AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE HATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE; HOWARd 6 HELEN STAPLES V. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, TNC. DATE FILED: . 1/9/95 FIRST SCHEDULED 5/9/95 DECIDED CASE SUMMARY:* Customer v. member arbitration. Claimant alleges unsuitability and'misrepresentation in the sale o£ 6/21/9S limited partnelri ship Polaris Ai: rcraft Income Fund IV. • al • CLAIMANT'S INITIALS SESSIONS: RESPONDENT»S D

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE: GARY DEAR V. ISAAC OVADIAH r^.'.t.'T:^ ** ^s-- < o^ DATE FILED: 12/30/94 FIRST SCHEDULED d/zn/q-s DECIDED 5/22/95 CASE SUMMARY; * liBSaee V. iBRSor diapviti» - T.eg«f>f» ia aiiing for T-etm-n of leaB« deposit . ^_ X' CLAIMANT'S INITIALS b,P SESSIONS: ^I^SPONDENT• S J- '^ THIRD PARTY'S INITIALS CLAIM AND AWARD DATA: CLAIM $5 .000.00 PUNIT

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE XN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE: RTCiRnTrrK T tirajrjnrag v. KHWAsgrM T.gHMaw Pif»r»rHERBf mC-• fc . I M H ^ rjjjr^gfp DATE FII.ED: 8/26/93 FIRST SCHEDULED 3/16/9.5 DECIDED 5/21/95 CASE SUMMARY:- niRrmpr V. TnraririRr rrlrn'm. maiiiinni- is alluring ima.H-Jir.>-< «irl *.„A^^V3. fajlyipe 1-n fmiow hia inat-nml-inna anrl iw nffalcirMt in< -ain»«< - fur, tnmr^jm. Tr«», p^mHr-J^rlfT"^ CLAIMANT'S

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THB MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN ^E. ALBERT E. SCHLESINGER V. MICHAEL LUBIN V.LUBIN 6 SCHLESINGER, INC. DATE FILED: 9/21/94 FIRST SCHEDULED^/9&10/95 DECIDED 4/10/95 CASE SUMMARY:* Member v. member claim. Claimant alleqes breach of a promissory note by Respondent. The Respondent denies the claim and counterclaims for breach of fiduciary obligation. CLAIMANT'S INITIALS SESSIONS: • |p^s • RESP

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN __^ _ MARTIN SCHESNBERG V. T.UBIN & SCHIESINGBR, INC. , & I/TL INTERNKnCNAL niU\DIN«3 CORPORATION; MICHAEL LUBIN & MITOTIC TRADING, INC. /:^^ ^d. ^ ^^^al ATE FILED: 12/15/93 FIRST SCHEDULED 3/2B/94 DECIDED 3/14/95 ASE SUMMARY:* Cuatxaner v. member claim. Claimant shareholder of respondents broiker/dealer corporation alleges that the respondents did not properly redeem hia shares in

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OP ARBITRATION BETWEEN E: MILTON SIEGEL V. PAINEWEBBER & ALEXANDER QUINT DATE FILED: 6/16/94 FIRST SCHEDULED 8/30^94 DECIDED 10/3/94 CASE SUMMARY:* Customer v. member ,.cl«jm- Claim^nl- all^oe^ that he n.»ver received inn shares of tl.S, H»e>.T thati he paid for. Respondent • arque.-i that the f:i rm. at the Claimant's request. liquj.dated 1;he purchase and credited Claimant's ;^ccount. CLAIMANT'S IN

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MAITER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE: LIT CLEARING SERVICES. INC. S SPEAR. LEEDS St KELLOGG V. MICKLI-VAN CAWEGHAN S. CO. , INC. . LOUIS MICELI & ROBERT J. VAN-CANEGHAN V. LIT AMERICA..INC. DATE FILED: 4/12/94 FIRST SCHEDtJLED 11/10 &11/11 DECIDED 12/13/94 CASE SUMMARY: "Member v. member speeiallat joint account dispute. Claimants allege breach of contract by Respondents. Respondents deny the claim and aa

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE: JOSEPHINE MUGNANO-BORENSTEIN V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON CORPORATION & ROBERT CROWELL r.^... -c^ * I'^-io DATE FILED: 6/13/94 FIRST SCHEDULED 10/20/94 DECIDED 11/21/94 CASE SUMMARV:• An employer v. employee dispute where employee is alleging wrongful termination and sex discrimination. Respondents assert their actions were dictated by legitimate business purpi ose.

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN JOSEPHINE MUGNANO-BORBNSTEIN V. SHEUVRSON LEHMAN HUTTON CORPORATION & ROBERT CROWELL ras.jL'^JL^ W>/y=^ DATE FILED: 6/13/94 FIRST SCHEDULED 10/20/94 DECIDED 11/21/94 CASE SUMMARY J• An employer v. employee dispute where employee is alleging wrongful termination and sex discrimination. Respondents assert their actions were dictated by legitimate business purpose. CLAIMANT'S

AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE IN THB MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CASE: CHARLES S. & JAYNE G. OWEN V, SOUTHWEST SECURITIES, INC. DATE FILED: 10/29/93 FIRST SCHEDULED _ 4/1B/94 DECIDED 10/20/94 CASE SUMMARY;* A customer v. member arbitration where claimants are alleging deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty; fraud and fraudulent concealment and negligence. Claimants further allege damages for severe emotional distress and men