MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD * • ly w^ fy^ In the JOHN A Matter of V. . LABAK, the Arbitration between : Claimant, : Respondent. : AWARD MS91-36 SCl-015 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Claimant alleges, anong other things, that Respondent John A. LaBak, a representative of McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Securities, Inc.,

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD MAR 2' ^^ - • rt T» "5 In the Matter of the Arbitration between PETER L. RICHARD, Claimant, V. MICHAEL P. DOWD and BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC. Respondents. AWARD HS91-35 SCl-014 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY The above-captioned natter concerns Clainant's purchase, on March 1, 1991, of $35,000 New York State Urban

MAY /: 1992 MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. SUNPOINT SECURITIES, INC.; JOEL KING and CANTELLA & CO., INC.? Respondents. Itua'wi AWARD MS91-34 SC1-013 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that on June 22, 1990, Claimant purchased from Respondent Joel King ("Respondent King"), a represent

/; MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD MAR 27 1992 In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants, v. BOETTCHER & COMPANY, INC., A DIVISION OF KEMPER SECURITIES GROUP, INC., Respondent. ' V* • iiaa J% AWARD MS 91-33 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY In the above-captioned natter. Claimants allege that Respondent made an unsuitable recommendation

T™ MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between W.A. WOOD, V. A. JACK BURNEY and FIRST AMERICAN SECURITIES, INC., Claimant, Respondents. NAY 18 1992 f •; < •> '•^ a^ AWARD MS 91-31 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges, among other things, that Respondent A. Jack Burney, a representative of Res

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD JAN 29 i ; In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants, v. RICHARD BUR6I0; CLARA MAORI; SYLVESTER MAYO; EUGENE B. HARPER and INVEST FINANCIAL CORP., Respondents. AWARD MS 91-30 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege, among other things, that they have not received principal and interest owed them on a $10,000

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter FRED HURD, V. ADVEST, INC., of the Arbitration between Claimant, Respondent. NOV 80 1992 M.S.R.B. AWARD MS91-93 SCl-034 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Claimant alleges, among other things, that on 5/11/90 he purchased from Respondent $15,000 face amount of Kentucky State T

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD UUN19 1992 In the Matter of the Arbitration between GEORGE J. LINDENBAUM V. SMITH CULVER, INC. Claimant, Respondent. AWARD MS91-90 SCl-033 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Clainant alleges, in substance, that Respondent withheld material infomation with respect to a sinking fund redenption provision applicabl

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between JAMES E. SIMONS and MARGARET SIMONS, Claimants, V. HENRY FYFE; MUNICIPAL SECURITIES, INC. and TIM SHEFFIELD, Respondents. hi:: AUG 19 199? i4' AWARD MS 91-89 • o p n The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY claimants allege, among other things, that Respondents failed to ad

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. DOUGHERTY, DAWKIMS, STRAND & YOST A/K/A DOUGHERTY, DAWKINS, STRAND & BIGELOW, INC., Respondent. iFEB 24 W95 AWARD MS91-88 SCl-032 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB G-25, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Claimant alleges, among other things, that Respondent failed to disclose certain default informat