CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS SURROUNDING CLIENT'S PURCHASES OF CHS ELECTRONICS. CLIENT CLAIMED MR. CHO INFORMED CLIENT THAT MR. CHO PERSONALLY OWNED CHS ELECTRONICS, WHEN IN FACT HE DID NOT.

$21,291.91

$13,125.79

I STERNLY STAND BY MY POSITION THAT I DEALT WITH THE CLIENT FAIRLY AND HONESTLY. HE WAS, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, A VERY AGGRESSIVE INVESTOR. I WARNED HIM VERBALLY AND IN WRITING ABOUT THE AGGRESSIVE NATURE OF HIS TRADING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND ENCODED HIS ACCOUNT AS SPECULATIVE. HE WOULD ADMIT THAT I SAVED HIM FROM TRADING LOSSES ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS. ALSO, I DO BELIEVE HE AND ANOTHER COMPLAINANT HAVE CONVICTION IN THEIR ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE CORRESPONDENCE T0 EACH OTHER AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CONSPIRE. BOTH WOULD ASK INCESSANTLY ABOUT WHAT I DID IN MY OWN PORTFOLIO AND IF I HAD A POSITION IN WHAT I RECOMMENDED. I NEVER RECALL MISLEADING THEM. I TRULY BELIEVE THEY WERE COACHED BY THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL ON WHERE I HAD LEGAL VULNERABILITY AND WERE ENCOURAGED TO EXPLOIT IT. FURTHERMORE, GIVEN MY LEVEL OF PRODUCTION OF $465,000 IN YEAR 2000, I HAD LITTLE FINANCIAL MOTIVATION TO COMMIT SUCH AN OFFENCE FOR A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS IN COMMISSION. CONVERSELY, IN THE FACE OF HEAVY LOSSES, THEY HAD PLENTY OF MOTIVATION TO BE AGGRESSIVE IN THEIR ALLEGATIONS, TRUE OR NOT. FINALLY, ON THE ADVICE OFF MY COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT, I AGREED TO SETTLE THIS MATTER.

CLIENT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS SURROUNDING CLIENT'S PURCHASES OF CHS ELECTRONICS. CLIENT CLAIMED MR. CHO INFORMED CLIENT THAT MR. CHO PERSONALLY OWNED CHS ELECTRONICS, WHEN IN FACT HE DID NOT.

$25,000.00

$17,500.00

I STERNLY STAND BY MY POSTION THAT I DEALT WITH THE CLIENT FAIRLY AND HONESTLY. HE WAS, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, A VERY AGGRESSIVE INVESTOR. I WARNED HIM VERBALLY AND IN WRITING ABOUT THE AGGRESSIVE NATURE OF HIS TRADING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND ENCODED HIS ACCOUNT AS SPECULATIVE. HE WOULD ADMIT THAT I SAVED HIM FROM TRADING LOSSES ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS. ALSO, I DO BELIEVE HE AND ANOTHER COMPLAINANT HAVE CONVICTION IN THEIR ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE CORRESPONDENCE TO EACH OTHER AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CONSPIRE. BOTH WOULD ASK INCESSANTLY ABOUT WHAT I DID IN MY OWN PORTFOLIO AND IF I HAD A POSITION IN WHAT I RECOMMENDED. I NEVER RECALL MISLEADING THEM. I TRULY BELIEVE THEY WERE COACHED BY THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL ON WHERE I HAD LEGAL VULNERABILITY AND WERE ENCOURAGED TO EXPLOIT IT. FURTHERMORE, GIVEN MY LEVEL PRODUCTION OF $465,000 IN YEAR 2000, I HAD LITTLE FINANCIAL MOTIVATION TO COMMIT SUCH AN OFFENCE FOR A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS IN COMMISSION. CONVERSELY, IN THE FACE OF HEAVY LOSSES, THEY HAD PLENTY OF MOTIVATION TO BE AGGRESSIVE IN THEIR ALLEGATIONS, TRUE OR NOT. FINALLY, ON THE ADVICE OF MY COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT, I AGREED TO SETTLE THIS MATTER.