Lawrence Robert Gelber

Lawrence Robert Gelber's Legal Cases (12)

Brooklyn, NY

Securities and investment fraud Lawyer at Brooklyn, NY

Practice Areas: Securities & Investment Fraud, Arbitration, Contracts & Agreements

Message View Profile
Message View Profile
Arbitration

FINRA Arbitration No. 09-05218

Jun 08, 2010

OUTCOME: After I tried the case at a full evidentiary hearing, the Ohio Panel ruled fully in favor of my client, ruling the claims were “denied and dismissed, with prejudice.”

Case brought by bond trading firm against my client, another bond trading frim, seeking to rescind a bond trade 4 ½ years after the trade date, but within the 6-year eligibility rule and Ohio 6-year st ... atute of limitations on contract, on the ground of “mutual mistake” under Ohio law. My client sold the bond in a riskless principal transaction. Each side had access, at the time of the trade, to information published by Bloomberg. There was testimony that Bloomberg had omitted an applicable sinking fund schedule, creating the alleged “mutual mistake” - an error in the value (but not the price) of the bond.

Securities and investment fraud

In Re Optionable Securities Litigation

Jun 15, 2009

OUTCOME: Rule 60(b) motion to reopen denied by Crotty.

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

Securities and investment fraud

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

Oct 23, 2008

OUTCOME: Motion to dismiss granted

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 (“OPBLâ ... €). 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”.

Securities and investment fraud

SEC Opinion and Order (Release No.34-55988), decided June 29, 2007.

Oct 01, 2008

OUTCOME: SEC overturned NASD decision

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 capac ... ities 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.

Securities and investment fraud

NASD Arbitration No. 04-06606

Jul 13, 2007

OUTCOME: Persuaded adversary, after multiple hearing sessions, to withdraw all claims against my client.

I represented a securities broker, named as a 3rd party respondent in a lengthy case (23 full hearing sessions) between a large bank and a clearing company alleging fraud in a $1 million bond transacti ... on.

Antitrust and trade law

LoPresti v. Massachusetss Mutual Life Ins. Co., et al., (2004 NY Slip Op. 51223; Sup. Ct. Kings Co.)

Jan 01, 2005

OUTCOME: Dismissed on motion

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.

Arbitration

NASD Arbitration No. 03-07350

Aug 03, 2004

OUTCOME: Compensatory damages awarded to my client with interest, after full evidentiary hearing

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.

Litigation

Sefton v. Hewitt, 4 Misc.3d 1001(A), 791 N.Y.S.2d 873 (NY Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2004)

Jul 15, 2004

OUTCOME: Defendant prevailed at trial.

Breach of contract and professional negligence case brought by disgruntled plaintiff. Bench trial.

Securities and investment fraud

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)

Jan 01, 2002

OUTCOME: Settled

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 settlem ... ent, after mediation, of only 12% of the liability policy, a victory for the defense.

Internet

Barry Diller et ano. v. Steurken et al., 712 N.Y.S.2d 311 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2000)

Jan 01, 2000

OUTCOME: cyber-squatting claim for fees dismissed

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 substan ... tial attorneys' fees. Mr. Gelber defeated that effort on motion.

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
Learn More About the Avvo Rating