MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between DAVID W. KESTERSON, v. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Claimant, Respondent. FEB 28 1990 AWARD MS89-39 SC9-019 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant purchased from Respondent five (5) $5,000.00 Loudon County, Tennessee, Health Center H & E Bonds ("the Bonds") on or about March

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In th R.W. a/k/a e Matter V. PETERS, RICKEL of the Arbitration between • RICKEL fc CO., & ASSOCIATES, INC. INC. Claimants, Respondent. AWARD NS89-38 SC9-019 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

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration Between V. A.F. GREEN & COMPANY, INC., Claimant, Respondent. £BVb JUH 6 1989 M.S.R.B. AWARD MS 89-37 SC9-017 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 parties set forth in a su

•^'^^ 9 1990 MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration betweei Claimant, v. RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS SECURITIES INC.. Respondent. l.tfi AWARD MS 89-34 ^. The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleged that Respondent failed to fulfill its duty as her investment advisor in connection with the purchase and sale of certain

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. MILLER & SCHROEDER FINANCIAL, INC., Respondent. AWARD MS89-31 SC9-016 The UNDERSIGNED, pursuant to HSRB Rule 6-35, 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 Claimant and Respondent set forth in a siibmission

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between y. Claimant, CROAKS'ROBERTS, INC. now CRONIN fc CO., INC. and JOSEPH G. BRADY, Respondents. AWARD MS 89-30 The UNDERSIGNED, pursuant to MSRB Rule G-35, Section 31, hereby state as follows: We have been selected to act as arbitrators and to review and determine the captioned matter in controversy between the above Claimant and Respondents set forth in a sub

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In A. the Matt v. F. GRBBN er It of CO. the Arbitrat , INC., ion between Claimants, Respondent. AWARD MS89-29 SC9-015 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

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter WILLIAM MERRILL of T. HOUGH V. LYNCH, the and Arbitration between NORMA P. PIERCE, FENNER HOUGH, '. Claimants. : & SMITH INC., : Respondent. AWARD MS 89-28 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants William T. Hough and Norma P. Hough alleged an improper execution of an order and

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter JOHN OTTO, v. EVANS TRADING and ELVYN Q. of the Arbi CO., EVANS INC. a/k/a itration between Claiiant, ELVIE EVANS, Respondents. mb M4fi OA I f i •»>, 1991 ?:.; r.^ .'^. r^ AWARD MS 89-26 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED In the above-captioned m

Award NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Arthur Lieberman, (Claimant) vs. Jerry Saperstein, (Respondent) Case Number: 01-03333 Hearing Site: New York, New York REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES Claimant, Arthur Lieberman, hereinafter referred to as "Claimant", appeared pro se. Respondent, Jerry Saperstein, hereinafter referred to as "Respondent'*: E. Michael Growney, Esq., a sole practitioner, New York, NY. Respondent originally a