Bankruptcy

Dismissed

$521,059.00

Civil

CLIENT SEEKS COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES EXPERIENCED AS A RESULT OF MR. CREEDON'S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS, EXCESSIVE AND UNSUITABLE TRADES. CLIENT ALSO ALLEGES THAT HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MARGIN. ALLEGED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE UNSPECIFIED, HOWEVER, BELIEVED TO BE AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $5,000.00

CLIENT ALLEGES UNSUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS.

$5,000.00

COMPLAINT WAS DENIED. MR. CREEDON WAS NOT NAMED IN THE CAPACITY AS THE BROKER OF RECORD ON THIS ACCOUNT.

ALLEGATIONS: ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABLITY CONCERNING WMS WITH DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $190,000.00.

$23,660.56

SETTLED WITH [OTHER CUSTOMER NAMED] RECEIVING $91-298.59, [THIRD PARTY] RECEIVING $78,101.00 AND [CUSTOMER] RECEIVING $23,660.56. [CUSTOMER], [OTHER CUSTOMER NAMED] & [THIRD PARTY] ARE AMONG THE 14,000 PRUDENTIAL BACHE INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND AT $10/PER SHARE IN 1988. WHEN I LEFT PRUDENTIAL BACHE SECURITIES IN SEPTEMBER 1990, I RECOMMENDATED TO THEM THAT THEY SEEK LEGAL COUNCIL REGARDING THE VMS INVESTMENT, RATHER THAN JOINING THE PRU-BACHE ENGAGING CLASS ACTION SUIT. I WAS DIRECTED BY MY SUPERVISOR AT PRUDENTIAL-BACHE TO INSTRUCT ALL CLIENT THAT THIS ONLY RECOURSE AND OPTION WAS TO JOIN THE CLASS. I AM DELIGHTED THAT THERE CLIENT RECEIVED ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK PLUS THEIR LEGAL FEES PLUS INTEREST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT.

ALLEGED LOSSES IN VMS AND ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS INVOLVED LOSSES IN COURT ACTION, AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS WITH TOTAL LOSSES IN EXCESS OF $50,000.00.

$44,560.00

SETTLED FOR $44,560.00 PRE-SECURITIES FAILS TO MENTION THAT I WAS NOT NAMED IN [CUSTOMER]'S LAWSUIT. RATHER [CUSTOMER]'S ALLEGATIONS WERE LEVED AGAINST PRU- SECRUITIES IN CONNECTIN WITH ITS OFFERING AND SPONSORING OF THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. [CUSTOMER] RECEIVED A COMPLETE SETTLEMENT (PRINCIPAL LOSS, INTEREST, AND LEGAL FEES). ADDITIONALLY, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A COMPLETE RELEASE FROM [CUSTOMER], PRU-SECURITIES VOLUNTEERED TO PAY HER FOR ANY LOSSES IN PURCHASE SHE MADE (JOINT INVESTMENTS WITH HER GRANDCHILDREN) IN ENERGY INCOME FUND L.P. [CUSTOMER] NEVER MADE ANY ALLEGATION ON CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO ENERGY INCOME FUND EXCEPT TO EXCLUDE HERSELF FROM THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES HAS KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENTED INFORMATION HEREIN IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2 (A) (3) OF THE BY LAWS AND THE INSTRUCTIONS TO FORM U-4 (SEE NOTICE TO MEMBERS 88-67)

CLAIMANT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. CLAIMANT SOUGHT TO RECOVER $25,000.00 IN ALLEGED DAMAGES.

$25,000.00

$14,055.50

CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $14,055.50 [CUSTOMER] MADE NO ALLEGATIONS OF MISREPRESENTATION OR UNSUITABILITY AGAINST MR. CREEDON IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PURCHASE OF THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. RATHER, ANY SUCH ALLEGATIONS BY [CUSTOMER] WERE LEVELED AGAINST PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES IN CONNECTION WITH ITS OFFERING AND SPONSORING O OF THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES HAD KNOWLINGLY MISREPRESENTED INACCURATE INFORMATION HEREIN IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2(A)(3) OF THE BYLAWS AND THE INSTRUCTIONS TO FORM U-4. (SEE NOTICE TO MEMBERS 88-67.)

ALLEGATIONS: ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION AND UNSUITABLITY CONCERNING WMS WITH DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $190,000.00.

$169,399.59

SETTLED WITH [OTHER CUSTOMER NAMED] RECEIVING $91-298.59, [THIRD PARTY] RECEIVING $78,101.00 AND [CUSTOMER] RECEIVING $23,660.56. [CUSTOMER], [OTHER CUSTOMER NAMED] & [THIRD PARTY] ARE AMONG THE 14,000 PRUDENTIAL BACHE INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND AT $10/PER SHARE IN 1988. WHEN I LEFT PRUDENTIAL BACHE SECURITIES IN SEPTEMBER 1990, I RECOMMENDATED TO THEM THAT THEY SEEK LEGAL COUNCIL REGARDING THE VMS INVESTMENT, RATHER THAN JOINING THE PRU-BACHE ENGAGING CLASS ACTION SUIT. I WAS DIRECTED BY MY SUPERVISOR AT PRUDENTIAL-BACHE TO INSTRUCT ALL CLIENT THAT THIS ONLY RECOURSE AND OPTION WAS TO JOIN THE CLASS. I AM DELIGHTED THAT THERE CLIENT RECEIVED ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK PLUS THEIR LEGAL FEES PLUS INTEREST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT.

CLAIMANT ALLEGES UNSUITABILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. CLAIMANT SOUGHT TO RECOVER $56,836.00.

$56,836.00

$56,836.00

CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $56,836.00. [CUSTOMER] WAS ONE OF OVER 14,000 PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES CLIENTS WHO PURCHASED VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND. THE PROSPECTUS AND SALES LITERATURE ACCOMPANYING THE PROSPECTUS INDICATED THAT THE VMS MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS FUND WAS SUITABLE FOR INVESTORS SEEKING SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL AND INCOME, OBJECTIVES CONSISTENT WITH [CUSTOMER]'S PERSONAL OBJECTIVES. I AM DELIGHTED TO SEE THAT [CUSTOMER] WAS SUCCESSFUL IN PERSUING HER CLAIM AGAINST PRUDENTIAL. I WAS NOT ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED UNSUITABILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION. THE ALLEGED DAMAGES WERE $30,000.00.

$30,000.00

$30,000.00

THIS MATTER WAS SETTLED FOR $30,000.00. I DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.

INVESTMENT IN NORTH PACIFIC GATEWAY LTD. PARTNERSHIP PURCHASED IN 6-86 WAS UNSUITABLE. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PERTINENT CUSTOMER INFORMATION WAS FALSIFIED ON SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.

$30,000.00

SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON SETTLED WITH THE [CUSTOMERS] ON 9-12-89 FOR $10,000 PLUS THE ASSUMPTION OF APPROXIMATELY $20,000 DUE ON A PROMISSORY NOTE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS COMPLAINT NOR WAS I AWARE OF THE SETTLEMENT AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ABLE TO OFFER ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY HAVE AFFECTED THE SETTLEMENT. THE [CUSTOMERS] WERE EXPERIENCED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INVESTORS. PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF NORTH PACIFIC GATEWAY IN JUNE 1986, THEY MADE 2 PRIOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENTS, $25,000 PURCHASE OF HUTTON PRC TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS ON 10-21-83. $10,000 PURCHASE OF JMB/CARLISLE REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ON 4-10-85. THEY WERE INFORMED OF THE HIGH RISK AND ILLIQUID NATURE OF THESE INVESTMENTS AND STATED THAT THEY WERE SO INFORMED ON THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS SIGNED FOR EACH PURCHASE. CUSTOMER INFORMATION ON THE SUBSCRIPTION DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED BY THE [CUSTOMERS] AND THEIR NOTARIZED SIGNATURES STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE.