Areas of Concentration

  • Securities and derivatives private and class suits
  • Prosecuting and defending RICO private and class suits
  • International commercial litigation and arbitration
  • Complex federal and state corporate, contract, and commercial litigation
  • Securities arbitration
  • Professional liability and D&O litigation
  • Merger and acquisition litigation

Sample Clients

  • Mutual, hedge and private equity funds
  • Insurance companies
  • Accounting and audit firms
  • Real estate and mortgage companies
  • Officers of domestic and foreign companies
  • Investment bankers
  • Brokers
  • Lawyers and law firms
  • Technology companies
  • Entrepreneurs


Mr. Steckman’s practice areas include securities and derivatives private and class suits, including Rule 10b-5 litigation, complex federal and state commercial litigation, prosecuting and defending civil RICO private and class suits, merger and acquisition litigation, bond, arbitrage and real estate fraud litigation, corporate, contract, and commercial litigation, international commercial arbitration, broker-dealer and broker-customer securities arbitration, including, municipal arbitrage fraud arbitration, securities regulatory matters and professional liability and D&O litigation.

He has represented mutual, hedge and private equity funds, insurance companies, accounting and audit firms, real estate/mortgage companies, technology companies, a financial strength rating company, officers of domestic and foreign companies, investment bankers, brokers, law firms, lawyers and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Steckman has published book chapters and articles on federal procedure, attorney client privilege, constitutional law, securities fraud pleading, loss causation and causal modeling, insider trading, risk arbitrage, securities arbitration, class certification and preparation of antitrust expert reports, government contract law, and damage computation. He has published on civil RICO, including articles on RICO predicate acts, RICO enterprise theory, RICO standing and direct injury, RICO claims accrual and statute of limitations, RICO causation and the PSLRA RICO Amendment. Mr. Steckman has published, as well, on public policy matters ranging from international terrorism and impeachment to application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Representative Litigation Matters

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 $60 million RICO damages arising from 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. He sustained CMG’s claim for ten times compensatory damages for all damages arising from non-RICO predicate criminal acts: “Based on CMG’s allegations, this case may present a rare occasion where punitive damages may be potentially justified.”).

Hanson v. Frazer, LLP, 2015 WL 4561707 (July 17, 2015) (Rakoff, J.) (defense counsel to audit firm in Rule 10b-5 class suit seeking in excess of $45 million. This Memorandum Order set forth the court’s reasoning for dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ amended class complaint which had alleged that the auditor defendant recklessly failed to include a subsequent events disclosure regarding alleged improper, related-party loans rendering the auditor’s GAAP and PCAOB compliance opinion fraudulent under Rule 10b-5, holding plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter).

Arabi v. Javaherian, 2014 WL 3892098 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2014) (plaintiff’s special RICO counsel in action arising from racketeering scheme to obtain 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 for lack of jurisdiction and proper venue).

In re China Valves Tech. Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 5708570 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2013) (Kaplan, J.). Defense counsel to audit 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 China reverse merger company were sufficient to show PSLRA scienter against auditor which opined 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.

Hanson v. Frazer Frost, LLP, 2013 WL 5372749 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2013) (Rakoff, J.). Defense counsel to audit 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 complaint.

Perry v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., 2013 WL 4505199 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2013) (Daniels, J.). Defense counsel to audit 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’s stated opinion that company financial statements were prepared in accord with GAAP and that audit complied with PCAOB standards was not actionable, dismissing complaint with prejudice.

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 China reverse merger public company were sufficient to show PSLRA scienter against auditor and rejected claims based on alleged non-disclosure of material, related party transactions. This decision dismissed all claims, without prejudice.

Fortress Credit Corp., et al. 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 actual, out of pocket damages. This decision, reversing the trial court, held the complaint, which alleged the law firm’s opinion recklessly mis-stated material facts, including the identity of its client, failed to state a claim for fraud, negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, directing with prejudice dismissal of all claims.

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, controlling shareholder and officer of three Egyptian companies seeking to stay arbitration against him in his personal capacity for bank and bond fraud and market manipulation of Cairo Exchange on claims exceeding $200 million. This decision enjoined a AAA Panel of international arbitrators from determining their own jurisdiction to resolve question of arbitrability of the claims.

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 aerospace 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.

Mazzone v. Grant Wilfley Casting, No. 05-2267 (2007) (Wigenton, 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 plaintiff’s claim on summary judgment for detailed reasons stated from the Bench.

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 in excess of $300 million damages. 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.

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 in excess of $300 million damages. 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 fraud claims against bank officer, with prejudice.

Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 23 A.D.3d 269, 808 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep’t 2005). Defense counsel to president/chairman of German company Babcock Borsig, AG, one of Germany’s largest energy 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 under German law.

Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 2004 WL 3312835 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. July 8, 2004) (Ramos, J.). Dismissing $60 million RICO claims against former president/chairman of Babcock Borsig, AG on forum non conveniens grounds.

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 insurers violated RICO by denying, in coordinated fashion, no-fault claims.

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 and was preempted under Labor Management Relations Act Sec. 301.

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.

Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. v. Morson, 2001 WL 1568317 (S.D.N.Y. December 6, 2001) (Maas, J.). Plaintiff’s counsel. This decision refused to amend $1.7 million plaintiff jury award.

Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., 295 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2002). Special derivatives counsel to securities fraud plaintiff seeking $40 million damages 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.

Double Alpha, Inc. v. Mako Partners, L.P., 2000 WL 1036034 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2000)(Chin, J.). Defense counsel for a family of hedge funds. This decision dismissed all Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants that remained after plaintiff, on Rule 11 motion, voluntarily dismissed four RICO claims.

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.

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 refused to dismiss Section 16 claims filed by target against potential acquirer in New York federal action. This decision was issued after a Maryland state court denied five successive summary judgment motions brought by defendant to obtain fund shareholder list.

X v. Y. (U.S.D.C.). Defense counsel to financial strength rating company in “SLAPP” litigation defamation lawsuit brought by one of the largest U.S. HMOs seeking in excess of $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 and confidential settlement.

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).

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 unanimously held that where eligibility for arbitration is defined by contract, arbitrators, not courts, should make eligibility determinations — arbitral eligibility not a “jurisdictional” determination which can be made only courts.

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 arbitration claimant opposing application to stay of arbitration on eligibilty grounds. This decision held that where eligibility for arbitration is defined by contract, arbitrators, not courts, should make eligibility determinations and arbitral eligibility was not a “jurisdictional” determination which could only be made by courts.

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 in excess of $1 billion in class damage claims.

Representative Audit-Firm Private, Class, And Derivative Securities Fraud Settlements

Defense of securities class suit alleging auditor violated GAAP, compromising funding of an IPO, preventing repayment of loans. Auditor Defendant did not contribute to settlement and negotiated statement included in notice of pendency: “[T]here were no sufficient factual basis to pursue claims against [the defendant’s auditor and] . . . Had an amended complaint been filed . . . [the auditor] . . . would not have been named.”

Defense of private and inter-related derivative actions alleging damages in excess of $30 million against inter alia auditor defendant. Auditor defendant, accused of GAAP violations, settled all claims in both actions for $125,000.

Defense of securities class suit alleging auditor 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.

Defense of securities class suit alleging Auditor Defendant violated GAAP by failing to timely detect Chinese employees applying Chinese GAAP instead of U.S. GAAP regarding company recently listed in U.S. markets causing artificial inflation, mis-pricing of stock and damages over class period. Case settled for less than one-half projected costs to complete discovery.

Representative Securities Arbitration Disputes

ICDR Case No. 5 0148T00251 06. Defense counsel to arbitration respondent Egyptian issuer and holding, parent and subsidiary guarantor companies in AAA International Arbitration arising from the first $100 million Euro Bond Offering in 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 fact issues precluded summary judgment on contract breach theory despite the existence of alleged unequivocal guarantees and waivers of defenses.

FINRA Dispute Resolution Arbitration No.: 09-03065. Counsel to 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.

N.A.S.D. No. 99-04205 (N.A.S.D. Arbitration). Defense counsel to investment banker; after five years of arbitration, claimant voluntarily withdrew $10 million in fraud claims against banker, under sanctions threat .

N.A.S.D. No. 05-01325 (N.A.S.D. Arbitration 2006). Counsel to Claimant; after settlement for full out-of-pocket damages by broker dealer on first day of arbitration, after 10 hearing sessions against non-settling individual respondents, Panel awarded claimant over and above her out of pocket losses, extra-compensatory (benefit-of-the-bargain) damages of $88,000, $87,000 attorney fees, and $100,000 punitive damages against the non-settling brokers, accused of securities fraud.

Representative Publications And Citations

When May A Litigant Rely In Its Own Complaint On Allegations From Another Complaint? Lipsky V. Commonwealth United Corp. And Its Progency—Still An Unresolved Question 32 Touro Law Review (No. 2, 2016)  (co-author Joseph T. Johnson).

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-Steckman Taylor).

Loss Causation, Economic Loss Rules and Offset Defense – Dismissal Motion Practice After Acticon A.G. v. China N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd.s31 Touro Law Review 501 (No. 3, 2015) (co-authors Robert E. Conner and Kris Steckman-Taylor),reprinted in expanded form from 37 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, (No. 5 at 53, August, 2014).

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).

Financial Transparency and Disclosure: China Progress on Corporate Governance, 7 Journal of International Business Ethics 3 (University of Beijing (No. 1, 2014) (co-author Thomas Myers)

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).

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), reprinted in expanded form from 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 effect of Comcast on antitrust certification) (April-May, 2013). cited Hutchinson, Expert Witnesses Business & Economy, § 4:8, at n.14 (2014).

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 modified form from 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).

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 (ABA, Issue Nos. 3-4, Spring/Summer, 2010) (co-author R. Granofsky), 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 Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. L.P.A. v. Davis, 2013 WL 4757486, *8 at n. 20 (July 12, 2013) cited Beach, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1663, 1689, n. 135 (2015). cited Shachmurove, 37 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 203, at n. 402 (2017).

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 (No. 2, April, 2010) (co-author R. Conner).

Can Allegations of Aiding and Abetting Securities Fraud Violations Serve as Proper RICO Predicates Under the Reform Act?, 52 The RICO Reporter 157 (No. 2, August, 2010).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).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).

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 U1it4less, Inc. v. Fedex Corp., No. 16-533-CV, 2017 WL 4103869, opinion at *5, 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, n. 172 (2013).

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).

Mitigation of Damages and Undue Risks, New York Law Journal, July 7, 2003 at 4, col. 4 (2003) (co-author S. Getzoff), reprinted in expanded form 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, Sec. 5-17, at 5-249-250 (2009), reprinted in expanded form 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).

Professional Liability Insurance Coverage, Mealey’s Emerging Insurance Disputes (Vol. 8, No. 18, Sept. 23, 2003) (co-authors E. Portuguese and E. Spindler).

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).

Defendant’s Breach of Own Contract and Tortious Interference, New York Law Journal, March 13, 2003 at 4, col. 4 (co-author D. Rothman).

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).

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).

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.

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, 732, n. 98 (2004); cited Strode, 25-SUM Constr. 21, n. 51 (2005).

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).

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).

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 Berkeley Bus. L. J. 337, 380, n. 57 (2006).

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).

Theories of Civil RICO Accrual, Civil RICO Report, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 28, 1997 at 1.

Litigating State Statute of Limitations Defenses in Securities Arbitration, in 1996 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 12, 645-678 (P.L.I. 1996) (co-author L. Kushnick); cited Davis, 62 Brook. L. Rev. 1561, 1573 (1996).
Arbitral Awards in Excess of Actual Damages, New York Law Journal, Jan. 11, 1996 at 1 (co-author R. Conner).

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 Volume, 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 University 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).

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.

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 Journal of the Suffolk Academy of Law 35-54 (Fall, 1996) (co-author L. Gates).

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).

Securities Arbitration and Contractual Consent: Punitive Damage Remedies in the NASD, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Vol. VI, No. 8, Sept. 1994, at 1.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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 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).


  • 1989 State of New York (March 1, 1989)
  • 1990 U.S. District Court, Southern District, New York (June 12, 1990)
  • 1990 U.S. District Court, Eastern District, New York (June 12, 1990)
  • 1993 U.S. District Court, Northern District, New York (September 13, 1993)
  • 2001 U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit (renewal, March 28, 2011)
  • 2003 U.S. District Court, Central District of California, pro hac vice admission
  • 2004 California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, pro hac vice admission
  • 2004 U.S. District Court, Maryland, pro hac vice admission
  • 2004 New Jersey Superior Court, pro hac vice admission
  • 2005 U.S. District Court, Western District, New York (October 11, 2005)
  • 2006 New Jersey Superior Court, pro hac vice admission
  • 2007 U.S. District Court, New Jersey (Newark), pro hac vice admission
  • 2008 California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, pro hac vice admission
  • 2012 U.S. District Court, Central Division of Utah, pro hac vice admission
  • 2013 U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, pro hac vice admission

Advisory Board, Committee And Law Faculty Positions

  • Board of Advisors, Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Reporter, 1996-2017
  • American Bar Association Antitrust, RICO and Labor Law Committee, 2004-2017
  • Practicing Law Institute Securities Arbitration Faculty, 1996, 1998-1999, 2001, 2004, 2008-2009
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Securities Litigation, 1995-1997

Representative Lectures And Seminars

  • Complexity and Securities Fraud Litigation, Guest Speaker, New York University, Stern School of Business, November 30, 2011.
  • Securities Class Litigation, Webinar, October 29, 2009, Fireman’s Fund Insurance.
  • Securities Class Litigation – Recent Developments, October 29, 2009, in-house CLE.
  • Litigating Securities and RICO Class Suits After SLUSA, February 22, 2006 lecture regarding the conflict among the Circuits on SLUSA preemption of state securities claims
  • Recent Developments in Civil RICO Jurisprudence, National Meeting of ABA Committee on RICO and Antitrust (Labor Law Section) in Atlanta, Georgia, August 8, 2004 on recent developments in 2004 RICO cases Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG and Andrea Doreen v. Local 282 in which lecturer acted, respectively, as defense and plaintiff RICO counsel
  • The Effect of 20th Century Philosophy on Contemporary Securities, Derivatives and RICO Litigation, Invited Lecturer, Long Island University, March 16, 2002
  • 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
  • Pleading Civil RICO Claims in New York Federal Courts, Touro Law Center, May 1992


1984-1988, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Huntington, New York.
J.D., cum laude (1988), Law Review

1980-1983, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Doctoral Candidate
Masters, Philosophy (M. Phil. 1983)

1975-1977, Long Island University Greenvale, New York.
B.A., Philosophy, summa cum laude
B.A., Music Performance, summa cum laude (classic guitar)

Awards & Accolades

  • Super Lawyers Magazine – business and securities litigation
  • AVVO Rating – “superb”