First Georgetown Securities, Inc.

Allegations: ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WISHED TO PURSUE SHORT TERM TRADING STRATEGIES, AND DID SO FOR SEVERAL YEARS, HE SUED FIRM WHEN HIS ACCOUNT WAS AT A LOW POINT. HE ALLEGED $325,000 IN DAMAGES. Status: Final Summary: PLAINTIFF WAS A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR WHO WAS REFERRED TO THE FIRM BY HIS BROTHER TO ENGAGE IN SHORT TERM TRADING. HE WAS AWARE OF HIS ACCOUNT GOING UP AND DOWN FOR OVER 2 YEARS. WHEN IT WAS AT A LOW POINT HE SOUGHT DAMAGES. FIRM BELIEVED THEN AND STILL BELIEVES THE CHARGES WERE TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT, BUT SETTLED TO AVOID FURTHER LEGAL COSTS.

Allegations: STATE CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT HAD CONDUCTED UNSOLICITED TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE WITHOUT HAVING FIRST REGISTERED AS A BROKER-DEALER IN THE STATE. Status: Final Sanction Detail: FIRM PAID TOTAL FINE 8/31/94. Summary: ON MARCH 8, 1994 RESPONDENT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION IN THE STATE. IN THAT PROCESS, RESPONDENT LEARNED THAT IT HAD VIOLATED SECTION 201 OF THE MA. UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT AS IT WAS DOING INFREQUENT UNSOLICITED TRANSACTIONS WITH A HANDFUL OF CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE WHILE NOT REGISTERED THERE. THERE HAD BEEN NO CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. THE FIRM AGREED TO PAY THE FINE CONCURRENT TO ITS REGISTRATION IN THE STATE.

Allegations: STATE CHARGED THAT FIRM CONDUCTED UNSOLICITED TRANSACTIONS WITH CUSTOMERS WITHOUT FIRST BEING REGISTERED IN MA. Status: Final Sanction Detail: FINE OF $7,470 WAS PAID 8/31/94. Summary: ON 3/8/94 FIRM FILED FOR REGISTRATION IN MA. DURING THIS PROCESS IT LEARNED IT HAD VIOLATED SEC 201 BY HAVING A HANDFUL OF CUSTOMERS RESIDING IN MA. THERE WERE NO CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. FIRM AGREED TO PAY FINE CONCURRENT WITH REGISTRATION IN THE STATE.