THE CUSTOMER ALLEGES UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATION. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECIFIED.

I DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS AND DO NOT REMEMBER EVER SPEAKING TO THE CLIENT. THIS ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CLIENT'S GRANDFATHER, WHO WISHED TO SET UP EDUCATION ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF HIS GRANDCHILDREN. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE CLIENT'S MOTHER WAS MADE CUSTODIAN UNTIL THE CLIENT REACHED AGE OF MAJORITY. THE ACCOUNT WAS ESTABLISHED IN A MERRILL LYNCH NEW INSURANCE PROGRAM CALLED THE PRIME PLUS. WORKING WITH THE INSURANCE COORDIATER, WHO PRESENTED AND EXPLAINED ALL THE FEATURES AVAILABLE, THE PLUS PLAN WAS PRESENTED TO BOTH THE GRANDFATHER AND THE CUSTODIAN WHO FELT THAT THIS INVESTMENT WAS RIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN. THE PRIME PLAN WAS SET UP SOMETIME IN 1987 OR 1988. IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT 529 PLANS WORK TODAY, ALLOWING WITHDRAWALS FOR TUITION, BOOKS, ROOM AND BOARD, ETC, THE PRIME PLUS PLAN ALLOWED ALLOWED MONIES TO BE WITHDRAWN THROUGH A LOAN ACCESS WINDOW WHICH ADDRESSED CERTAIN TAX RESTRICTIONS. THE CLIENT, WHILE AS A BENEFICIARY AND ONCE SHE REACHED MAJORITY, BORROWED MONEY OUT OF THE ACCOUNT FOR EDUCATION AND OTHER PURPOSES. ONCE ALL THE MONEY HAD BEEN BORROWED, THE ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT A LETTER WAS SENT TO THE CLIENT ADVISING HER THAT UNLESS SHE REPAID BACK THE MONIES BORROWED, THE ACCOUNT WOULD BE CLOSED PER THE LOAN ACCESS AGREEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PRIME PLUS PLAN. AT NO TIME DID I EVER ADVISE THE BENEFICIARY/CLIENT THAT SHE WOULD NOT NEED TO REPAY THE LOANS TO KEEP THE ACCOUNT OPEN. THAT GOES AGAINST ALL COMMON SENSE REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF A "LOAN" AND AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY FOR MANY YEARS WOULD NEVER MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT. THE LOAN FEATURE WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE INSURANCE COORDINATOR AT THE TIME THE PRIME PLUS PLAN WAS SETUP ALONG WITH ALL OTHER FEATURES OF THIS PLAN. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE MONEY.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.

$80,300.00

$90,000.00

THIS MATTER WAS SETTLED TO AVOID THE TIME, EXPENSE AND UNCERTAINTY INHERENT IN LITAGATION.

CUSTOMER MADE ORAL COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT FINANCIAL ADVISOR MISREPRESENTED CERTAIN FEATURES OF AN INVESTMENT.

$21,845.00

IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF LITIGATION, MERRILL LYNCH MADE A BUSINESS DECISION TO SETTLE THE MATTER.

CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT ON DECEMBER 11, 2001, MR. SMERGLIA SOLD HIM AN UNSUITABLE NYSE LISTED PREFERRED STOCK. DAMAGES UNSPECIFIED.

CLIENT ALLEGES F.C MISREPRESENTED THE RISK AND UNDERLYING ASSETS OF A CORPORATE HIGH YIELD FUND III.

$6,000.00