Now Available on Amazon.com:
JPMadoff: The Unholy Alliance between America's Biggest Bank and America's Biggest Crook
Written by Helen Davis Chaitman and Lance Gotthoffer
JPMadoff update: Helen Davis Chaitman, Attorney and Co-Author of
JPMadoff: The Unholy Alliance Between America’s Biggest Bank and America’s Biggest Crook -
interviewed on WKYC3. Watch the interview HERE.
Wall Street On Parade:
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 22, 2016
Greg Dexter co-counsels important securities case in the United States Supreme Court
To resolve an issue that has split the circuits and divided district courts across the country, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 1, 2015 in Merrill Lynch et al. v. Manning et al., No. 14-1132, a case that is being closely watched by the financial industry and is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal court jurisdiction over not just financial lawsuits, but also lawsuits in numerous other areas of law.
At issue in Manning is whether Section 27 of the Exchange Act of 1934 vests federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over securities lawsuits that might possibly establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations, or duties created by the Act or its regulations, even when those lawsuits allege causes of action entirely under state law.
The Manning Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2012 alleging that Defendants, several major national and international financial institutions and securities dealers, engaged in a manipulative and illegal scheme of “naked” short selling the stock of Escala Group Inc., causing the price of Plaintiffs’ Escala stock to drop precipitously and causing Plaintiffs to suffer tens of millions of dollars in damages. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, brought ten causes of action, all of which were state-law claims. Defendants removed the action to federal court arguing that the lawsuit necessarily was brought to enforce federal duties and liabilities created by the Exchange Act and its regulations and, therefore, must be heard in federal court.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, and Magistrate Judge Hammer recommended that the motion be granted. District Judge Linares, however, disagreed and denied the motion to remand. On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district court and ordered that the case be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction. After a series of stay applications were denied in the Third Circuit and then in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari to resolve the issue. The case will proceed, either in state court or federal court, after the Supreme Court issues its opinion.
Peter Stris of Stris & Maher, LLP argued the case in the Supreme Court for the Plaintiffs, while Jonathan Hacker of O’Melveny & Myers LLP argued the case for Defendants. Gregory M. Dexter, an associate at Chaitman LLP, is among counsel to Plaintiffs.
March 2011: Helen Davis Chaitman before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on
TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs.
December 9, 2009: Testimony of Helen Davis Chaitman before the Subcommittee on
Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
December 2014: Six years after the largest Ponzi scheme in history Attorney Helen Davis Chaitman
discusses recovery efforts for Bernard Madoff victims, including a new
lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase with Maria Bartiromo.
Helen Davis Chaitman argues there was a continuing fraud carried out
on the American public by SIPC.
AROUND THE WEB
Forbes.com: Should Jamie Dimon Be Criminally Prosecuted?
MarketWatch.com: ‘JPMadoff’ pokes bitter fun at bank’s $32 billion in penalties.