About choosing a Securities Lawyer in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and Florida

Securities Lawsuits

The securities litigation and arbitration department at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP investigates hundreds of securities and corporate related claims every year. NBRS’s practice focuses on securities litigation and arbitration, whistle blower complaints, consumer fraud, employment related securities matters. Our substantial experience in the securities area is crucial in assisting our clients to navigate the industry’s numerous regulatory entities and laws to obtain the results you want.

The attorney’s in this department specialize in rooting out all kinds of financial industry and corporate abuses including fraud, conflicts of interest, and broker negligence. Widely known and highly respected, the law firm of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP and its securities arbitration attorneys have handled hundreds of securities cases and recovered millions of dollars in settlements and awards for victims of fraud and misconduct.

Cases and Settlements of Note

Securities Lawsuits & Settlements

• Client v. McGinn Smith & Co.  The firm represented a retail customer of a registered broker-dealer in a fraud and self-dealing case.  Following a three-day arbitration, a panel of three arbitrators found McGinn Smith guilty of self-dealing and awarded our client his full out of pocket losses.
• Client v. UBS Financial Services Inc.  The firm represented a retail customer in the inappropriate purchase of a private placement that defaulted on its debt.  The Client argued that the purchase of the private placement violated the Investment Advisor Act of 1940’s “Qualified Purchaser” provision that was designed to protect consumers from investing in speculative investments.  The panel awarded the Client restitution with interest.
• Platovsky v. City of New York.  The trial court’s order was affirmed in favor of our client, a litigation financial services company, finding that an arbitration clause in a litigation financing contract was effective against the contracting litigant despite collateral claims that the matter should remain in Supreme Court because the contracting litigant claimed that his trial attorney had been dismissed for cause.