - Fort Meyers, FL Date Filed: 07/13/94 First Scheduled: 11 / 9 / 9 4 Decided: II/9/94 Case Summary: Claimant alleges breach of Training /Vgreement and non-payment of expenses owed thereunder. Product: OTHER M

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Gall Albohn v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Attorneys: For Clalmani(8): Gail Albohn - Valley Cottage, NY For Respondent(s): John R. Cummings - New York, NY Date Filed: 07/13/94 Case Summary: claimant, a customer. First Scheduled: 10/24/94 has alleged that respondent's delay in Product: MUT FUND Decided: executing a sell order caused Market:

^ / 1^ New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Wllllam H. Brahm v Waterhouse Securities, Inc. and Quick & Reilly Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Howard B. Siegel Esq. - Houston, TX For F1espondenl(s): Robert F.X. Bohrer Esq. - New York, NY Nicholas J. Chopey - New York, NY Date Filed: 07/05/94 First Scheduled: 12/08/94 Oecided: 12/19/94 Case Summary: Claimant alleges that Respondents failed to disclose

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Davki Keren v. Olde Discount Corporation, Kevin Weatherly, Ell'ntte Silver and Dan Patterson Attorneys: l=or Claimants): Davkf R. Keren - Santa Ana, CA For Rssponden((s): Julie D. Reed Esq. - Detroit, Ml Date Filed: 07/05/94 First Scheduled: Decided: [^ \]^\c[< -f Case Summary: customer alleges that he was unable to complete a private sale of a stock because responden

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between (4 NYSE Case: John P. Taierico v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Smith inc. Attorneys: For Claimant(s): John P. Talerkx) - Harrington Park, NJ For Respondent(s): Theodore Krebsbach Esq. - White Plains, NY Date Filed: 05/31/94 First Scheduled: 12/07/94 Decided: 12/07/94 Case Summary: claimant, a public customer, alleges mismanagement, failure to supervise, churning emd misrepre

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Josephthal Lyon & Ross Incorporated v. Guntis Lambergs Attorneys: For Clainiant(s): Robert E. Murphy Esq. - New York, NY For Respondent(s): Guntis Lambergs - Walpole, MA Date Filed: 05/24/94 First Scheduled: 10/20/94 Decided: 10/20/94 Case Summary: Claimant alleges respondent knowingly placed customer in an high risk investment for whnh the customer had insuffntent n

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith v John Warren Attorneys: For Claimant(s): A. Mnhael Ferrill Esq. - San Antonio, TX f=or Respondent(s): John Warren - San Antonio, TX Date Filed: 05/09/94 First Scheduled: 08/30/94 Case Summary: Firm alleges that customer failed to respond to a margin call in liquidated resulting in a debit balance. Product: COMMOD Decided