Skip to main content
Lawrence Robert Gelber

Lawrence Gelber’s Legal Cases

12 total


  • In Re Optionable Securities Litigation, 577 F.Supp.2d 681 (SDNY 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Outcome:
    Motion to dismiss granted
    Description:
    In re Optionable Securities Litigation, No. 07 Civ. 3753(LAK), 2008 WL 4223662 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), 577 F.Supp.2d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Mr. Gelber represented the former CEO of Optionable, Inc (“OPBL”). The class Complaint alleged that OPBL and various individuals defrauded the stock market by: (i) misrepresenting how much OPBL’s largest customer, Bank of Montreal (BMO) affected OPBL’s business (ii) misrepresenting the viability of OPEX, OPBL’s natural gas trading platform (iii) misrepresenting the nature of an agreement OPBL entered with NYMEX and (iv) failing to disclose the CEO’s alleged old non-securities related convictions, among other allegations. The Court granted the motion to dismiss and upheld the defense arguments on all points. The Court expressly ruled that OPBL had no obligation to disclose the alleged old convictions because (1) Item 401 of Regulation S-B did not require disclosure and (2) such disclosure was not, in any event, necessary “to make other statements not false or misleading”.
  • SEC Opinion and Order (Release No.34-55988), decided June 29, 2007.

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Oct 01, 2008
    Outcome:
    SEC overturned NASD decision
    Description:
    Mr. Gelber’s client, the president of a brokerage firm, appealed a decision of the NASD’s National Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”) permanently barring him from the securities industry in all capacities and ordering him vicariously liable for "restitution" in excess of $3.6 million dollars, for his alleged violations of various NASD rules and the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. After carefully evaluating the arguments of the parties, the SEC found for Mr. Gelber's client. The SEC issued an Order vacating all sanctions, holding that Mr. Gelber’s client could not be liable for Section 10b or Rule 10b-5 violations, that certain of the alleged NASD Rule violations were not chargeable to Mr. Gelber’s client and remanding the case to NASD for re-determination in light of the SEC ruling.
  • Barry Diller et ano. v. Steurken et al., 712 N.Y.S.2d 311 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2000)

    Practice Area:
    Internet
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2000
    Outcome:
    cyber-squatting claim for fees dismissed
    Description:
    In this publicly reported cyber-squatting case, Mr. Gelber's clients had agreed to voluntarily return the Plaintiff's "name", but plaintiff, represented by a premier New York law firm, sought substantial attorneys' fees. Mr. Gelber defeated that effort on motion.
  • Blatt et al. v. Muse Technologies, Inc., et al., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18466; Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) 92,004 (D.Mass Aug 27, 2002)

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2002
    Outcome:
    Settled
    Description:
    In defending this federal securities fraud class action suit against a public company and its officers, Mr. Gelber, representing the company and two officers, succeeded in effectuating a global settlement, after mediation, of only 12% of the liability policy, a victory for the defense.
  • LoPresti v. Massachusetss Mutual Life Ins. Co., et al., (2004 NY Slip Op. 51223; Sup. Ct. Kings Co.)

    Practice Area:
    Antitrust & Trade Law
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2005
    Outcome:
    Dismissed on motion
    Description:
    This case was a New York Donnelly Act (state antitrust) action against multiple parties, including Mr. Gelber's securities brokerage firm client, over 12b-1 fees on 403(b) plans (an insurance product) sold to certain hospital employees. Mr. Gelber, in conjunction with the other defendants, prevailed on a motion to dismiss.
  • Sefton v. Hewitt, 4 Misc.3d 1001(A), 791 N.Y.S.2d 873 (NY Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2004)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Outcome:
    Defendant prevailed at trial.
    Description:
    Breach of contract and professional negligence case brought by disgruntled plaintiff. Bench trial.
  • In Re Optionable Securities Litigation

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Outcome:
    Rule 60(b) motion to reopen denied by Crotty.
    Description:
    In Re Optionable Securities Litigation. (June 15, 2009)(USDJ Paul Crotty). After Judge Kaplan's decision at 577 F. Supp.2d 681 (S.D.N.Y 2008) dismissing the class action, plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case alleging "newly discovered evidence". After reviewing the briefs of the parties and hearing oral argument, Judge Paul Crotty, who was assigned this aspect of the Optionable case, denied the motion, and thus permanently closed the door on the Optionable class action. Judge Crotty's decision can be reviewed by clicking here. http://securities.stanford.edu/1037/OPBL_01/2009615_r01m_073753.pdf
  • Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F. Supp. 217 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1989
    Outcome:
    Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part
    Description:
    Multi-defendant securities fraud claim - unusual in that it took almost five years for the Court to decide a motion to dismiss
  • Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559 (1995)

    Practice Area:
    Securities & Investment Fraud
    Date:
    Jan 01, 1995
    Outcome:
    Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the trial court's denial of plaintiff's application.
    Description:
    Plaintiff appealed from trial court decision to deny plaintiff's application to enjoin my clients from commencing securities arbitration in NY when certain claims were barred by Connecticut statute of limitations.
  • NASD Arbitration No. 03-07350

    Practice Area:
    Arbitration
    Date:
    Aug 03, 2004
    Outcome:
    Compensatory damages awarded to my client with interest, after full evidentiary hearing
    Description:
    My client, a brokerage firm, claimed against three of its former brokers for breach of contract arising from use of brokerge firm facilitites to establish a competing firm.