ResourcesPractice AreasLawyersConsulting GroupGlobal Reach

Representative Cases

Successfully represented a securities trader in more than a dozen FINRA arbitrations brought by Venezuelan investors (all represented by the same attorney) who sought millions of dollars in damages.  The Venezuelan investors included claims of fraud, unsuitability and churning against our client and two international brokerage firms with whom he had been employed at different points in his career.  We worked closely with counsel for the two brokerage firms in presenting a unified front and splitting the work in preparation for final hearings in the cases.  A final hearing was held in the most significant case – significant because it featured the largest monetary claim of the group and was being used by the Claimants’ attorney to (a) obtain additional moneys from his other clients to fund the remaining litigation, and (b) solicit additional Venezuelan investors with whom our client had dealt in the past for additional claims.  In short, the matter that proceeded to final hearing was a test case for the Venezuelan group – its ability to proceed with the remaining cases depended largely on its success in this initial case.  The FINRA panel heard four days of testimony, more than half of it from our client.  As a result of the work we had done in preparing our client for the final hearing, and the issues which we and attorneys for the brokerage firms raised prior to and during the final hearing, the attorney for the Venezuelan investors was dissuaded from aggressively proceeding with any of the remaining cases.  Soon after the hearing in the initial case was adjourned (the hearing was never concluded), the matter was settled on terms very favorable to our client and the brokerage firms.  The remaining matters were soon also settled on similar terms, and no further actions were filed by any other Venezuelan investors.

Represented a securities trader in FINRA arbitration and contemporaneous Federal District Court litigation for injunctive relief filed by his former employee, an international brokerage company (“Company”).  We were retained after the Company had obtained an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against our client, and sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, based on allegations that our client had improperly contacted and appropriated several of the Company’s clients after he left the Company.  Upon being retained, we immediately reviewed all of the documentation and agreements establishing the relationship between our client and the Company, and learned that the Company had omitted key information from the papers it filed with the Court in obtaining the ex parte TRO.  We therefore moved to dissolve the TRO, and asked the Court for leave to seek relief against the bond posted by the Company in obtaining the TRO.  We also filed a Response in the FINRA arbitration highlighting the Company’s misdeeds.  Soon after we filed the above documents, the case settled on terms very favorable to our client, including the stipulated dissolution of the TRO and the voluntary dismissal of both the Federal District Court action and FINRA arbitration.

Represented registered online broker-dealer and clearing house in two separate FINRA arbitrations in the State of New Jersey involving allegations of fraud and churning allegedly caused by the same broker.  The damages sought exceeded over $1,000,000.00.

Represented registered online broker-dealer and principal in administrative prosecution filed by the State of New Jersey over alleged fraudulent securities trading conducted by independent broker. Matter was settled. Consulted with principal and registered online broker-dealer regarding settlement of a dozen lawsuits involving conduct, which formed the basis for the administrative prosecution.  

Represented investors in securities class action involving the sale of Real Estate Investment Trust Funds against Edge Act entity. The REITS were not properly registered with the state of Florida. The lawsuit sought rescission for class members under Fla.Stat.517.211, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The case was settled for a confidential sum.