KYLE WAS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN THE CASE OF [CUSTOMER] V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. AND [THIRD PARTY]. [CUSTOMER] WAS A CUSTOMER OF KYLE'S AND ALLEGED THAT SHE GAVE HIM INSTRUCTIONS TO SELL SHARES OF THE TEMPLETON GROWTH FUND AND THE PIONEER II FUND AND THAT KYLE WAS DERELICT IN HIS DUTIES AS A BROKER BECAUSE HE FAILED TO EXECUTE THE ORDER AS REQUESTED. HER SUIT ALLEGED THAT SHE DID NOT DISCOVER THIS NEGLECT FOR APPROX. 3-1/2 MONTHS AND THAT IN THE ENSUING PERIOD OF TIME HER HOLDINGS DECLINED IN VALUE IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $600. HER SUIT WAS FILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING THIS AMOUNT. DEAN WITTER CONTENDED THAT: 1) SINCE THE MUTUAL FUND SHARES WERE HELD BY EACH FUND'S RESPECTIVE TRANSFER AGENT, IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SHARES TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HER DEAN WITTER ACCOUNT; 2) SINCE IT WAS DEAN WITTER'S POLICY NOT TO EXECUTE MUTUAL FUND SELL ORDERS IN ACCOUNTS WHERE THE CERTIFICATES HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEPOSITED, THERE WAS NO WAY IN WHICH KYLE COULD HAVE HONORED [CUSTOMER'S] REQUEST; 3) SINCE [CUSTOMER] ACKNOWLEDGED THAT KYLE HAD EXPLAINED THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR LIQUIDATION OF THE MUTUAL FUND, IT THEN BECAME HER RESPONSIBILITY TO INITITATE THE LIQUIDATION; AND 4) [CUSTOMER'S] 3-1/2 MONTH DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN HER MADE HER ALLEGATIONS APPEAR, AT BEST, QUESTIONABLE.