Representative Securities Litigation & Arbitration Matters

Robert Herskovits has handled the following matters:

FINRA Securities Arbitration

• Jefferies & Company, Inc. v. Cohen Capital Partners II, LP, et al. (Case No. 08-01050) -- We represented Jefferies and the registered representative over disputed trades executed in a prime broker context. AWARD: The Panel noted respondents' substantial payment to Jefferies and recommended the expungement of all reference to the arbitration from registered representative's records with the Central Registration Depository.
• Jefferies & Company, Inc. v. John P. Coen (Case No. 09-03263). We represented Jefferies & Company, Inc. in connection with claims against a former employee. AWARD: The arbitration panel awarded Jefferies full compensatory damages in excess of $1 million. Jefferies has collected much of the Award through post-Award litigation.
• Credit Suisse First Boston LLC v. Repurchase Corp., et al. (NYSE Arbitration 2004-014931). We represented Credit Suisse in connection with claims against a former customer for unsettled trades. AWARD: The arbitration panel entered an Award in favor of Credit Suisse for $755,000, plus attorneys’ fees and reimbursable expenses.
• Credit Suisse First Boston LLC v. Lance W. Bridges (NYSE Arbitration 2003-014828). We represented Credit Suisse in connection with claims against a former customer for an unpaid margin loan. The customer counterclaimed alleging a failed investment strategy. AWARD: The arbitration panel denied the customer’s counterclaim and awarded Credit Suisse full compensatory damages plus $168,000 for attorneys’ fees and expert’s fees.
• Jerome Schutzer v. Kevin John Lent (Case No. 06-03476). We represented the customer in connection with claims for illegal conversion of customer funds. AWARD: Respondent was found liable for compensatory damages in the amount of $1,126,151.00.
• James Weil v. Montrose Capital Management, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 01-01886). We represented one of respondents in defense of claims of account mismanagement. AWARD: Claimant's claims are dismissed in their entirety.
>Charles M. Baxter v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, et al. (Case Number. 01-07096). We represented the broker in defense of claims of account mismanagement. AWARD: Respondents were found not liable on all of Claimant's claims.
• Mahinderjit Singh, et al. v. H & R Block Financial Advisors, et al. (Case No. 01-01442). We represented one of the brokers in defense of claims of unsuitability, charging excessive commissions, and fraud. AWARD: Claimant's claims were denied in their entirety.
• Pitheckoff v. Securities America, Inc., et al. (Case No. 02-01611). We represented the Claimant in prosecution of claims of unsuitability, account mismanagement, and unauthorized trading. AWARD: Respondents were found liable to Claimant for the sum of $262,500.00.
• Robert A. Foisie v. Borgersen, et al. (Case No. 99-04767). We represented the broker in defense of claims against manipulative conduct and charges of excessive markdowns and commissions. AWARD: The arbitration panel denied Claimant's claims in their entirety, awarded our client part of his attorneys' fees, and ordered the expungement of all references to the arbitration from the broker's records with the Central Registration Depository.
• BlueStone Capital Partners, L.P. v. Neil M. Kleinman (Case No. 00-01037). We represented the broker-dealer in prosecution of claims for breach of a promissory note. AWARD: Respondent was liable for full compensatory damages plus attorneys' fees.
• Louisa Esposito v. Donald & Co. Securities, Inc., et al. (Case No. 00-02595). We defended the registered representative against claims of misrepresentation and omission of material facts, unsuitability, unauthorized transactions, failure to follow instructions, and fraud. AWARD: Claimant's claims were denied in their entirety.
• Lasner v. Advest, Inc., et al. (Case No. 99-00981): We represented the Claimant for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and churning. AWARD: Respondents were found liable for compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000.00.
• Charles W. Dunn, et al. v. LNA Capital Corp., et al. (Case No. 98-04494). We represented the broker in defense of claim fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. AWARD: Claimants' claims were denied in their entirety and the arbitration panel ordered that all references to the arbitration be expunged from the broker's records maintained by the Central Registration Depository.
• Robert Gedulig v. D.H. Blair & Co., Inc., et al. (Case No. 97-06049). We defended the brokerage firm and registered representative against claims of unsuitability and breach of fiduciary duty. AWARD: Claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety and the arbitrator ordered that all references to the arbitration be expunged from the broker's records maintained by the Central Registration Depository.
• Marvin Schuck v. D.H. Blair & Co., Inc., et al. (Case No. 98-00391). We defended the brokerage firm and registered representative against claims of unauthorized trading. AWARD: Claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Securities Litigation

• KV Pharmaceutical Co. v. Citigroup Global Markets (Civil Action No. 09 Civ. 6553 (SDNY 2009)). Recovered in excess of $75 million for Plaintiff in connection with a complex auction rate securities litigation.
• SEC v. Tanner, et al. (Civil Action No. 05-4057 (D. Kan. 2006)). Represented lead defendant charged by the Government with operating a Ponzi scheme.
• Peck v. Pacific CMA, Inc. (Civil Action No. 05 Civ. 569 (D. Co. 2005)). Defended Pacific CMA, a public company, against claims that it refused to allow shareholders to sell restricted stock in accordance with Rule 144. After a complex bench trial, the U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of Defendant, finding that the shareholders were “underwriters,” as defined by federal securities law, and thus not entitled to rely upon Rule 144.
• Martini v. Presque Isle Capital Management (Civil Action No. 04-354, 2006 WL 572136 (W.D. Pa. 2006)). Defended a registered investment advisory firm against claims of improper account management. Five of six causes of action were dismissed and the case was resolved on favorable terms for Defendants.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.