,ir-Mt, %^UNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD f In the Matter of the Arbitration Between ALBERT J. MOLTER and VIVIAN R. MOLTER, Claimants, V. A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC., Respondent. «« 81 IMO l.ia.9L AWARD : MS90-13 : SCO-008 The undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows; CASE SUMMARY Claimants alleged that Respondent sold $20,000 Pensacola, Florida Sanitation System Revenue B

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. SEIDEL k FASANO, INC.; PETER PALUMBO; FRANK J. FASANO AND ALAN D. SEIDEL, Respondents, AWARD MS90-12 SCO-007 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant contends that Respondents knew or should have known that certain Massachusetts State Health k Educational Fac

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the NORRIS ROBERT Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. : & HIRSHBERG, INC. and A. ROSENBERG a/ka/ BOB ROSENBERG, Respondents. OCT 25 1996 M.S.R.B. AWARD MS 90-11 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that in 1986 and 1987 Respondent Robert A. Rosenberg a/k/a Bob Rosenberg ("Ros

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration Between V. Claimants, MCLAUGHLIN, PIVEL, VOGEL SECURITIES, INC. and DAVID C. JOHNS, Respondents. AWARD MS 90-9 SC0-005 The undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege that Respondents, upon Claimants' request due to tax considerations, recommended that they sell $20,000 Intermountain Power

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Ma AUGUSTINE V MILLER & tter of th BELARDO. • SCHROEDER e Arbitrat FINANCIAL, ion between Claimant, INC., : Respondent. Mb M.S.R.3. AWARD MS 90-7 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that Respondent failed to provide him with all material information necessary for him t

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of VALERIE GARY L. E. EVARTS V. SLIEMERS the and and A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, Arbitrat GEORGE INC.. ion between : H. EVARTS, : Claimants, Respondents. pmib MAR 28 1990 ,q .. ... ..J AWARD MS 90-6 SCO-003 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants alleged t

Award NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Roberto Del Rio Chavez and Selene Chavez Pasqual, Claimants v. Kirlin Securities, Inc. and Richard E. Trejo, Respondents Case Number: 01-03348 Hearing Site: San Diego, California REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES For Claimants: For Respondent Kirlin Securities, Inc. For Respondent Richard E. Trejo: James R. Ballard, Esq. Kennerson Schwartz Semerdjian & Haile LLP San

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter V. PAINEWEBBER, of INC the • f Arbitrat ion between Claimant 1 : Respondent. AWARD MS90-04 SCO-002 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that he purchased from Respondent $10,000 New Jersey State Mortgage Finance Agency Statewide Mortgage Purchase Revenue Bonds, 1983 Series 2, 9.75X d

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Clainants, V. MANLEY, BENNETT, MCDONALD & CO., INC. a/k/a MBM GROUP, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES and CAROL SWIGER METZ, Respondents. AWARD MS 90-3 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege violations of federal and state securities law and common law by Respondents in connection with the m

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM & CO., INC., Respondent. AWARD MS 89-107 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges federal and state securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent supervision by Respondent, in connection with the s