TIME FRAME: JANUARY 2, 2009 TO APRIL 2009 CLIENT ALLEGES BY PLACING $6.5 MIL IN PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENT THAT HIS FINANCIAL ADVISOR DID NOT CONSERVATIVELY MANAGER HIS ASSETS.

$5,000.00

CLAIMANT ALLEGES MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMMISSIONS, INTER ALIA,IN INVESTMENT FUND MARKETING MATERIALS, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATION AND NEGLIGENCE.

$500,000.00

$375,000.00

ON 2/1/05 CLAIMANT FILED AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO ADD SEVERAL CLAIMANTS TO ARBITRATION.

CLIENT STATES THAT "THERE WAS EXCESSIVE TRADING " AND "SOME OF MY FUNDS WERE SOLD (WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME)." TIME PERIOD: 1996 - 1998.

$27,000.00

$2,300.00

CLIENT REJECTED SETTLEMENT OFFER.

CLIENT ALLEGES "THE MONEY I HAD PUT IN HERE HAD BEEN MY NESTEGG TO BE MANAGED CONSERVATIVELY" THE CLIENT FURTHER ALLEGES "AT NO TIME WAS THE EXTENT OF MY EXPOSURE MADE AWARE TO ME." ALLEGED DAMAGES IN THE PAINE WEBBER ACOUNT WAS $630,000 AND THE PRODUCTS INCLUDED HIGH RISK FUND LTD, KIPPLING FUND LTD, AND OTHER FUNDS.

PAINE WEBBER CLOSED ITS FILE AFTER THE CUSTOMER RESCINDED THE COMPLAINT. NOT PROVIDED

ACCORDING TO FORMER FIRM-PRUDENTIAL, CUSTOMER ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION, UNSUITABILITY AND FAILURE TO ENTER A SELL ORDER. ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $50,000.

$50,000.00

$12,500.00

THE CASE WAS SETTLED FOR $12,500 AS A BUSINESS DECISION TO AVOID THE COSTS OF LITIGATION. ONLY HALF OF THIS AMOUNT ($6250) RELATES TO THE TIME PERIOD DURING WHICH MR. RUDENBERG WAS THE BROKER FOR THE ACCOUNT. MR. RUDENBERG WAS NOT ASKED NOR DID HE CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT. NOT PROVIDED

UNSUITABILITY, EXCESSIVE TRADING, SEEKING $900,000

$435,000.00

SETTLED WITH PRUDENTIAL FOR $115,255.50 SETTLED WITH SMITH BARNEY FOR $435,000 WHICH INCLUDED THE RETURN OF $115,000 P-24 ENERGY PARTNERSHIP TO PRUDENTIAL AND THE RETURN OF A $200,000 MARRIOTT PARTNERSHIP TO SMITH BARNEY. BROKER RUDENBERG DID NOT CONTRIBUTE FUNDS IN EITHER SETTLEMENT (SMITH BARNEY CHANGED THEIR MIND RE: $25,000 CONTRIBUTION) NO WRONGDOING WAS EVER COMMITTED. ALL INVESTMENTS WERE SUITABLE, ALL DONE WITH APPROVAL AND INVOLVEMENT OF CLIENT. COPIES OF ALL STATEMENTS SENT TO CPA. BRANCH MANAGERS REVIEWED ALL TRADES AND ALSO DISCUSSED ACCOUNT WITH CLIENT MANY TIMES, AND APPROVED ALL TRADES DETAILED IN THE CLIENT SUIT.

FAILURE TO CALL AND INFORM CLIENT THE MARKET WAS DROPPING.

$50,000.00

CLIENT WAS AWARDED $50,000.00; INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE (IE) WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PAYMENT OF THE AWARD TO THE CLIENT. CLIENT WAS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTOR WHO SELF DIRECTED A SOPHISTICATED OPTION STRATEGY OF SELLING HIGHLY VALUED PUT OPTIONS DURING GENERALLY RISING PERIODS IN THE STOCK MARKET, CLIENT ALLEGED THAT HE SUFFERED TRADING LOSSES ON A DAY WHEN THE MARKET FELL SIGNIFICATELY BECAUSE HIS IE FAILED TO CALL AND ADVISE HIM THAT THE MARKET WAS FALLING, THE IE TESTIFIED THAT HE CALLED CLIENT SEVERAL TIMES DURING THAT DAY TO ALERT HIM TO THE FALLING MARKET BUT GOT NO ANSWER. CLIENT HAD NO BEEPER OR CELL PHONE OR OTHER WAY OF BEING CONTACTED OTHER THAN AT HIS HOME PHONE NUMBER. CLIENT LATER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BEEN UP LATE THE NIGHT BEFORE TENDING TO A SICK CAT AND HAD FALLEN ASLEEP EARLY IN THE MORNING AFTER HE SENT HIS DAUGHTER OFF TO SCHOOL. ONLY AFTER HIS DAUGHTER RETURNED AT 3:30PM DID CLIENT AWAKE AND FIND THAT THE MARKET HAD MOVED LOWER WHILE HE WAS SLEEPING. NO VIOLATIONS OR WRONGDOINGS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, HOWEVER, CLIENT WAS AWARDED APPROX. 15% OF HIS ALLEGED DAMAGES.