Lawrence Steckman, Partner
Lawrence Steckman is a partner in the law firm Hecht Partners LLP and has been litigating securities and business cases since 1988. In July, 2006, Super Lawyers Magazine, in its inaugural New York edition, identified Mr. Steckman as one of New York's first "Super Lawyers" in both securities and business litigation. He received that honor again in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The largest independent attorney rating service, AVVO, awarded him its highest achievement level, “superb,” based on a 10/10 score, placing Mr. Steckman in the top fraction of the top 1% of rated attorneys. Mr. Steckman has handled billions of dollars in client matters, including individual matters exceeding one billion dollars, and been counsel in leading securities, derivatives and RICO litigations. He has authored or been the principal and/or first author of more than fifty published works on the law.
Mr. Steckman’s practice areas include securities and derivatives private and class suits, including Rule 10b-5 litigation, federal and state complex commercial litigation, prosecuting and defending civil RICO private and class suits, merger and acquisition, corporate and contract litigation, bond, arbitrage and real estate fraud and regulatory litigation, international, securities and broker customer arbitration, securities regulatory matters and professional liability defense litigation on behalf of accountants and attorneys.
Mr. Steckman has represented mutual, hedge and private equity funds, insurance companies, accounting firms and auditors, real estate companies, technology companies, a rating company, domestic and foreign companies, a mining company, banks, investment banks and bankers, securities brokers, law firms, lawyers, and foreign and domestic entrepreneurs and investors. He has represented political figures ranging from a former member of the Egyptian Parliament and Germany’s former Industrial Ambassador to the Middle East and Africa, to Panama’s former Governor General and a high-profile Ukrainian Oligarch.
Mr. Steckman has published on federal procedure, evidence, constitutional law, attorney client privilege, securities fraud pleading, loss causation and causal modeling, the reliance element in securities fraud litigation, insider trading, risk arbitrage, fiduciary duty, class certification and preparation of expert reports, remedies and damage computation, mitigation and litigating damage offset defenses in securities and commercial cases, class suit attorney fees, corporate governance, and statute of limitation defenses. He has published on modern portfolio theory and index adjusted damages as well as eligibility rule defenses, Mr. Steckman has published on civil RICO litigation, including on RICO predicate acts, RICO enterprise theory, RICO standing and the RICO direct injury requirement, RICO claims accrual and statute of limitations, RICO loss causation, RICO extraterritoriality analysis and the PSLRA RICO Amendment.
Mr. Steckman’s published work on public policy matters has been cited in areas ranging from international terrorism to government contract and constitutional law. He has published on philosophy of science and the philosophy of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and the American pragmatists. In 2017, he co-authored a volume on existential psychology, published by Nova Science Publishers. He pursued doctoral studies in philosophy at Columbia University, where he was awarded a master’s degree, after receiving his undergraduate degree summa cum laude in music (classic guitar). He began his legal career in Shea & Gould’s New York office.
Notable Representations
1. Robert W. Seiden, Esq., Receiver for China Valves Technology, Inc. v. Frazer Frost, LLP, Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP and Frost, PLLC, 796 F. App’x 381, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4005 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020), affirming trial court, 2018 WL 6137618 (C.D.CA. July 31, 2018) (Carney, J.) (defense counsel to three accounting firms in action seeking $65 million on fraud, fiduciary and contract breach, and negligence and gross negligence theories brought by Receiver of a technology company. The Ninth Circuit rejected the Receiver’s effort to exploit the “adverse domination theory” to obtain equitable tolling of claims the defense argued were time-barred, dismissing, with prejudice, the Receiver’s first-time-on complaint, holding repleading would be futile. Both courts rejected the Receiver’s effort to exploit an in pari delicto argument to assert plaintiffs lacked incentive to sue because they would have concluded they could not have successfully pursued derivative claims). En banc review was unanimously denied.
2. CMG Holdings Group v. Wagner, 2016 WL 4688865 (September 7, 2016) (Oetken, J.) (plaintiff counsel to advertising company suing several companies and former officers and employees for more than $60 million RICO damages arising from the looting of company over a five-year period, destroying hard copy and computer files and establishing, by theft and otherwise, a competing entity. The court refused to dismiss plaintiff’s RICO claims, noting the “comprehensive” scheme and “extensive” concealment efforts pleaded. He sustained CMG’s claim for ten times compensatory losses for damages from non-RICO predicate acts: “Based on CMG’s allegations, this case may present a rare occasion where punitive damages may be potentially justified.”).
3. Hanson v. Frazer, LLP, 2015 WL 4561707 (July 17, 2015) (Rakoff, J.) (defense counsel to accounting firm in Rule 10b-5 class suit seeking more than $45 million. This Order set forth the court’s reasons for previously dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ amended complaint which had alleged defendant accountant recklessly failed to include a subsequent events disclosure regarding alleged improper, related-party loans rendering auditor GAAP and PCAOB compliance opinion fraudulent under Rule 10b-5, holding plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter).
4. Arabi v. Javaherian, 2014 WL 3892098 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2014) (Korman, J.) (plaintiff’s special RICO counsel in action arising from racketeering scheme to obtain a multi-year series of fraudulent loans. This order denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a RICO claim and a claim of successor liability and rejected, as well, lack of jurisdiction and improper venue defenses).
5. In re China Valves Tech. Sec. Litig., 979 F.Supp.2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Kaplan, J.) (defense counsel to accounting firm in Rule 10b-5/Section 11 class suit seeking in excess of $20 million. This decision rejected plaintiffs’ amended claim alleging that differences between SAIC Chinese Regulatory filings and SEC US GAAP filings of Chinese reverse merger company were sufficient to show PSLRA scienter against auditor which opined that company financial statements were in accord with GAAP and rejected plaintiffs’ claims based on non-disclosure of alleged material, related party transactions. This decision dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice).
6. Hanson v. Frazer Frost, LLP, 2013 WL 5372749 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2013) (Rakoff, J.) (defense counsel to accounting firm in Rule 10b-5 class suit seeking in excess of $45 million. This decision held allegations that auditor recklessly failed to include a subsequent events disclosure regarding alleged improper, related-party loans rendered its audit opinion regarding GAAP and PCAOB compliance fraudulent under Rule 10b-5, failed to state a claim, dismissing without prejudice).
7. Perry v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., 2013 WL 4505199 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2013) (Daniels, J.) (defense counsel to accounting firm in Rule 10b-5/Section 11 class suit seeking in excess of $45 million. This decision held auditor had no duty to review SAIC filings of defendant company and auditor opinion that company financial statements were prepared in accord with GAAP and that audit complied with PCAOB standards was not actionable, dismissing with prejudice).
8. Islet Holdings v. Islet Sciences, 2:12-cv-00799 (U.S.D.C., January 28, 2013) (defense counsel to bio-medical technology company. By order from the Bench, the court granted dismissal of claims seeking declaratory relief and damages under theories of conversion, unjust enrichment, interference with potential economic relations, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement and fraud, following prior dismissal, from the Bench, of RICO and securities fraud claims, in excess of $15 million, for alleged misrepresentation as to ownership of technology related to diabetes treatment in SEC filings, for lack of properly-pleaded causation and damage elements).
9. In re China Valves Tech. Sec. Litig., 2012 WL 4039852 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2012) (Kaplan, J.) (defense counsel to outside auditor in Rule 10b-5 class suit seeking in excess of $20 million. This decision rejected plaintiffs’ claim that differences in financial metrics between SAIC Chinese Regulatory filings and SEC US GAAP filings of Chinese reverse merger public company were insufficient to show PSLRA scienter against auditor, and rejected claims based on alleged non-disclosure of material, related party transactions. This decision dismissed all claims).
10. Fortress Credit Corp. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., 95 A.D.3d 685 (1st Dep’t May 22, 2012) (defense/appellant’s counsel to opinion-counsel law firm in action seeking $50 million out of pocket damages. Reversing the trial court, the appeal court held plaintiff, alleging the law firm’s opinion recklessly mis-stated material facts, including identity of client, failed to state a claim for fraud, negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, directing all claims be dismissed with prejudice).
11. Lakah v. UBS, A.G, 600 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. March 6, 2009) (Cedarbaum, J.), March 17, 2009, N.Y.L.J. 29, Col. 3 (Decisions of Interest) (defense counsel to former member of Egyptian parliament and majority owner and controlling shareholder/officers of three Egyptian companies seeking to stay arbitration against them in their personal capacity for bank/bond fraud and market manipulation of Cairo Exchange on claims exceeding $200 million. This decision enjoined a AAA Panel of arbitrators from determining their own jurisdiction to resolve arbitrability question).
12. Mazzone v. Grant Wilfley Casting, No. 05-2267 (2007) (Wiginton, J.) (special RICO defense counsel to entertainment casting company and its owner sued for RICO violations based on predicate acts of alleged commercial bribery. This order dated January 7, 2008 dismissed on summary judgment plaintiff’s claims for reasons stated from the Bench during oral argument).
13. Apex Equity Partners Inc. v. Murray, 18 Misc.3d 1137(A), 2008 WL 498468 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Feb. 5, 2008) (Fried, J.) (plaintiff’s counsel to Canadian private equity firm seeking in excess of $95 million for defendant French aero-space conglomerates’ misconduct in failed acquisition of Mexican, English and United States subsidiaries. This decision upheld plaintiff’s breach of contract, tortious interference and fraud claims on dismissal motion).
14. Riggs v. Mass. Fin. Serv. Co., Civ. No. JFM-04-1162 (2006) (Motz, J.) (defense counsel to national bank officer accused of structuring swaps and derivatives to facilitate alleged market timed and late traded securities transactions in violation of Rule 10b-5 in action claiming damages in excess of $300 million. This order dated March 1, 2006 (MFS Subtrack), implementing Multi-district Litigation Global Memorandum Decision In re Mut. Funds Invest. Litig., 384 F.Supp.2d 845 (D. MD. Aug. 35, 2005) (Janus Subtrack), dismissed all Rule 10b-5 fraud/market manipulation claims against bank officer, with prejudice).
15. Parthasarathy v. RS Invest. Manag., L.P., Civ. No. JFM-04-3798 (2006) (Motz, J.) (defense counsel to national bank officer accused of structuring swaps and derivatives to facilitate alleged market timed and late traded securities transactions in violation of Rule 10b-5 in action claiming damages in excess of $300 million. This order dated March 1, 2006 (RS Subtrack), implementing Multi-district Litigation Global Memorandum decision In re Mut. Funds Invest. Litig., 384 F.Supp.2d 845 (D.Md. Aug. 35, 2005) (Janus Subtrack), dismissed all securities claims against bank officer, with prejudice).
16. Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 23 A.D.3d 269, 808 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep’t 2005) (defense/respondent’s counsel to chairman of German company Babcock Borsig, AG, one of Germany’s largest energy and engineering conglomerates in action seeking more than $60 million civil RICO damages arising from a multi-billion dollar alleged fraud. Arguing appeal on behalf of all defendants, this decision affirmed dismissal on forum non-conveniens grounds, despite unavailability of RICO remedies and alleged inadequate trial procedures in Germany).
17. Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 2004 WL 3312835 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. July 8, 2004) (Ramos, J.) (defense counsel to chairman of German company Babcock Borsig, AG, one of Germany’s largest energy and engineering conglomerates, in action seeking more than $60 million civil RICO damages arising from a multi-billion dollar alleged fraud – this order dismissed $60 million RICO claims against former Babcock Chairman, on forum non conveniens grounds).
18. Chamberlin v. The Hartford Financial Services Inc., 2005 WL 2007894 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2005) (Hellerstein, J.) (defense counsel to insurer in civil RICO class action alleging a RICO enterprise comprised of seven insurers. This decision dismissed all RICO allegations rejecting claim that insurers violated RICO by denying, in coordinated fashion, no-fault claims).
19. Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2003) (defense counsel in class suit against national retailer. This decision affirmed dismissal of class action, holding plaintiffs’ claim that collective bargaining agreement provision was illegal under New York law was pre-empted under Labor Management Relations Act Sec. 301).
20. Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., 295 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2002) (special derivatives counsel to securities fraud plaintiff seeking $40 million in losses arising from defendant’s abandonment of a synthetic option hedging strategy and sub silentio adoption of a physical hedging strategy. This decision held synthetic swap and option transactions were governed by Exchange Act §10(b), in the first case to construe the effect of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act on synthetic derivatives).
21. Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. v. Morson, 2002 WL 31819577 (2d Cir. 2002) (respondent’s counsel to prevailing plaintiff in franchise matter. This decision affirmed the trial court’s denial of motion for JNOV and denial of defendant’s application for a new trial).
22. Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. v. Morson, 2001 WL 1568317 (S.D.N.Y. December 6, 2001) (Maas, J.) (plaintiff counsel in franchise matter. This decision refused to amend $1.7 plaintiff jury award in plaintiff’s favor).
23. Double Alpha, Inc. v. Mako Partners, L.P., 2000 WL 1036034 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2000)(Chin, J.) (defense counsel for hedge funds. This decision dismissed all 10b-5 claims against defendants that remained after plaintiff, on Rule 11 motion, was forced to voluntarily dismiss four RICO claims).
24. Washington National Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 1999 WL 461796 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1999) (Griesa, C.J.) (counsel to plaintiff insurance companies in Rule 10b-5 suit seeking $22 million damages arising from alleged $200 million fraud. This decision denied underwriter, issuer and law firm defendants’ motions for summary judgment).
25. Bull & Bear U.S. Government Securities Fund, Inc. v. Karpus Management Inc., 1998 WL 388546, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10282 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1998)(McKenna, J.) (defense counsel to proxy fight target of takeover attempt of closed end fund. This decision sustained §16 claims filed by target after a state court denied five summary judgment motions seeking shareholder list).
26. X v. Y, _ (U.S.D.C.) (defense counsel to rating company in “SLAPP” litigation defamation law suit brought by one of the largest U.S. HMOs seeking more than $1 billion damages for publishing an alleged inaccurate financial strength rating. After motion practice, plaintiff consented to a $0 recovery, without modification of rating, under sealed settlement).
27. Jeffries v. Harleston, 21 F.3d 1238 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, judgment vacated by Harleston v. Jeffries, 513 U.S. 996 (1994) (vacatur of Second Circuit decision which held Department head’s First Amendment rights were violated by University officials), on remand, Jeffries v. Harleston, 52 F.3d 9 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Jeffries v. Harleston, 516 U.S. 862 (1995)).
28. Goldberg v. Parker, 221 A.D. 2d 81, 634 N.Y.S.2d 81 (1st Dep’t 1995) (appellate counsel to respondent in proceeding seeking to stay arbitration for lack of arbitral eligibility. This decision affirmed that where eligibility for arbitration is defined by contract, because eligibility is not a “jurisdictional,” such determination can be made by arbitrators.
29. Goldberg v. Parker, 1995 WL 396568 (Sup. Ct. N. Y. Co. May 12, 1995); May 4, 1995, N.Y.L.J. 28 (page 1 at Col. 3) (Omansky, J.) (counsel to respondent on petition to dismiss arbitration alleged to be time-barred – court held that where arbitral eligibility is defined by contract, arbitrators, not courts, should make eligibility determinations -- arbitral eligibility held not to be “jurisdictional”).
30. In re Integrated Resources Real Estate Limited Partnerships Sec. Litig., 850 F. Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (Sweet, J.) (defense counsel in consolidated Rule 10b-5 securities and RICO class suits. This decision dismissed more than $1 billion in class damage claims).
REPRESENTATIVE AUDIT-FIRM SETTLEMENTS
1. Defense of securities class suit alleging GAAP violations compromised IPO funding, preventing loan repayment. Auditor defendant did not contribute to settlement and negotiated inclusion of a statement in pendency notice as follows: “[T]here were no sufficient factual bases to pursue claims against [the defendant’s auditor and] . . . Had an amended complaint been filed [the auditor] . . . would not have been named.”
2. Defense of private and inter-related derivative actions alleging damages in excess of $30 million against inter alia auditor defendant. Auditor Defendant settled for $125,000.
3. Defense of securities class suit alleging Auditor Defendant violated Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose defendant sold blocks of stock and improperly issuing an unqualified opinion. Auditor Defendant paid $215,000 to settle all claims against itself and all successor auditors.
4. Defense of securities class suit alleging Auditor Defendant violated GAAP by failing to timely detect Chinese employees applying Chinese GAAP instead of US GAAP causing artificial inflation, mispricing of stock and damages. Case settled for less than half projected discovery costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SECURITIES ARBITRATION DISPUTES
1. ICDR Case No. 5 0148T00251 06 (defense counsel to arbitration respondent Egyptian issuer and parent and subsidiary guarantor companies in AAA International Arbitration arising from the first $100 million Euro Bond Offering in the Middle East. This Panel order dated November 7, 2007 denied the claimant banks’ guarantee-based summary judgment motion for interim relief seeking in excess of $200 million, finding issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contract breach theory despite the existence of alleged unequivocal guarantees and waivers of defenses).
2. N.A.S.D. No. 99-04205 (N.A.S.D. Arbitration) (defense counsel to investment banker accused of securities fraud; after five years of arbitration, claimant voluntarily withdrew $10 million in fraud claims against banker, under threat of sanctions).
3. FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration No.: 09-03065 (claimants’ counsel claimants seeking damages arising from investment in a municipal arbitrage opportunity fund. Claimant trustee, a former securities firm branch manager, and individual claimant, head of an equities trading desk, alleged fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on misrepresentations of risk, a misleading track record and violation of investment guidelines for the product. After 20 hearing sessions, the Panel issued a $950,000 Claimants’ award).
4. N.A.S.D. No. 05-01325 (N.A.S.D. Arbitration 2006) (claimant’s counsel; after settlement for full out-of-pocket damages by broker dealer and 10 hearing sessions against non-settling individual respondents, Panel awarded the claimant, over and above her out of pocket losses, extra-compensatory (benefit-of-the-bargain) damages in the amount of $88,000, $87,000 attorney fees, and $100,000 punitive damages against non-settling brokers, accused of securities fraud).
REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS AND CITATIONS
1. Adverse Domination, Statutes of Limitations and the in pari delicto Defense - Application in Cases Involving Claims of Accounting Malpractice and Corporate fraud, 37 Touro Law Review 697-737 (No. 2, 2021) (co-author Adam Rader) (forthcoming).
2. RICO Extraterritoriality, RJR Nabisco and Shareholder Residence – Determining RICO Domestic Injury, The RICO and Securities Fraud Law Reporter 4-37 (Vol. 69, No. 6, June, 2019), reprinted in The Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter 4-37 (Vol. 47, No. 3, June, 2019), reprinted in updated and expanded form 35 Touro Law Review 1343 ( No. 4, 2020) (co-author Adam Rader).
3. When May a Litigant Rely in its Own Complaint on Allegations from Another Complaint filed a Different Action? -- Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp and Its Progeny – Still an Unresolved Question, 32 Touro Law Review101 (No. 2, 2016) (co-author Joseph Johnson).
4. The Availability of Benefit of the Bargain Expectancy-Based Damages for Buyers Defrauded in California Real Estate Transactions, 31 Touro Law Review 1043 (No. 4, 2015) (co-author Robert Conner and Kris Taylor).
5. Loss Causation, Economic Loss Rules and Offset Defenses – Dismissal Motion Practice After Acticon A.G. v. China N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 31 Touro Law Review 501 (No. 3, 2015) (co-authors Robert E. Conner and Kris Taylor), reprinted in expanded form from 37 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, (No. 5 at 53, August, 2014).
6. Determining When Extrinsic Evidence Not Attached to or Incorporated by Reference in a Pleading May be Considered on a Rule 12 Dismissal Motion, 31 Touro Law Review 115 (2014) (co-author Rita Turner).
7. Financial Transparency and Disclosure: China Progress on Corporate Governance, 7 Journal of International Business Ethics 3 (University of Beijing (No. 1, July, 2014) (co-author T. Myers), cited Wasserman-Mitchell, 2:1 The Business and Finance L. Rev. 77, 111, n. 156 (Oct. 2018).
8. Market Impact, Loss Causation and Multiple Regression Modeling -- the Importance of Modular Theories of Damage Causation in Antitrust Class Certification Motion Practice After Comcast v. Behrens, 30 Touro Law Review 127 (2014) (co-authors R. Conner and S. Rosenthal), cited 1 Commercial Damages Remedies in Business Litigation, ¶ 22.02.
9. Class Certification After Comcast -- Raising the Bar or Changing the Game in Antitrust Litigation?, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, Vol. 35, Nos. 1 & 2, at 18 (symposium on the effect of Comcast on antitrust certification) (April-May, 2013) (co-author Robert E. Conner), cited Hutchinson, Expert Witnesses Business & Economy, § 4:8, at n.14 (2014).
10. Reliance and Loss Causation in Securities Fraud Class Certification Motion Practice After Halliburton II, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, Vol. 52, Nos. 4 and 5 at 16, (June-July, 2014) (symposium on the effect of Halliburton II in Securities Litigation) (co-authors Robert E. Conner and Stuart S. Rosenthal).
11. Litigating Offset Arguments in Compensatory Damage Litigation and Lead Plaintiff Motion Practice in Class Cases: Are Apparently Inconsistent Outcomes Reconcilable? 3 Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 150-179 (No. 2, April, 2010) (co-author R. Conner).
12. Punitive Damages Against Fiduciaries, Probate Cases, and Equitable Relief, 25 Probate and Property Magazine 43 (ABA, Issue No. 3, May/June, 2011) (co-authors J. Pankauski and R. Conner), reprinted in expanded form, Punitive Damages Against Fiduciaries: Allowing Punitive Damages Where Equitable Relief is Sought, 84 Florida State Bar Journal 40 (No. 9, November and No. 10, December, 2010, at 42), cited Fla. R. Civil Pro., Rule 1.040, One Form of Action (referenced commentary, Rule 1.040, Fla. Stat. 2011); cited Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 100, Part 6, Ch. 19, Comment d (2012); cited Administration of Trusts in Florida, Ch. 2 (2014).
13. The Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege by Counsel in Legal Malpractice Cases – Policy, Privilege and the Search for Truth in Cases Involving Implied Waivers, 45 Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal 839-891 (ABA, Issue Nos. 3-4, Spring-Summer, 2010) (co-author R. Granofsky), cited Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. L.P.A. v. Davis, 2013 WL 4757486, *8 at n. 20 (July 12, 2013); cited Duval, 32 N. Ill. U. L .Rev. 1, at ns. 18, 99, and 177 (2011); cited Darley-Emerson, 80 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 537, 541, at n. 27 (2011); cited Perlmutter, 41 SPG Brief 46, 55, at n. 81 (2012); cited Reuben, 83 Fordham L. Rev. 2131, at n. 77 (2015); cited Beach, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1663, 1689, at n. 135 (2015); cited Shachmurove, 37 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 203, 268, at n. 402 (2017).
14. Can Allegations of Aiding and Abetting Securities Fraud Violations Serve as Proper RICO Predicates Under the Reform Act?, 52 The RICO Reporter 157-173 (No. 2, August, 2010).
15. Index Adjusted Portfolio Damages in Securities and Investment Fraud Litigation/Arbitration, 2 Journal of Sec. Law, Reg. & Compliance 360 (No. 4, September, 2009) (co-author R. Conner).
16. The Unsuitability of the “Suitability Rule” -- Why FINRA’s Current Interpretation of Conduct Rule 2310 Undermines Investor “Holding Claim” Entitlements in Contemporary Markets, 2 Pepperdine Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and the Law 122-141 (No. 1, 2009) (co-author R. Conner), reprinted in modified form from 2008 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 15, 177-230 (P.L.I. 2008) (co-authors R. Conner and J. Trainer), cited Winnard, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. 671, at ns. 200, 202 (Spring 2010).
17. RICO Enterprise Theory in the Seventh and Second Circuits – Should “Prototype Theory” and the “Functional Unity Test” be applied to Corporations and Other Business Entity Enterprises?, 49 The RICO Reporter 5 (January, 2009).
18. Derivative Standing for New York LLC Members – the Conflict Continues, 79 New York State Bar Journal 33 (No. 8, October, 2007) (co-authors D. Rothman and Y. Yamamoto), cited Ribstein and Keatings on Limited Liability Companies, Sec. 10:3, at n. 7 (2010), cited Stoner, New York Practice Series — New York Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships: A Guide to Law and Practice, Sec. 7:14 at n.2 (April, 2010); discussed in 5b Real Estate Financing §11C.03 (2018).
19. Using Policy Provisions to Control the Risks Created by Self-Insured Retentions, Mealey’s Litigation Report (Vol. 21, No. 31, June 21, 2007) (co-authors A. Brouk and J. Zimring).
20. Privilege and Methodology in Cases Involving Implied Waivers of the Attorney Client Privilege, 20 Professional Liability Underwriting Society Journal 6 (April, 2007) (co-author R. Granofsky).
21. RICO Section 1962(c) Enterprises and the Present Status of the “Distinctness Requirement” in the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits, 42 RICO Reporter 284-341, 460-489 (No. 3, Sept., 2005 and No. 4, Oct., 2005), reprinted 21 Touro Law Review 1083-1297 (2006) cited Llacua v. Western Range Ass’n, 930 F.3d 1161, 1182-1184 (10th Cir. 2019), cited U1it4less, Inc. v. Fedex Corp., 871 F.3d 199, ns. 9 and 10, and concurrence, n. 1 (2d Cir. Sept. 18, 2017); cited Mitchell, Cunningham and Lentz, 13 Fordham J. Corp. and Fin. L. 1, at n. 133 (2008); cited Hemmer, 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 127, at n. 137 (2008); cited Pierson, 85 Temp. L. Rev. 523, at n. 172 (2013).
22. Recurring Problems in Additional Insured Litigation, Mealey’s Litigation Report: Insurance (Vol. 18, No. 23, April 20, 2004), reprinted LEXIS-NEXIS MEALY’S ADDITIONAL INSURED WORKBOOK, at 77-111 (2004) (co-author B. Strikowsky), cited FISHER, SWISHER, STEMPLE, PRINCIPLES OF INSURANCE LAW, at 109-110 (3d Ed.) (Supp. 2006).
23. Securities Fraud Class Suits Again Threaten to Become RICO Battlegrounds, 47 Defense Research Institute, For the Defense 12 (No. 12, April, 2005) (co-author S. Getzoff).
24. Professional Liability Insurance Coverage, Mealey’s Emerging Insurance Disputes (Vol. 8, No. 18, Sept. 23, 2003) (co-authors E. Portuguese and E. Spindler).
25. Mitigation of Damages and Undue Risks, New York Law Journal, July 7, 2003 at 4, col. 4 (2003) (co-author S. Getzoff).
26. Mitigation of Damages in Securities Litigation and Securities Arbitration, 2004 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 19, at 585 (P.L.I. 2004) (co-authors R. Conner, C. Bellaire and S. Getzoff), discussed in DAVID ROBBINS, SECURITIES ARBITRATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, § 5-17, at 5-249-250 (2009).
27. Mitigation of Damages in Commercial and Securities Litigation and Arbitration – When is Proposed Mitigating Conduct Unreasonably Risky?, 2 Journal of Sec. L., Reg. & Compliance 103 (No. 2, March, 2009) (co-authors R. Conner, C. Bellaire), reprinted 2009 SECURITIES ARBITRATION 491, Ch. 13 (P.L.I. 2009).
28. Defendant’s Breach of Own Contract and Tortious Interference, New York Law Journal, March 13, 2003 at 4, col. 4 (co-author D. Rothman).
29. Reviewing Recent Developments in RICO Enterprise Litigation, New York Law Journal, January 17, 2002 at 1, col. 1; reprinted in expanded form, Corporation/Officer Enterprises and the Distinctness Requirement After Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, RICO Law Reporter, Vol. 35, No. 1, at 5 (Jan. 2002).
30. Attorney Liability for Securities Fraud After Washington National Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 28 Sec. Reg. L. J. 207 (Fall, 2000), cited Steinberg, 56 Washburn L. J. 1, at n. 25 (Fall, 2006); cited HAZEN 4 Law Sec. Reg. § 12.25, n. 62 (Jan. 2013).
31. RICO Prototypes and Impeaching Presidents -- Absurd Applications of Statutory Remedies and the Abuse of Constitutional Safeguards, RICO Law Reporter, Vol. 29, No. 1, at 9 (Jan. 1999), reprinted from New York Law Journal, Dec. 31, 1998 at 1, col. 1., Analyzing Impeachable Offenses Through RICO Prototypes, cited DAVID ROBBINS, SECURITIES ARBITRATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, § 3-5 (2018).
32. Loss Causation Under Rule 10b-5, a Circuit-by-Circuit Analysis: When Should Representational Misconduct be Deemed the Cause of Legal Injury Under the Federal Securities Law?, 1998 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Vol. 1, Ch. 16, 375-538 (P.L.I. 1998), reprinted RICO Law Reporter, Vol. 28, No. 2, at 173-231 (Aug. 1998), reprinted Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 6, at 897-956 (Sept., 1998) (co-author R. Conner), cited Razzano, 4 The Securities Reporter at 17 (1999); cited Escoffery, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 1781, ns. 16, 92, 94, 125, 152-154, 157, 164, 178, 206, 232, and 363 (April, 2000); cited Foster, 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 265, 340, n. 213 (2002); cited Van Hoey, 60 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 249, 307, n. 221 (2003); cited Holbrook, 39 Tx. J. of Bus. L. 215, 259, ns. 2, 42, 58, 178, 179, 253, 260, 301, 302, 304, 326 (2003); cited Thorson, 6 Wym. L. Rev. 623, 656, at n.72 (2006); cited Olazabals, 3 Berkleley Bus. L. J. 337, 380, n. 57 (2006).
33. Construction Industry AIEs - Problems of Contract Interpretation and Solutions, 65 Defense Counsel Journal 78-99, January, 1998; (co-author J. Cleary), cited Richmond, 33 Tort and Ins. L. J. 945, n.21 (1998); cited Strode, 23 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 697, ns. 98, 159, 207 (2004); cited Strode, 25-SUM Constr. 21, n. 51 (2005).
34. Computation of Benefit of the Bargain Damages in Rule 10b-5 Bond Fraud Cases, 2001 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Vol. II, Ch. 37, at 1127 (P.L.I. 2001) (co-author R. Conner).
35. 1998 Securities Arbitration Damages and Remedies, in Securities and Mediation and Arbitration -- Effective Advocacy at 205-251 (Pub. N.Y.S.B.A, Securities Litigation. Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litig. Sec., Fall, 1998), reprinted 1999 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, ch. 29, at 903-942 (P.L.I. 1999) (co-author C. Hecht), cited Lowenfels & Bromberg, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1083, 1113, n. 62 (2000); cited HAZEN 5 Law Sec. Reg. § 14.20, n. 26 (Jan. 2013).
36. Report and Proposal of the Securities Litigation Committee of the New York State Bar Association on Attorney Compensation in Securities Class Action Cases: Are Counsel Fees in Class Actions Running Away?, New York Litigator, Vol. 2, No. 2 at 56-68 (November 1996) (Committee member and principal co-author).
37. Theories of Civil RICO Accrual, Civil RICO Report, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 28, 1997 at 1.
38. Litigating State Statute of Limitations Defenses in Securities Arbitration, in 1996 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 12, 645-678 (P.L.I. 1996), cited Davis, 62 Brook. L. Rev. 1561, 1573 (1996).
39. Pleading Scienter in Securities Fraud Cases Under Rule 9(b): Is the Pleading of Facts Sufficient to Give Rise to a Strong Inference of Fraudulent Intent Really Incompatible with the Federal Rules?, N.Y.U. School of Law, 1995 Vol., Issue 1, Survey of American Law at 99-119 (co-author K. Moltner), cited Miest, 82 Minn. L. Rev. 1103, ns. 41, 46 (1998); cited Dorelli, 31 Ind. L. Rev. 1189, n. 28 (1998); cited Briski, 32 Loyola Univ. of Chicago L. J. 155, 204, ns. 51, 58, 65 (2000); cited 28 U.S.C.A., FRCP Rule 9 (2015) (pleading special matters, Westlaw, cited reference); cited 28 U.S.C.A., FRCP Rule 56 (2015) (summary judgment, Westlaw, cited reference).
40. Arbitral Awards in Excess of Actual Damages, New York Law Journal, Jan. 11, 1996 at 1 (co-author R. Conner); cited 9 U.S.C. §9 (2014) (Award of Arbitrators; Westlaw, cited reference).
41. Corporation/Employee Association-in-Fact Enterprises After Jaguar Cars, Civil RICO Report, Vol. 11, No. 6, August 9, 1995 at 8 (co-author K. Moltner), cited and discussed in JEROLD S. SOLOVNY and DOUGLAS REES, RICO, Sec. 69.3, text at n. 43.
42. New Protections for Mid-project Licensed Home Improvement Contractors in New York, New York Law Journal, August 23, 1995 at 1, col. 1; reprinted in expanded form, Litigating After-Acquired License Cases, 11 J. of the Suffolk Academy of L. 35 (Fall, 1996) (co-author L. Gates).
43. Computing Damages in Rule 10b-5 Unsuitability Cases: Litigating “Offset” Defenses, in 1994 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 24 at 377-431 (P.L.I. 1994) (co-author R. Conner), cited Berg, 1995 SECURITIES ARBITRATION 507, 522 (P.L.I. 1995); cited SOUTH CAROLINA DAMAGES, §VI.34.C.6 (2018); cited DAVID ROBBINS, SECURITIES ARBITRATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, § 6.7 (2018).
44. Securities Arbitration and Contractual Consent: Punitive Damage Remedies in the NASD, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Vol. VI, No. 8, Sept. 1994, at 1.
45. Impairment of Contract in the Absence of Breach: Should Breach Really be an Element of Tortious Interference?, New York Law Journal, October 27, 1993, at 1, col. 1 (coauthor M. Karlinsky).
46. Limiting Termination for Convenience Clauses in Government Contracts: Contractors’ Actions for Anticipated Profits Under New York Law, New York Law Journal, April 8-9, 1991, at 1, col. 1 (co-author J. Frankel); reprinted 21 Public Contracts Law Journal 63, Fall 1991, cited Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Committee v. City of New York Human Resources Admin., New York Law Journal Vol. 215, No. 95, at 29, col. 6, May 16, 1996.
47. Recent Developments in Direct Injury Analysis in the Second Circuit: An examination of the Injury and Causation Elements of RICO Standing, New York Law Journal, January 5, 1992, at 1, col. 1, reprinted 15 RICO L. Rep. 274, February, 1992 (co-author K. Moltner).
48. Attorney Inaction as Trial Strategy: 6 Journal of the Suffolk Academy of Law 89 (Fall 1989) (co-author P. Daley), cited Gould, Int’l J. of Law & Psychiatry 83, 95, n.96 (1995); cited Wilson, 22 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1117, 1171, ns. 144, 147, 157 (1996); cited Van Arsdel, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 835, n.252 (2002); cited Cunningham, 76 Temp. L. Rev. 827, n.106 (2003); White, 122 Dickinson L. Rev. 649, 667, n. 116 (2018).
49. Risk Arbitrage & Insider Trading: a Functional Analysis of the Fiduciary Concept Under Rule 10b-5, 5 Touro L. Rev. 121 (Fall 1988); cited The Journal of Applied Economy, Vol. 2, at 87, n. 319 (2009); cited Jen-Guang Lin, 1 KLRI Journal. of Law and Legislation 205, 218, n. 45 (2011); cited Rowley, 9 Causes of Action, Second Series, Securities Fraud Under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 (May, 2013); cited The Free Dictionary (on definition of “risk arbitrage,” “equity arbitrage” and “merger arbitrage”) (2013); cited The Free Library (on “Criminal insider trading: prosecution. legislation, and justification,” at n. 319) (2013).
50. Terrorism, Ideology and Rules of International Law, 1 Touro Journal of Transnational Law 213-256 (Fall 1988) (co-author), cited Ahmad v. Wigen, 726 F. Supp. 389, 407 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (Weinstein, J.); cited Greene, 16 Vt. L. Rev. 461, 498, n.81 (1992); cited Raimo, 14 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 1473, 1478, n.21 (1999).
REPRESENTATIVE LAW LECTURES AND SEMINARS
1. Complexity and Securities Fraud Litigation, Invited Lecturer, New York University, Stern School of Business (November 30, 2011).
2. Securities Class Suits, Webnar, Invited Lecturer, Fireman’s Fund Insurance (October 29, 2009)
3. Securities Class Suits – Recent Developments, in-house CLE (October 29, 2009).
4. Litigating Securities and RICO Class Suits After SLUSA, Invited Lecturer regarding the conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on SLUSA pre-emption of state securities claims, Touro Law School (February 22, 2006).
5. Recent Developments in Civil RICO Jurisprudence, National Meeting of ABA Committee on RICO and Antitrust (Labor Law Section) in Atlanta, Georgia, Invited Lecturer on recent developments in 2004 RICO cases Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG and Andrea Doreen v. Local 282 in which he acted, respectively, as defense and plaintiff RICO counsel (August 8, 2004).
6. The Effect of 20th Century Philosophy on Contemporary Securities, Derivatives and RICO Litigation, Invited Lecturer, Long Island University (March 16, 2002).
7. LEXIS Counsel Connect 1995 On-Line Expert Seminars, Securities Arbitration
* Chairman, Statutes of Limitations and Eligibility (January-February, 1995)
* Chairman, Remedies and Damage Computation (January-February, 1995)
* Chairman, Punitive Damages (January-February, 1995)
8. Pleading Civil RICO Claims in New York Federal Courts, Invited Lecturer, Touro Law School, May 1992
EXPERT AND LAW-RELATED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2012-2014 THORNAPPLE ASSOCIATES, INC., Summit, New Jersey
Consultant – providing services to attorneys prosecuting or defending Exchange Act, Securities Act or civil RICO claims in litigation/arbitration.
1985- 1988 LOGICAT CORPORATION, New York, New York
Senior Logician -- Hiring, training and coordinating activities of ten logic professors who produced problems for the logic section of the Law School Admission Test; developing logical reasoning problem-types and defending correctness of all challenged LOGICAT-produced problems before Educational Testing Service overseeing LSAT production.
NON-LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
2012 Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dewey and James on Philosophy, Meaning and Resilience, published as the afterward to Dr. Eric Kreuter’s "FOSTERING RESILIENCE FOR LOSS AND IRRELEVANCE" (Pub. Springer, December, 2012).
2014 Maladaptive Schemas and the Transfiguration of Core Beliefs – When and How Paradigms of Consciousness Shift – an Introduction to Dr. Kreuter’s and Counselor Moltner’s Analysis and Recommendations Regarding the Treatment of Certain Psychic Disorders, published as the introduction to Dr. Eric Kreuter’s “MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT OF MALADAPTIVE SCHEMAS” (Pub. Springer, August, 2014) (co-author Dr. Lodze Steckman).
2017 LIFE TRANSITIONS: THEORY, STRATEGY AND PRACTICE (co-author Dr. Eric Kreuter) (Pub. NOVA SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, 2017).
Back to Our Team→
BAR ADMISSIONS
State of New York, 1989
U.S. District Court, Southern District, New York
U.S. District Court, Eastern District, New York
U.S. District Court, Northern District, New York
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
U.S. District Court, Maryland
New Jersey Superior Court
U.S. District Court, Western District, New York
New Jersey Superior Court
U.S. District Court, New Jersey (Newark)
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
U.S. District Court, Central Division of Utah
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
EDUCATION
Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, J.D., cum laude, 1988, Law Review
Columbia University, Doctoral Candidate Masters, Philosophy, 1983
Long Island University, B.A., 1977 (Philosophy - summa cum laude)
Long Island University, B.A., 1977 (music performance summa cum laude - classic guitar)