BACKGROUND AND PRACTICE

Lawrence Steckman is a member of the law firm Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP and has been litigating securities cases and business disputes for more than twenty years. In July, 2006, Super Lawyers Magazine, in its premiere New York edition, identified Mr. Steckman as one of New York's "Super Lawyers" in the areas of securities and commercial litigation. In 2009, the independent attorney rating service, AVVO, awarded him a rating of “Superb,” its highest achievement level. Mr. Steckman has handled billions of dollars in client matters, has overseen the dismissal of billions of dollars in securities and RICO claims against his clients in private and class suits and has been counsel in a number of leading securities, derivatives, RICO and arbitration cases and matters.

Mr. Steckman’s practice areas include securities and derivatives private and class suits, complex federal and state commercial litigation, prosecuting and defending civil RICO private and class suits, merger and acquisition litigation, bond fraud litigation, general corporate, contract, and tort commercial litigation, international commercial arbitration, broker-dealer and broker-customer securities arbitrations and regulatory matters. He has represented mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, insurance companies, accounting firms, mortgage companies, officers of domestic and foreign companies, investment bankers, brokers, attorneys and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Steckman is the author or co-author of more than forty published works on the law including articles and/or book chapters on federal procedure, constitutional law, securities fraud pleading, insider trading, risk arbitrage, securities remedies, and arbitration. He has published numerous articles on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) including articles on RICO enterprise theory, RICO standing and direct injury, RICO accrual of claims, RICO loss causation and the PSLRA RICO Amendment. Mr. Steckman has also published on government contract law, international terrorism, impeachment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He has lectured on arbitration eligibility, damage computation, securities law and civil RICO.

Experience
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION MATTERS

1. 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 majority owner and controlling shareholder and officer of three Egyptian companies seeking to stay arbitration against him in his personal capacity for bank and bond fraud, breach of contract and market manipulation on claims in excess of $100 million. This decision enjoined a panel of AAA International arbitrators from determining their own jurisdiction to resolve the question of arbitrability presented in the Federal stay action).

2. Apex Equity Partners Inc. v. Murray, 2008 WL 498468 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Feb. 5, 2008) (Fried, J.)(counsel to plaintiff Canadian private equity firm seeking in excess of $95 million for defendant French aero-space 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).

3. Mazzone v. Grant Wilfley Casting, No. 05-2267 (Wigenton, J.) (special RICO defense counsel to leading entertainment casting company and its owner sued for RICO violations based on predicate acts of commercial bribery; actor alleged that refusal to pay bribes resulted in actors failing to be cast in television and movie roles. This order dated January 7, 2008 dismissed plaintiff actor’s claim on summary judgment at oral argument for reasons stated from the Bench, on December 19, 2007).

4. UBS, AG v. Lakah Funding Limited, ICDR Case No. 5 0148T00251 06 (defense counsel to respondent Egyptian issuer and holding, parent and subsidiary guarantor companies in AAA International Arbitration arising from the first Euro Bond Offering in Middle East. This order dated November 7, 2007 denied the claimant banks’ guarantee-based summary judgment motion seeking in excess of $180 million, finding issues of fact regarding respondents’ fraud in the execution defense precluded summary judgment).

5. Riggs v. Mass. Fin. Serv. Co., Civ. No. JFM-04-1162 (2006) (Motz, J.) (defense counsel to officer of national bank 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 MDL 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).

6. Parthasarathy v. RS Invest. Manag., L.P., Civ. No. JFM-04-3798 (2006)(Motz, J.)(defense counsel to officer of national bank 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 global memorandum decision In re Mut. Funds Invest. Litig., 384 F.Supp.2d 845 (D.Md. Aug. 35, 2005) (Janus Subtrack), dismissed all claims against bank officer, with prejudice).

7. Enright v. Park Avenue Securities, et al, 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 and five day trial against non-settling individual broker respondents, Panel awarded claimant extra-compensatory (benefit-of-the-bargain) damages of $88,000, $87,000 in attorney’s fees, and $100,000 in punitive damages against broker).

8. Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 23 A.D.3d 269, 808 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep’t 2005) (defense counsel to respondent/president and chairman of one of Germany’s largest energy and defense conglomerates in private action seeking more than $60 million in civil RICO damages arising from a multi-billion dollar alleged fraud. This decision affirmed dismissal on forum non-conveniens grounds, finding Germany a more appropriate forum, despite the unavailability of RICO and punitive remedies, alleged inadequate discovery and trial procedures and lack of jury trials, under German law).

9. Wyser-Pratte v. Babcock Borsig, AG, 2004 WL 3312835 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. July 8, 2004) (Ramos, J.) (defense counsel for defendant president and chairman, arguing forum non motion on behalf of all defendants).

10. 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 against all insurers rejecting claim that insurers violated RICO by fraudulently denying, in coordinated fashion, no-fault medical provider claims).

11. Higgins v. The Boston Group, et al, N.A.S.D. No. 99-04205 (N.A.S.D. Arbitration) (defense counsel to investment banker; after 5 years, claimant withdrew $10 million in claims on sanctions threat).

12. Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2003) (defense counsel in class suit against retailer. This decision affirmed dismissal of class action, holding plaintiffs’ claim that collective bargaining agreement provision was illegal under NY law was pre-empted under Labor Management Relations Act Sec. 301).

13. Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., 295 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2002) (special derivatives counsel to plaintiff trader in private securities fraud action seeking in excess of $40 million in losses arising from defendant’s abandonment of a synthetic option hedging strategy. This decision held subject synthetic swap and option transactions are governed by §10(b) of the Exchange Act, in the first case to construe the effect of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act on securities-based swap agreements and synthetic derivatives).

14. Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. v. Morson, 2002 WL 31819577 (2d Cir. 2002) (respondent’s counsel on appeal in franchise matter. This decision affirmed the jury’s award of $1.7 million, full recovery, and denied counterclaim).

15. Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. v. Morson, 2001 WL 1568317 (S.D.N.Y. December 6, 2001) (Maas, J.) (plaintiff’s counsel in franchise matter. This decision refused to grant defendants a new trial or to amend full recovery of $1.7 million jury award in plaintiff’s favor).

16. 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 in an action alleging Rule 10b-5 and civil RICO claims. This decision dismissed all securities claims against defendants that remained after plaintiff’s counsel, on defense motion pursuant to Rule 11, voluntarily dismissed four separate RICO claims, under threat of sanctions).

17. Washington National Insurance Company 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 securities fraud suit seeking $22 million damages arising from $200 million fraud. This decision denied underwriter, issuer and law firm defendants’ motions for summary judgment, after nine years of litigation).

18. 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 target of proxy fight takeover attempt of closed end mutual fund. This decision refused to dismiss Section 16 claims filed by the target, as plaintiff, against potential acquirer in defensive New York federal action. This decision was issued after a Maryland state court denied five summary judgment motions brought by defendant to obtain shareholder list and after target filed RICO claims against acquirer).

19. X v. Y, __ U.S.D.C. __ (____) (defense counsel to rating company in SLAPP defamation suit 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 a confidential and sealed settlement).

20. Jeffries v. Harleston, 21 F.3d 1238 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, judgment vacated by Harleston v. Jeffries, 513 U.S. 996 (1994), on remand, Jeffries v. Harleston, 52 F.3d 9 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Jeffries v. Harleston, 516 U.S. 862 (1995)(counsel to amicus The Anti-defamation League supporting City University of New York officials who removed head of University’s Black Studies Department for anti-Semitic statements – after Supreme Court vacatur of Second Circuit decision which held Department head’s First Amendment rights were violated by University officials, on remand, Second Circuit held that the professor’s statements had insufficient First Amendment protection to have precluded dismissal by University officials).

21. 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 affirmed the trial court holding that where eligibility for arbitration is defined by contract, arbitrators, not courts, should make eligibility determinations; arbitral eligibility is not a “jurisdictional” determination which only courts can make).

22. 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.) (motion counsel to respondent opposing petitioners’ application to have the court determine arbitral eligibility under then NASD eligibility rule. This decision denied petitioners’ application holding the Panel should decide the eligibility issue, in a case of first impression).

23. Martin Pincus Marketing v. Sawyer of Napa, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)(counsel to third party defendant for breach of exclusive sales contract. This decision held plaintiff had duty to affirmatively disclose its intent to sell competing product line and that its failure to affirmatively state it would no longer sell manufacturer's product constituted fraud in inducement of contract, precluding contract recovery).

24. 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 securities fraud and civil RICO claims).

REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS AND CITATIONS

1. Index Adjusted Portfolio Damages in Securities and Investment Fraud Litigation, 2 Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 360 (No. 4, September, 2009) (co-author R. Conner).

2. The Unsuitability of the “Suitability Rule” -- Why FINRA’s Current Interpretation of Conduct Rule 2310 Undermines Investor “Holding Claim” Entitlements in Contemporary Markets, 2008 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 15, 177-230 (P.L.I. 2008) (co-authors R. Conner and J. Trainer), reprinted in modified form 2 Pepperdine Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and the Law 122 (No. 1, 2009).

3. Mitigation of Damages in Commercial and Securities Litigation and Arbitration – When is Proposed Mitigating Conduct Unreasonably Risky?, 2 Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 103 (March, 2009, No. 2) (co-authors R. Conner, C. Bellaire).

4. 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 (2009) (January 2009)

5. Derivative Standing for New York LLC Members – the Conflict Continues, 79 New York State Bar Journal 33 (No. 8, October, 2007) (co-authors Dennis Rothman, Yoko Yamamoto).

6. 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 in modified form, 21 Touro Law Review 1083-1297 (2006), cited Mitchell, Cunningham and Lentz, 13 Fordham J. Corp. and Fin. L. 1 at n.133 (2008).

7. 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).

8. Mitigation of Damages in Securities Litigation and Securities Arbitration, 2004 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 19, at 585 (P.L.I., New York 2004) (co-authors R. Conner, C. Bellaire and S. Getzoff).

9. Mitigation of Damages and Undue Risks, New York Law Journal, July 7, 2003 at 4, col. 4 (co-author S. Getzoff).

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

11. 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).

12. Computation of Benefit of the Bargain Damages in Rule 10b-5 Cases Alleging Fraud in the Sale of Bonds, 2001 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Vol. II, Ch. 37, at 1127 (P.L.I., New York 2001) (co-author R. Conner).

13. 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, 2 LAW SEC. REG., § 12.25 (4th ed), at n. 47 (2007).

14. 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 at 375-538 (P.L.I., New York 1998), reprinted RICO Law Reporter, Vol. 28, No. 2, at 173-231 (Aug. 1998), reprinted Securities Reform Act Litigation 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 Berkleley Bus. L. J. 337, 380, n.57 (2006).

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

16. 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 Litigation Section, Fall, 1998), reprinted 1999 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, ch. 29, at 903-942 (P.L.I. N.Y. 1999) (co-author C. Hecht), cited Lowenfels & Bromberg, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1083, 1113, n.62 (2000); HAZEN, 4 LAW SEC. REG. § 14.20[1], (5th ed.), at n.24 (2007).

17. Litigating State Statute of Limitations Defenses in Securities Arbitration, in 1996 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 12 at 645-678 (P.L.I., New York 1996) (co-author L. Kushnick); cited Davis, 62 Brook. L. Rev. 1561, 1573 (1996).

18. 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? A Proposal For Fixing Plaintiffs’ Counsel Fees in Class Action Cases, New York Litigator, Vol. 2, No. 2 at 56-68 (November 1996) (principal co-author).

19. Pleading Scienter in Securities Fraud Cases Under Rule 9(b): Is the Pleading of Facts Sufficient to Give Rise to a AStrong 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).

20. 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.

21. Arbitral Awards in Excess of Actual Damages, New York Law Journal, Jan. 11, 1996 at 1, col. 1 (co-author R. Conner).

22. 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.

23. 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), discussed in JEROLD S. SOLOVNY and DOUGLAS REES, RICO, Sec. 69.3, text at n. 43 (available Westlaw, 1998).

24. Computing Damages in Rule 10b-5 Unsuitability Cases: Litigating “Offset” Defenses, in 1994 SECURITIES ARBITRATION, Ch. 24 at 377-431, Practicing Law Institute (New York, 1994) (co-author R. Conner), cited Berg, 1995 SECURITIES ARBITRATION 507, 522 (P.L.I. New York 1995).

25. Securities Arbitration and Contractual Consent: the Effect of SICA’s Arbitrators’ Manual on Punitive Damage Remedies in the NASD, Securities Arbitration Commentator, Vol. VI, No. 8, Sept. 1994, at 1.

26. 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.

27. 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).

28. Risk Arbitrage & Insider Trading: a Functional Analysis of the Fiduciary Concept Under Rule 10b-5, 5 Touro L. Rev. 121-188, Fall 1988; cited Rowley, 9 Causes of Action, Second Series, 271, Text at § 79.20 (2006).

ADDITIONAL PUBLICATION AND CITATIONS

1. 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).

2. Policy, 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).

3. 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).

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

5. 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).

6. 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).

7. Attorney Inaction as Trial Strategy: A Study of the Effects of Judicial Use of Non-Action Neutral Language on the Analysis and Adjudication of Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Under the Sixth Amendment, 6 Journal of the Suffolk Academy of Law 89-130, Fall 1989 (co-author P. Daley), cited Wilson, 22 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1117, 1171, ns. 144, 147, 157 (1996); cited Van Arsdel, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 835, 868, n.252 (2002); cited Cunningham-Parmeter, 76 Temp. L. Rev. 827, 882, n.106 (Winter, 2003).

8. Terrorism, Ideology and Rules of International Law, 1 Touro Journal of Transnational Law 213-256, Fall 1988 (co-author T. Aldridge), 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).

LECTURES AND SEMINARS

1. 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.
2. Securities Class Action Suits, Webnar, October 29, 2009, Fireman’s Fund Insurance.
3. Securities Class Suits – Recent Developments, October 29, 2009, in-house CLE firm presentation focusing on recent case developments affecting securities class suits.
4. Litigating Securities and RICO Class Suits After SLUSA, February 22, 2006 lecture regarding the conflict among the Circuits on SLUSA pre-emption of state securities claims, and the impact of SLUSA on RICO cases, after the 1995 Reform Act’s RICO Amendment.
5. The Effect of 20th Century Philosophy on Contemporary Securities, Derivatives and RICO Litigation, Invited Lecturer to address the Business and Philosophy Departments of C.W. Post College, Long Island University, March 16, 2002, discussing impact of philosophical analysis on current jurisprudence on proximate causation and accrual of claims.
6. 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 and Exemplary Damages, January-February, 1995
7. Pleading Civil RICO Claims in New York Federal Courts, Touro Law Center, May 1992