Teller v. Denison ⇒ $1.3 million

The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.3 million, including in excess of $349,000 in attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a client who alleged a breach of contract in connection with the private sale of securities.

site navigation
Attorney Profile
Practice Areas
Case Results
Reviews
In The News
Contact Info
Home Page

“Cary Lapidus is probably the most well prepared attorney with whom I have ever dealt. He has excellent judgment and understanding of the law. Most important of all, he is highly ethical and those who deal with him know that his word is his bond.“
Paul Dubow
Opposing Counsel & Mediator in Six Cases

In The News

PRUDENTIAL MAY FACE NEW ROUND OF LAWSUITS
Kurt Eichewald
New York Times
July 06, 1994

After complaining that their brokers misled them into joining a criticized class action settlement, some former clients of Prudential Securities who lost millions in a real estate investment may be getting another day in court. But the litigation this time would focus not on securities trades, but rather on a more unusual contention: that some Prudential brokers were practicing law without a license.
A ruling quietly issued recently by a Federal judge has caused a number of former clients and their lawyers to explore bringing new litigation against the firm and its brokers for actions they say were taken in the class settlement of claims arising from Prudential's sale of the VMS Mortgage Investment Fund in the late 1980's.
In her ruling, Judge Susan Conlon, who oversaw the VMS case in Federal District Court in Chicago, held that four Michigan investors could bring a new lawsuit against their brokers for dispensing legal advice without a license. Investors who participated in the settlement in 1991 saw a return of pennies for each dollar they invested, while some investors who sued the firm individually received far more. A Different Tack
Lawyers for some former Prudential clients said the ruling would give investors their first opportunity to bring to trial their accusations that they were misled into joining the settlement.
Other efforts at bringing suit on the issue have usually focused on claims of fraud or negligent misrepresentation, and Judge Conlon has essentially ruled that those matters were covered by the class action settlement.
'Before this order, these clients had no redress,' said Cary Lapidus, a lawyer who represents investors who say they were misled. 'If Judge Conlon is now allowing some investors to pursue their claims outside of the class action, then she has provided an avenue of relief for them.'
Prudential has repeatedly denied that clients were misled into joining the settlement. William Ahearn, a Prudential spokesman, said a number of memos distributed through Prudential's internal computer system had instructed brokers to offer no advice about the settlement. 'We are confident that those advisories have been heeded,' he said.
Judge Conlon ruled on the matter because she retained control of the class action after the settlement was reached, and so still hears cases involving disputes between Prudential and investors who were part of the class action.
Her decision, which was first reported in Securities Week, a trade publication, came after Prudential filed a motion with Judge Conlon asking her to enforce the settlement and dismiss the cases. Prudential has filed a motion for Judge Conlon to reconsider her decision.
In interviews and in complaints filed with regulators, former clients and former brokers have said that Prudential and some brokers misled investors by persuading them to join the class action settlement. Some former brokers have said they were instructed by their managers to mislead clients about their legal rights, telling them that the class action was their only legal remedy.
In fact, the clients could have brought individual lawsuits against the firm. Former clients said that once they were told they had no other legal option, they agreed to participate in the class action settlement.
These assertions are being investigated by regulators and Government officials.

Please contact us for assistance with securities arbitration law, securities litigation, broker misconduct, investment advisor misconduct and investment losses.



	Teller v. Denison ⇒ $1.3 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.3 million, including in excess of $349,000 in attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a client who alleged a breach of contract in connection with the private sale of securities. Bourdev v. JPMorgan Chase ⇒ $350,000 + revision of Form U-5 language $350,000 on behalf of a registered representative/banker who was terminated from JPMorgan Chase. After a full evidentiary hearing, a FINRA arbitration panel awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for defamation and/or wrongful termination and ordered that the language on her Form U-5 be changed to reflect that she did not engage in any wrongdoing and that the company conducted a deficient investigation. Breiman v. Round Hill Securities, Inc. et. al. ⇒ $1.44 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.44 million on behalf of clients who alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentations in connection with their securities portfolio. Hall v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, et. al. ⇒ $1.76 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.76 million for clients who sustained losses in a complex investment known as a Prepaid Variable Forward Contract. The clients also alleged the recommendation of unsuitable investments in their stock portfolio. WCM, LLC v. Cooper ⇒ $1.56 million (plus attorneys fees and expenses) The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an award of $1.56 million on behalf of a registered investment advisory firm and two of its partners who retained Lapidus to recover money allegedly misappropriated by one of their partners. In addition to the $1.56 million monetary award, Lapidus' clients were awarded their attorneys' fees and expenses. The arbitrator also found that the firm's expulsion of the partner was "For Cause". Dozens of settlements and awards on behalf of clients Cary S. Lapidus has obtained dozens of settlements, awards and judgments on behalf of his clients since leaving the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he worked in the Enforcement and Market Regulation Divisions. Smurzynski v. Kensington Wells, Inc., et. al. ⇒ $1.84 million (including $1 million in punitive damages and interest) The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.84 million including $1 million in punitive damages and interest for clients who alleged that the stocks they invested in were manipulated and that material facts were misrepresented to them. Levinthal v. First Republic Securities Company, LLC ⇒ $2.17 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus recovered $2.17 million for clients who sustained losses in a complex municipal arbitrage bond fund. The clients alleged that the fund was unsuitable for them and that the firm that recommended and sold the investment had failed to perform proper due diligence. The award is notable for awarding the full amount of the clients' damages, including out-of-pocket losses and arbitration expenses. Pacific Stock Exchange v. Cox Securities, et. al. ⇒ $1.54 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an award of $1.54 million on behalf of the Pacific Stock Exchange who retained Lapidus as special counsel to prosecute the case. In addition to the monetary award, Lapidus obtained a Decision ordered the permanent bar of the Pacific Exchange member from membership with the Pacific Stock Exchange. Coutant v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, et. al. ⇒ $1.01 million The Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus obtained an arbitration award of $1.01 million on behalf of clients who alleged that their securities brokerage firm failed to diversity their account, placed them in unsuitable investments and misrepresented the risks of options trading.
site navigation Attorney Profile Practice Areas Case Results Reviews In The News Contact Info Home Page “Cary Lapidus is probably the most well prepared attorney with whom I have ever dealt. He has excellent judgment and understanding of the law. Most important of all, he is highly ethical and those who deal with him know that his word is his bond.“ Paul Dubow Opposing Counsel & Mediator in Six Cases		In The News PRUDENTIAL MAY FACE NEW ROUND OF LAWSUITS Kurt Eichewald New York Times July 06, 1994 After complaining that their brokers misled them into joining a criticized class action settlement, some former clients of Prudential Securities who lost millions in a real estate investment may be getting another day in court. But the litigation this time would focus not on securities trades, but rather on a more unusual contention: that some Prudential brokers were practicing law without a license. A ruling quietly issued recently by a Federal judge has caused a number of former clients and their lawyers to explore bringing new litigation against the firm and its brokers for actions they say were taken in the class settlement of claims arising from Prudential's sale of the VMS Mortgage Investment Fund in the late 1980's. In her ruling, Judge Susan Conlon, who oversaw the VMS case in Federal District Court in Chicago, held that four Michigan investors could bring a new lawsuit against their brokers for dispensing legal advice without a license. Investors who participated in the settlement in 1991 saw a return of pennies for each dollar they invested, while some investors who sued the firm individually received far more. A Different Tack Lawyers for some former Prudential clients said the ruling would give investors their first opportunity to bring to trial their accusations that they were misled into joining the settlement. Other efforts at bringing suit on the issue have usually focused on claims of fraud or negligent misrepresentation, and Judge Conlon has essentially ruled that those matters were covered by the class action settlement. 'Before this order, these clients had no redress,' said Cary Lapidus, a lawyer who represents investors who say they were misled. 'If Judge Conlon is now allowing some investors to pursue their claims outside of the class action, then she has provided an avenue of relief for them.' Prudential has repeatedly denied that clients were misled into joining the settlement. William Ahearn, a Prudential spokesman, said a number of memos distributed through Prudential's internal computer system had instructed brokers to offer no advice about the settlement. 'We are confident that those advisories have been heeded,' he said. Judge Conlon ruled on the matter because she retained control of the class action after the settlement was reached, and so still hears cases involving disputes between Prudential and investors who were part of the class action. Her decision, which was first reported in Securities Week, a trade publication, came after Prudential filed a motion with Judge Conlon asking her to enforce the settlement and dismiss the cases. Prudential has filed a motion for Judge Conlon to reconsider her decision. In interviews and in complaints filed with regulators, former clients and former brokers have said that Prudential and some brokers misled investors by persuading them to join the class action settlement. Some former brokers have said they were instructed by their managers to mislead clients about their legal rights, telling them that the class action was their only legal remedy. In fact, the clients could have brought individual lawsuits against the firm. Former clients said that once they were told they had no other legal option, they agreed to participate in the class action settlement. These assertions are being investigated by regulators and Government officials. Please contact us for assistance with securities arbitration law, securities litigation, broker misconduct, investment advisor misconduct and investment losses.
Practice Areas \| Results \| Attorney Profile \| Reviews \| News \| Contact Us \| Home
© Copyright 2023 Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus. All rights reserved. site by 5 happiness webmaster \| ADMIN back to top