The Resolution Law Group approach your case in a manner and passion that gives you the best possible chance to win.

The Resolution Law Group, P.C., is a premier boutique law firm engaging in high-stakes commercial and private disputes, encompassing a broad range of legal services. With a national complex litigation practice and a strategic alliance of contract litigators and law firms, seasoned in targeted legal disciplines, we have emerged as a firm taking on consumer advocacy at the national level.

Resolution Law Group lawyers and its contract litigating partners focus their talents on helping clients achieve the best possible results in their trial and arbitration matters. The Resolution Law Group is directed in its ability to handle the most difficult legal situations with targeted and steadfast intensity.

The Resolution Law Group has a reputation for a “bet the company” commitment and in its efforts to prevail in cases where the opposition is formidable and more securely funded. This area of “Complex Tort Litigation”, at its broadest base is cutting edge, and focused on the lending abuses of the nation’s leading residential lenders, and the impact of those practices on the national economy.

In lender litigation, one specialized arena, the firm is engaging institutions that have comparatively unlimited financial resources. As we now know, the nation’s largest financial organizations, who have been found responsible of fraud, continue to avoid their moral and financial responsibility to the American Homeowner. Through Complex Tort Litigation, the firm is leveling the playing field and holding these defendants accountable for violations of state and federal laws.

The trial lawyers at The Resolution Law Group approach your case in a manner and with a passion that gives you the best possible chance to win.

The Resolution Law Group have worked on virtually every type of commercial dispute. Although a boutique firm, we have earned a reputation for handling some of the toughest and most high-profile cases in the U.S. High-stakes and huge-exposure matters are the firm’s forté, although we handle all manner of small- and medium-sized disputes for a variety of clients. Our approach to litigation is lean and efficient and is always focused on our client’s goals. The Resolution Law Group’s lawyers bring both intense legal expertise and top-notch trial skills to the task. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and we use those collective skills on every matter we handle.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: Mediation, Arbitration, Litigation: What is Best?

There are three forms of formal dispute resolution to resolve a legal dispute which informal negotiations have fulfilled: mediation, arbitration, or litigation. Understanding the benefits and drawbacks of each is important to decide which method is best to resolve a dispute.
Mediation.

Mediation is a process where a neutral third party assists in resolving the dispute. Mediators are typically lawyers or retired judges who have extensive experience in the field in which parties have a dispute. The decision to settle is always up to the parties. Mediators do not have the power to issue a binding decision. Instead, mediators can often provide their opinion on how they believe matters will be resolved through a litigation or an arbitration and lead the parties to agree by explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each others’ case.

Mediators will often ask the parties to submit confidential written statements and documents that support the parties position to the mediator before the mediation. On the day of the mediation, the parties will meet at a pre-arranged location with the mediator. The process typically involves the parties providing a short explanation of their side of the case to the mediator. The parties will then break into separate rooms and the mediator will shuttle between rooms to discuss the dispute and a resolution.

Mediation is typically confidential. Mediations resolve disputes quickly and are far less expensive than arbitration or litigation, and allow the parties to control the outcome.

Arbitration.Arbitration utilizes a neutral third party to decide a dispute. In arbitration, a dispute is submitted to an arbitrator who makes a binding decision. An arbitrator will review the evidence submitted by all parties and then render a binding decision which can then be entered by a court and enforced. Both parties must agree, typically in writing, to submit to arbitration in order to obtain a binding judgment. Arbitration agreements are controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act and the New Jersey Arbitration Act.Arbitration is typically less expensive and faster than litigation. Discovery of information between the parties is typically limited to the exchange of relevant documents, thereby further reducing costs. Arbitrations themselves are conducted like trials, but less formal and in private.

Arbitrations are conducted by one to three arbitrators depending on the complexity of the matter. Arbitrators are then compensated for their time by the parties. Generally, an unfavorable arbitration ruling cannot be appealed, but that finality can make arbitration less expensive.

Litigation.

The most conventional method of resolving legal disputes is through litigation. Litigation refers to the resolution of disputes between parties in state or federal court.

Generally, litigation is conducted in phases, consisting of pleadings (a complaint and answer), discovery, pretrial motions, trial, and possibly appeal. The party initiating suit file a complaint with the court and pays the appropriate fee. Once the complaint is filed, it must be served on the defendants, who are then given between 20 and 35 days to file an answer. Once the complaint and answer are filed the case moves to the discovery phase.

Discovery provides the parties with the opportunity to ask questions to obtain information from the other side about the claims and defenses that are asserted, and see their evidence in advance. Discovery is conducted by applicable state or federal rules. Typically each party will be required to provide answers to written questions, called interrogatories, and produce documents that each party intends to rely upon at trial. The parties are also provided with an opportunity to depose witnesses. A deposition is an opportunity for a party to ask another party or witnesses questions, under oath, for later use in court.

Once discovery is completed, the parties typically file motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a request, by the party filing the motion, that it should win the case because there are no disputed facts which require a trial so it is entitled to a decision in its favor.

Trial is the final step in litigation if the case not is not resolved with a summary judgment motion. A trial can last anywhere from one day to several months, depending on the complexity of a case. The parties can obtain money damages or “equitable” relief such as injunctions and restraining orders. Parties can appeal the verdict.

How Do I Mediate, Arbitrate, or Litigate?

You should always seek experienced counsel early in a legal dispute. Parties can always agree to mediate a matter to obtain an expedited resolution. An experienced attorney can represent the parties in mediation to lead them to a positive outcome.

If parties intend to have an arbitrator resolve a future dispute, they should see an experienced New Jersey contract attorneys. Experienced attorneys can carefully draft arbitration agreements requiring parties to arbitrate future disputes, and can zealously represent their interest in arbitration.

A party is always entitled to litigate if it does not want to mediate or the parties do not have a written arbitration agreement.

The Resolution Law Group attorneys regularly represent people and businesses in mediation, arbitration, and litigation, including drafting arbitration agreements, and litigating disputes about the enforcement of arbitration agreements. If you are an investor that needs mediation, arbitration, or litigation , do not hesitate to contact our The Resolution Law Group today at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

The Resolution Law Group: Former Broker Claims He is the Reason FINRA’s Regional Director Resigned, While Ex-JP Morgan Broker Files Arbitration Claim Against His Former Employer

According to former broker David Evansen, he is the reason that Mitchel C. Atkins, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.’s District 7 region director, resigned. His claim differs from the SRO’s statement about how Atkins decided to step down “pursue other interests.” Aktins, as FINRA regional director, was in charge of Florida, Atlanta, New Orleans and Dallas, and he worked with the agency for 20 years.

Evansen said that he wrote to FINRA chief executive Richard Ketchum and regulatory operations EVP Susan Axelrod to let them know that Atkins was indicted on both a misdemeanor and felony charge in Louisiana two decades ago. He said that he couldn’t confirm for sure that his letter is why Atkins resigned but he is convinced that it is.

Per Evansen, Atkins purportedly used bingo game earnings for non-charitable purposes, which is illegal in that state. While the felony charge was dropped, Evansen said that Atkins pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge. After Atkins complied with his sentence term, which included conditional probation, community service, and other specifics, his record was expunged.

Evansen is no longer a member of the industry. A FINRA hearing barred him last year after he purportedly answer questions regarding a number of customer complaints made against him during his time at Newbridge Securities Corp. Evansen is appealing the ban, claiming he was not properly told about the inquiry. He also maintains that he did answer FINRA’s questions.

Another broker who recently has been making waves is Bryant Tchan, who was formerly with JP Morgan (JPM) and his now with U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. Tchan filed an arbitration claim against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the bank’s securities unit, claiming that commissions to brokers for outside fund trades were withheld in order to push proprietary fund sales.

Tchan contends that there was an internal review system that identified nonproprietary fund trades and brokers had 30 days to respond to inquiries or risk losing compensation. He says that the system withheld pay despite the fact that outside mutual fund trades took place and clients were billed sales fees. Meantime, Tchan claims, he was discouraged from using other vendors.

He says he was forced to step down from his job and exit a “hostile work environment.’ Tchan contends that after complaining about the supervisory system, a compliance officer and his supervisor implied he would be let go because they didn’t believe him when he said that specific switches he made, which included changing certain clients’ stock mutual funds into bond funds that were nonproprietary, were executed to help portfolios better meet client goals.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

The Resolution Law Group: Basis Of Our Multi-Party Lawsuits

While each suit is different, below are examples of some of the causes of action we are arguing. For each client, The Resolution Law Group will argue the causes of action that may apply to that client’s particular circumstances.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the loan modification process (taking trial payments on the promise of a permanent modification then denying the permanent modification)
Fraudulent concealment of the facts of securitization process by lenders to homeowners.
State consumer protection laws
Breach of contract
Fraud in the modification process
Fair debt collection practices Act
Negligent servicing (failing to properly apply payments per Fannie Mac Note Agreement)
Truth in Lending Act Violations
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Violations
Common Law Fraud
RICO
Slander of Title
Unfair Business Practices (falsification of homeowners’ loan documents)
Violations of Civil Code (wrongful foreclosure)
Violations of Commercial Code (ownership of the note)
The fraudulent and illegal use of MERS in connection with those loans and mortgages
Defendants’ failure to perform their obligations required, pursuant to accepting TARP funds
Defendants’ breach of Plaintiffs‘ statutorily protected rights
Defendants breach and willful violation of numerous consumer and homeowner protection statutes and the willful violations of unfair business practices statutes.
Accepting money, transferring alleged assets, and foreclosing upon alleged assets in instances where the alleged assets do not exist, and in which these Defendants have no right, title, or interest upon which they can act; and
Defendants’ continuing tortuous conduct.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation. Our attorneys are here to help institutional investors recoup losses that are a result of a financial scam or negligence. Your consultation with us is free.

Investor in Goldman Sachs Special Opportunities Fund 2006 to Get $2.5M FINRA Arbitration Award For Allegedly Unsuitable Investment

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Panel is ordering Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) to pay about $2.5M to Tracy Landow for recommending that she invest in the Goldman Sachs Special Opportunities Fund 2006, which she is now contending was an investment that was not appropriate for her. Landow filed her arbitration claim against the unit and her broker a couple of years ago, claiming that unauthorized trades were made. She also alleged misrepresentation and failure to supervise.

The FINRA arbitration panel determined that Goldman liable, ordering the financial firm to compensate the claimant with $1.6M in damages plus about $1M in interest and additional fees. Broker John D. Blondel, Jr., however, was not found responsible. The panel determined that he did not play a part in the alleged investment sales-related violation, theft, forgery, misappropriation, or fund conversion and he was not accountable for the private equity fund and the transactions that resulted. It is recommending that his name be expunged from the case.

Meantime, Landow’s interest in the fund will go back to the financial firm within 30 days from the award date.

FINRA Arbitration
If you believe that your investment losses were a result of broker negligence, you may have grounds for filing a claim with FINRA. It is important that the investment your financial firm recommended to you was suitable for your needs and goals and did not place you at risk of suffering huge losses that your account could not handle.

At The Resolution Law Group P.C., it is our business to recover securities losses on behalf of our clients. Contact us today at www.TheResolutionLawGroup.com.

Many Investors Find that Securities Arbitration Can Be Better than Court

The dismissal of an Apple REIT class action lawsuit against David Lerner Associates Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York should have little effect on the Apple REIT arbitration cases that are being resolved through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. In fact, most investors are likely to recoup their losses via this avenue.

Per Bloomberg, Investors are contending that they were defrauded in the underwriting and sale of more than $6.8 billion Apple Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which were marketed as suitable for conservative investors. Meantime, Lerner Associates earned over $600 million in commissions and fees as five Apple REITs made above $6 billion.

Last year alone, FINRA told David Lerner to pay $12 million in Apple REIT Ten restitution to investors. The financial firm allegedly targeted elderly investors, misleading them while failing to properly disclose the risks involved in the securities.

In this class action case, the judge threw out the plaintiffs’ arguments that the offering materials for the Apple REITs had misrepresentations. Yet, it isn’t so much that Lerner made representations about the real estate investment trusts but that they were not suitable for the investors that he is currently recommending.

This means that even if the risks were properly disclosed, if the investment was unsuitable for the client it was recommended to, there could likely be grounds for a securities case and resulting recovery.

Securities class action cases can only be pursued under federal securities fraud laws. Securities arbitration claims can be sought under state securities laws, which are usually far better for investors. As well, such claims can be sought for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and even negligence. More importantly, the average recovery in securities class action cases is less than 10% of the investors’ losses. For these and other reasons, many investors’ cases fare better in securities arbitration than in court.

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Bank Fraud, please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

In Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, the US Supreme Court has issued a ruling holding that federal and state courts have to follow the Federal Arbitration Act and support any arbitration agreement that is covered under the statute. The Court said that the FAA pre-empts a state law that doesn’t allow the enforcement of this type of agreement, which requires that personal injury and wrongful claims against nursing homes be resolved outside of court. By holding, the Supreme Court was reaffirming its holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that FAA displaces conflicting rule when state law doesn’t allow the arbitration of a certain kind of claim.

In this latest ruling, the Court examined three nursing home negligence lawsuits filed by the relatives of patients that died at assisted living facilities. Each family had a signed agreement noting that any disputes, except for those regarding non-payment, would be dealt with via arbitration. Although the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims because of the arbitration agreements, the West Virginia Supreme Court decided to reverse the court’s ruling, holding that public policy of the state prevented a pre-occurrence arbitration agreement in an admission contract for a nursing home that mandated that a negligence claim over wrongful death or personal injury be resolved through arbitration.

By issuing this decision the state’s Supreme Court was rejecting the way the US Supreme Court interpreted the FAA on the grounds that Congress would not have meant for the Act to be applicable to civil claims of injury or death that are tangentially connected to a contract—especially when needed service is a factor.

The US Supreme Court, however, reversed that decision, staying with its own interpretation of the FAA being controlling and a lower court not being able to ignore precedent. The Court sent the case back to state court where inquiry into whether the provision allowing only for arbitration can’t be enforced under state common law principals not specifically addressing arbitration and therefore the FAA wouldn’t pre-empt.

At The Resolution Law Group, our stockbroker fraud law firm represents individual and institutional investors with securities fraud claims and lawsuits. We have helped thousands of investors recoup their losses via arbitration and through the courts. With securities fraud, the majority of claims have to be resolved through arbitration. One reason for this is that most investors that sign up for accounts through brokerage firms almost always end up agreeing to binding arbitration clauses.

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to elder financial abuse, please contact our securities law firm at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is allowing a $20.5M award issued by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel against Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP to stand. The court turned down Goldman’s claim that the award should be vacated because it was issued in “manifest disregard of the law” and said that the clearing arm must pay this amount to the unsecured creditors of the now failed Bayou hedge fund group known as the Bayou Funds, which proved to be a large scale Ponzi scam.

Goldman was the prime broker and only clearing broker for the funds. After the scheme collapsed in 2005, the Bayou Funds sought bankruptcy protection the following year. Regulators would go on to sue the fund’s funders over the Ponzi scam and the losses sustained by investors. Meantime, an Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group was appointed to represent the debtors’ unsecured debtors. Blaming Goldman for not noticing the red flags that a Ponzi fraud was in the works, the committee proceeded to bring its arbitration claims against the clearing firm through FINRA. In 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the committee $20.58M against Goldman.

In affirming the arbitration award, the 2nd Circuit said that in this case, Goldman did not satisfy the manifest disregard standard. As an example, the court pointed to the $6.7M that was moved into the Bayou Funds from outside accounts in June 2005 and June 2004. While the committee had contended during arbitration that these deposits were “fraudulent transfers” and could be recovered from Goldman because they were an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550(a), Goldman did not counter that the deposits weren’t fraudulent or that it was on inquiry notice of fraud. Instead, it claimed the deposits were not an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550 and the panel had ignored the law by finding that it was.

Offering a rejoinder, the court agreed with the district court that Goldman’s argument for manifest disegard doesn’t succeed due to the recent case of Bear Stearns Securities Corp. v. Greddin, during which the Southern District of New York upheld the arbitration favoring the Creditors’ Committee. The court said it therefore could not conclude that arbitrators “manifestly disregarded the law” when they applied the legal principles in Greddin to impose on Goldman transferee liability.

The appeals court also found that arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law as this relates to the $13.9M in transfers from the original Bayou fund to four new ones in March 2003. It affirmed the lower court’s decision that prejudgment interest should be awarded to the committee per the federal rate in 28 USC §961 and not the New York statutory rate.

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Arbitration, please contact our securities law firm at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

	Morgan Stanley (MS)（… on The Resolution Law Group: Morg…
	training dog on FINRA Plan May Dramatically Ch…
	transportation on The Resolution Law Group: Pres…
	What Rolling Stone K… on Freddie Mac recently filed a m…

The Resolution Law Group

Lender Litigation and Securitization Law Blog

Category Archives: Arbitration

The Resolution Law Group approach your case in a manner and passion that gives you the best possible chance to win.

The Resolution Law Group: Mediation, Arbitration, Litigation: What is Best?

The Resolution Law Group: Former Broker Claims He is the Reason FINRA’s Regional Director Resigned, While Ex-JP Morgan Broker Files Arbitration Claim Against His Former Employer

The Resolution Law Group: Basis Of Our Multi-Party Lawsuits

While each suit is different, below are examples of some of the causes of action we are arguing. For each client, The Resolution Law Group will argue the causes of action that may apply to that client’s particular circumstances.

Investor in Goldman Sachs Special Opportunities Fund 2006 to Get $2.5M FINRA Arbitration Award For Allegedly Unsuitable Investment

Many Investors Find that Securities Arbitration Can Be Better than Court

US Supreme Court Once Again Upholds Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

While each suit is different, below are examples of some of the causes of action we are arguing. For each client, The Resolution Law Group will argue the causes of action that may apply to that client’s particular circumstances.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: