MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD m'tb fj-"." r.»i 1990 In the JOHN A.G. J Matter of BARRON V. EDWARDS & & the Arbiti DOROTHY SONS, INC. J 1 ration between BARRON, Claimants, Respondent. AWARD MS89-58 SC9-027 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants alleged that on February 3, 1989 Respondent

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the PIPER, Matter c V. JAFFRAY f & the Arbi HOPWOOD tration between Claimants, INCORPORATED, Respondent. AWARD MS89-57 SC9-026 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 34(f) of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege that the Respondent violated various provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act and the rules of the National

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between JOHN L. FARICY, v. Claimant, DAIN BOSWORTH, INCORPORATED and GEORGE F. BRUNKHORST, Respondents. mib NOV 27 1990 AWARD MS 89-54 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges fraud and violations of relevant state and federal securities laws by Respondent Dain Bosworth, Inc.

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In A. the Matt V. F. GREEN er & of CO. the Arbitration between , INC., Claimants, : Respondent. AWARD MS 89-53 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants alleged that they invested $80,000 with Respondent in certain FHA, AA Puerto Rico Housing Bank & Finance Cozy Bonds that Respondent represented woul

\', MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD JUL 2 '990 M.S. 13. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants, v. ROTAN MOSLE, INC. and JERRY K. BROWN, JR. a/k/a KENT BROWN. Respondents. AWARD MS 89-51 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege that Respondents failed to explain the risks of an investment in City of San Antonio Industrial De

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants, v. BOETTCHER & COMPANY, INC. and LAURENCE G. ALPERT, Respondents. AWARD MS 89-48 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants alleged that Respondents failed to perform due diligence prior to recommending the purchase of certain City of Arvada, Colorado Industrial Development Reve

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of V. CHARLES SCHWAB 8. the CO. Arbitrat , INC., ion between • • Claimants, Respondent. AWARD MS89-47 SC9-021 The UNDERSIGNED, pursuant to MSRB Rule G-35, Section 34(f), hereby states as follows: I have been selected to act as arbitrator and to review and determine the captioned matter in controversy between the above-mentioned Claimants and Respondent set fo

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants, V. DOMINICK & DONINICK, INCORPORATED; OOMINICK INVESTOR SERVICES CORPORATION and LAWRENCE K. MCCARTY, Respondents. AWARD MS 89-44 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege that in or around November of 1987 Claimant began discussing with Respondent Lawrence K. McCart

Award NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: First Union Securities, Inc. ("Claimant") vs. Phillip Keith Adams, ('Respondent') Case Number: 01-03337 Hearing Site: Houston, Texas (By telephone) REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES Claimant, First Union Securities, Inc. was represented by Kevin Gleason, Esq. of Kane & Fisher, Ltd. Located in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent, Phillip Keith Adams located in San Antonio, Texas was pro se and

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD FEB 16 I-: In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Claimant, v. BARNETT BROKERAGE SERVICE, INC. a/k/a BARNETT BANK BROKERAGE SERVICE, Respondent. AWARD MS 89-40 The UNDERSIGNED, pursuant to MSRB Rule G-35, Section 31, and to the parties acfreement at the hearing, pursuant to Section 14, to proceed with two arbitrators, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleged that R