The allegations read: I handled [customer's] non-discretionary account at jp morgan for almost three years, without incident. [customer]was a sophisticated and agressive investor with a multimillion dollar net worth. Mr. [customer] instructed me to invest aggressively in technology stocks in order to reap significant gains in his account. [customer] and i spoke and met face to face frequently. [customer]authorized each trade in advance, received prompt confirmations of each trade, and never objected to any trade. [customer's] trading strategy was at times successful, but overall he incurred significant net losses, as a result of his speculative trades and a downturn in the market. At no time did [customer] ever express displeasure to me, or to my knowledge to jp morgan, regarding the handling of his account. In the spring of 2002, 6 months after i left jp morgan, and two and a half years after [customer] terminated his jp morgan account, i was advised by jp morgan that [customer's]lawyer had orally informed jp morgan that he was dissatisfied with the handling of his account. [customer]did not put any such complaint in writing. In the summer of 2002 i was informed by jp morgan that it had agreed to mediate the dispute. I was not a party to the mediation. I was later advised that jp morgan had agreed to pay [customer] $700,000 to settle the dispute. I was not advised before the agreement of the settlement. Moreover, i was informed by jp morgan that i had to pay $75,000 toward the settlement, which i reluctantly agreed to do. I know that jp morgan did not settle the dispute because of any wrongdoing by it or me, rather, i was told that the settlement occurred solely because of the risks and expense of litigation.
