ILLINOIS

RESPONDENT DUMA RECOMMENDED THE PURCHASE OF A SECURITY TO AN ILLINOIS RESIDENT AND PURPORTED TO SELL IT TO HER WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED AS A BROKER, AN INVESTMENT ADVISER OR INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVE.

DEFAULT ORDER OF PROHIBITION

Prohibition

ILLINOIS

FOR MORE QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT JAY BIONDO AT 312-793-3378

Consent

NASD

NASD CONDUCT RULES 2110, 2210, 3030, AND 3050(C), AND NASD PROCEDURAL RULE 8210 - RESPONDENT DUMA USED SALES LITERATURE IN THE FORM OF A PERSONAL BROCHURE. IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, RESPONDENT DUMA FAILED TO OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF BOTH DOCUMENTS FROM A PRINCIPAL AND TO FILE THE ADVERTISING WITH NASD'S ADVERTISING/INVESTMENT COMPANIES REGULATION DEPARTMENT. THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT DUMA FAILED TO GIVE PROMPT WRITTEN NOTICE OF HIS ENGAGEMENT IN OUTSIDE BUSINESS ACTIVITES FOR COMPENSATION TO HIS MEMBER FIRM. THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT DUMA FAILED TO NOTIFY HIS EMPLOYING MEMBER FIRM, IN WRITING, THAT HE OPENED THE SECURITIES ACCOUNT AT ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM, TO ADVISE ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH HIS EMPLOYING MEMBER FIRM, AND TO GIVE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF HIS INTENTION TO EXECUTE THE ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES WITH ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM. IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT DUMA FAILED TO NOTIFY HIS ANOTHER EMPLOYING MEMBER FIRM THAT HE MAINTAINS A SECURITIES ACCOUNT AT ANOTHER MEMBER FIRM. FURTHERMORE, RESPONDANT DUMA MISREPRESENTED ON THE ACCOUNT APPLICATION THAT HE WAS "MARKETING DIRECTOR" FOR A COMPANY WHEN ASKED TO IDENTIFY HIS OCCUPATION AND CURRENT EMPLOYER/NATURE OF BUSINESS AND FURTHER MISREPRESENTED ON THE APPLICATION THAT HIS CURRENT EMPLOYER WAS NOT A BROKER-DEALER WHEN ASKED TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION SEEKING SUCH INFORMATION. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, RESPONDENT DUMA FAILED TO PROVIDE TRUTHFUL AND NON-MISLEADING INFORMATION TO NASD DURING AN ON-THE-RECORD INTERVIEW.

Decision

Bar

ON NOVEMBER 23, 2005, RESPONDENT FILED AN APPLICATION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 19(D)(2) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, FOR THE REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST HIM BY NASD. ON NOVEMBER 30, 2005, THE SEC GRANTED THE APPLICATION. ON DECEMBER 14, 2005, THE SEC ISSUED A BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN THIS MATTER. ON JANUARY 26, 2006, HOWEVER, RESPONDENT REQUESTED THAT HIS APPLICATION BE WITHDRAWN. IT IS ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BE, AND HERBY IS, WITHDRAWN, AND THAT THIS REVIEW PROCEEDING, BE AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

I BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE PRENENTED AT MY HEARING IS INSUFFICIENT TO MERIT A BAR ON THE CHARGES FILED AND AM SEEKING A LESSER PENALTY THAN BEING BARRED FOR LIFE.