CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT THE BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS AT ISSUE WERE BOTH LIQUIDATED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION RESULTING IN AN OVERALL LOSS OF $25000.00.

$25,614.00

$18,000.00

THE CLIENTS STATE THEY BEGAN INVESTING WITH EDWARD JONES IN 1999. THE CLAIM THAT OVER THE YEARS OF INVESTING WITH THEIR CURRENT IR LOSSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN EXCESS OF $93,000 AND HAVE RECENTLY LEARNED THAT THEY HAD INVESTED IN STOCKS AND FUNDS THAT WERE NOT EDWARD JONES RECOMMENDATIONS. THE CLIENTS STATE THAT THEY FEEL THEIR PORTFOLIO WAS NOT PROPERLY DIVERSIFIED OR HANDLED AND WANT THE MATTER INVESTIGATED. CLAIMED LOSSES IN EXCESS OF $5,000

$5,000.00

ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN REALIZED AND UNREALIZED LOSSES EXPERIENCED IN THE ACCOUNT OVER THE YEARS, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL WITHDRAWALS MADE WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS THE CLIENT STATED THEIR LOSSES. IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR INDICATED THAT, OVER TIME, LOSSES WERE TAKEN TO OFFSET INCOME OR CAPITAL GAINS IN OTHER AREAS FOR TAX PURPOSES. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE CLIENT THAT ANY DECLINE IN THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS IS ATTRIBUTED TO MARKET FLUCTUATION. IT DOES APPEAR AS THOUGH THE PORTFOLIO WAS PROPERLY DIVERSIFIED AND IN LINE WITH THE CLIENT'S STATED OBJECTIVES. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR ALSO STATED THAT ANNUAL REVIEWS AND AND CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD THROUGHOUT THE YEARS TO DISCUSS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PORTFOLIO, PROVIDING THE CLIENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS CONCERNS. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT HANDLED IMPROPERLY.

ATTORNEY CLAIMS CLIENT IS NOT A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR AND THAT CLIENT DID NOT KNOW THAT WORLDCOM WAS CONSIDERED A VERY AGGRESSIVE, HIGH-RISK STOCK WHEN IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE IR. ATTORNEY CLAIMS THE STOCK WAS NEVER SUITABLE FOR CLIENT. ATTORNEY CLAIMS THE CLIENT HAS SUFFERED MONETARY DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF CLIENT'S RELIANCE ON IR'S ADVICE GIVEN IN DISREGARD OF CLIENT'S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND BEST INTERESTS. ATTORNEY IS CLAIMING DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,830.94.*************ARBITRATION: ALLEGATIONS OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS, FAILURE TO DIVERSIFY AND FAILURE TO SUPERVISE IN ADVISING CLAIMANT TO INVEST THE $25,000 IN HIS IRA INTO WORLDCOM. (AMOUNT CLAIMED: $25,000 PLUS INTEREST AND THE COSTS OF ARBITRATION)

$25,830.94

$25,830.95

NET WORTH REFLECTED ON CLIENT'S ACCOUNT WAS DETERMINED THROUGH CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN CLIENT AND IR. CLIENT WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT VERIFICATION LETTER FROM HOME OFFICE AT TIME ACCOUNT WAS OPENED IN 2000, SETTING OUT INFORMATION REFLECTED ON THE ACCOUNT, INCLUDING NET WORTH AND ANNUAL INCOME. CLIENT WAS ASKED TO VERIFY INFORMATION AND PROVIDE ANY CHANGES WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR ANY CHANGES WERE REQUESTED BY CLIENT. IR STATED CLIENT OWNED OTHER INDIVIDUAL STOCKS AND CDS. AT TIME OF ROLLOVER, CD RATES WERE NOT ATTRACTIVE AND CLIENT INDICATED HE WANTED TO INVEST FOR GROWTH PURPOSES. AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE IN JANUARY 2000, WORLDCOM WAS CONSIDERED A GROWTH STOCK AND EDJ MAINTAINED A STRONG BUY OPINION. ACCORDING TO IR, HE PROVIDED CLIENT WITH RESEARCH INFORMATION ON COMPANY AND CLIENT AUTHORIZED PURCHASE. CLIENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED A TRADE CONFIRMATION AS WELL AS ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. THE STATEMENTS REFLECT HOLDINGS IN THE ACCOUNT, ASSET CATEGORY AND ESTIMATED VALUE. IR STATED HE REVIEWED THE STOCK WITH CLIENT WHILE THE STOCK WAS IN $20.00 RANGE AND CLIENT CONTINUED TO HOLD THE STOCK. IR STATED HE ALSO REVIEWED THE STOCK WITH CLIENT WHEN PRICE WAS IN LOW SINGLE DIGITS, INDICATING THAT THE CLIENT WAS AWARE OF THE SITUATION SURROUNDING WORLDCOM AND THAT THE CLIENT CONTINUED TO HOLD THE STOCK. THE STOCK PURCHASE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES FOR THE ACCOUNT, NOR DID IT REPRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF CLIENT'S NET WORTH. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND CLIENT'S DISSATISFACTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STOCK, THE UNUSUAL EVENTS INVOLVING WORLDCOM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEN. WHILE CLIENT COULD HAVE LIQUIDATED STOCK AT ANY TIME, IT DOES NOT APPEAR ORDER INSTRUCTIONS WERE PROVIDED TO IR. NO ADJUSTMENT WILL BE MADE. CLAIM DENIED.

CLIENTS CLAIM THEY WERE NOT REGULARLY CONTACTED BY THE IR, RICK DUNCAN AND BELIEVE THEIR ACCOUNT WAS NOT PROPERLY DIVERSIFIED (100% INVESTED IN STOCKS) FOR THEIR AGE AND INCOME NEEDS. AS A RESULT, CLIENTS CLAIM THEY HAVE INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES. CLAIM EXCEEDS $5,000

$5,000.00

THE IR STATED THE CLIENTS WANTED TO BE IN THE STOCK MARKET BECAUSE OF THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INCOME PORTFOLIO AT SCHWAB. THE IR STATED HE DISCLOSED THE RISKS TO PRINCIPAL OF TAKING ANNUAL DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THEIR IRAS IN THE EVENT OF A MARKET DOWNTURN. THE IR STATED HE RECOMMENDED A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO OF AMERICAN FUNDS AND JONES RECOMMENDED STOCKS. THE IR STATED HE HAD SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLIENTS OVER THE PHONE AND IN PERSON. IT APPEARS THE IR ACTED PROPERLY. CLAIM DENIED

CLIENT CLAIMS THEY PURCHASED APSIQ ON 5/29/97 BASED ON IR EMPLOYED BY EDWARD JONES RECOMMENDATION. THEY CLAIM THEY ALSO HELD THE STOCK BASED ON HIS RECOMMENDATION AND CURRENTLY ASPIZ HAS NO MARKET VALUE AS THE COMPANY HAS GONE BANKRUPT. THEY ALSO PURCHASED MAWS IN 1994 AND HELD IT FOR A LONG PERIOD BASED ON HIS RECOMMENDATION. IT CURRENTLY HAS NO MARKET VALUE. CLIENTS CLAIM THEY HAVE LOST $42,465.99 AND ASK WHAT EDJ'S FINDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS SINCE THEY WERE SOLICITED TRADES.

$42,465.99

THE IR STATES THE CLIENT OPENED THE ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTING IN MORE AGGRESSIVE STOCKS AND THE ACCOUNT WAS CODED ACCORDINGLY. THE IR STATES THE CLIENT CONTACTED THE BRANCH OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK TO INQUIRE ABOUT THEIR STOCKS. THE IR ALWAYS GAVE HIM UPDATES ON THE STOCK AND ALWAYS PROVIDED THE SOURCE OF HIS INFORMATION. WE FEEL THE CLIENTS WERE PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE STOCK AND ITS PERFORMANCE AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY THE CLIENTS DECISION TO MAINTAIN THE TWO STOCKS IN QUESTION. CLAIM DENIED

CUSTOMERS COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR STOCK PORTFOLIO. ALSO ALLEGE TAHT THE IR ENTERED STOCK PURCHASE ORDERS IN THEIR ACCOUNTS WITHOUT THEIR AUTHORIZATION. CLAIMS IR HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE 1000 SHARES OF STOCK BUT LATER ENTERED ADDITIONAL ORDERS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

IR CLAIMS CUSTOMERS APPROVED ALL ORDERS ENTERED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. THE TRADES THE CUSTOMER CLIAMS WERE UNAUTHORIZED WERE ENTERED THREE YEARS AGO. CUSTOMERS HAD RECEIVED CONFIRMATIONS AT THE TIME AND RECEIVED STATEMENTS SHOWING THE POSITIONS BUT DID NOT COMPLAINT UNTIL THREE YEARS LATER. CUSTOMERS' PORTFOLIO HAD MIXED RESULTS. CLAIM DENIED. Not Provided

ALLEGATIONS OF MISREPRESENTATION BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNSUITABILITY AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $355,482 OF STOCKS FROM AUGUST 1988 THROUGH DECEMBER 1989. (AMOUNT CLAIMED: BETWEEN $80,000 AND $93,000).

$93,000.00

$44,000.00

SETTLED FOR $44,000. CUSTOMER WAS AN AGGRESSIVE INVESTOR WHO WANTED TO INVEST IN TAKEOVER STOCKS , TURNAROUND STOCKS, AND STOCKS WITH INSIDER BUYING. HE OPENED THE ACCOUNT AT OUR OFFICE BECAUSE I GAVE HIM A DISCOUNT ON THE COMMISSIONS. THIS WAS DUE TO OUR SOCIAL FRIENDSHIP. IT IS NOT OUR CUSTOM TO OFFER DISCOUNTS UNLESS THE CUSTOMER DOES THE RESEARCH ON HIS OWN. CUSTOMER TRADED FREQUENTLY HOLDING A PURCHASE ONLY A FEW MONTHS. HIS ACCOUNT FORM WAS CODED TO REFLECT HIS AGGRESSIVE AND SPECULATIVE OBJECTIVE AT THE TIME OF OPENING THE ACCOUNT. THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.