MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD rCr-n\ ,,K I . DcO 9 199, In the Matter of the Arbitration between BUFORD T. CASEBOLT, M.D., V. Claimant, PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES INC. and GREG FULTON, Respondents. AWARD MS 91-3 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY On June 6, 1988, Clainant purchased fron Respondent Greg Fulton ("Respondent Fulton"), of the D

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between PAUL BAHOR; EMERY BAHOR and MELKA BAHOR, Claimants, V. A.F. GREEN & CO., INC.; ALLEN GREEN; ROBERT BRAND and ANNETTE RICHMOND, Respondents. SEP .?? 1991 r- AWARD MS 91-2 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY claimants allege, among other things, that in August, 1988, Clainant Paul Baho

SEP SO 1991 MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitrat.ion between ART MOSHER A/K/A ARTHUR J. MOSHER, V. Claimant, DAIN BOSWORTH, INC., Respondent. '••C AWARD MS 91-1 SCl-001 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Clainant seeks to recover $5275 fron Respondent for alleged fraudulent sales practices in connection w

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between JOHN L. MARTIN, JR. and VIRGINIA M. MARTIN, Clainants, V. A.F. GREEN & CO., INC., Respondent. AUe 81 IJ}, k "'-••, *^» ««a ^« AWARD MS90-72 SCO-041 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED clainants allege that on March 25, 1987 they invested $5,049.10

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. a/k/a SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, AN AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, and DAVID BRADLEY, Respondents. 5EP 30 1991 AWARD MS 90-71 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that Respondent Shearson Lehnan Brothers Inc. a/k/a Shearson Lehnan Hutton,

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between HARVEY E. LEHN and JOAN M. LEHN Claimants, v. GENE LANTON, Respondent. ^ : ^ .OCr 9 1992 pz q '- ^ AWARD MS91-94 SCl-035 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimants allege, among other things, that they were overcharged by the Respondent, a representative of

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. VAN KAMPEN MERRITT INC. and JAMES M. KOHUIEYER, Respondents. iJUN 12 1991 r • ^ AWARD MS 90-68 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant, a national bank located in the State of Illinois, contends that Respondents violated various SEC and Exchange rules and Federal law

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. BOETTCHER & COMPANY, INC., NOW BOETTCHER & COMPANY, A DIVISION OF KEMPER SECURITIES GROUP, INC. and JOHN GIVENS, Respondents. SEP ^3 1991 M C ^ =^ itka Wi S'..^ tjf AWARD MS 90-67 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby state as follows: CASE SUMMARY Claimant alleges that at the end of Apri

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimant, V. MARION BASS SECURITIES CORP. and CHARLES L. KING a/k/a CASEY KING, Respondents. ''-.. :b JUL 1 f99| l " : ^- "^ - > AWARD MS90-66 SCO-039 The Undersigned, pursuant to section 31 of MSRB rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY On or about July 27, 1986 Claimant purchased for $81,084.00 through Respo

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD In the Matter of the Arbitration between PHIL LITSAS, JR., V. ROY SMITH and PAUL ROSENBLOOM, Claimant, Respondents. AWARD MS90-65 SCO-038 The Undersigned, pursuant to Section 31 of MSRB Rule G-35, hereby states as follows: CASE SUMMARY/RELIEF REQUESTED Claimant alleges that at the end of October or the beginning of November, 1989, one or both of the Respondents contacted Claimant with an