Syracuse University College of Law,
J.D., magna cum laude, 1978
Order of the Coif
State University of New York - Albany,
B.S., cum laude, 1975
Missouri USDC, Eastern District
Illinois USDC, Southern District
US Ct Appeals, 6th Circuit (Covers KY, MI, OH, TN)
US Ct Appeals, 7th Circuit (Covers IL, IN, WI)
US Ct Appeals, 8th Circuit (Covers AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD)
US Ct Appeals, 9th Circuit (AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, M. Isles)
US Ct Appeals, 10th Circuit (Covers CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY)
US Ct Appeals, 11th Circuit (Covers AL, FL, GA)
US Supreme Ct
Charter Communications, Inc.
Financial Timing Services, Inc.
First St. Louis Securities
Heitman Capital Management
Kennedy Capital Management
Moloney Securities Company, Inc.
Moneta Group Investment Advisors, Inc.
Named Lawyer of the Year for Litigation - Securities in St. Louis by Best Lawyers, 2016
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, 2013-Present
Thompson Coburn LLP
Kent has spent much of his career representing financial services clients of the firm, particularly securities brokers and dealers, investment advisors, investment companies and their trustees, futures commission merchants and their introducing brokers and associated persons, banks and other financial institutions.
He also has represented issuers of publicly traded securities and their officers and directors in litigation resulting from contested take-overs, their financial reporting and management of their businesses. His practice includes litigation in the state and federal trial and appellate courts and before administrative agencies. Kent has been named the Best Lawyers® 2016 St. Louis Litigation-Securities "Lawyer of the Year."
A significant portion of his practice is in alternative dispute resolution, especially arbitrations conducted by the American Arbitration Association, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") and other arbitral forums. In addition to representing clients in the financial services industry, he regularly represents clients involved in disputes over business transactions, including international transactions.
Kent has extensive experience in developing innovative resolutions for his clients – specifically in the area of complex contractual disputes where the parties' rights, responsibilities and liabilities are not always obvious, and where controlling legal principles are obscure or ill-defined. He has tremendous insight into the securities industry from his many years representing brokerage firms, investment advisors and their representatives.
Publicly reported cases illustrative of his practice include:
Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. in cases culminating with the decision in Merrill Lynch v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982); Paine Webber, Incorporated in the trial and appeal of Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Midwest Investment Advisory Services, Inc., 940 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1991); Home Savings of America in the trial and appellate phases of Resolution Trust Corporation v. Home Savings of America, 946 F.2d 93 (8th Cir. 1991); Defendants in the trial and appellate courts in the proceedings culminating in Acapolon Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 827 S.W.2d 189 (Mo. banc. 1992); Defendants in Nolte v. Wittmaier, 477 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. App. 1998); Moneta Group Investment Advisors, Inc. in the lawsuits and arbitration described in Wilbers v. Moneta Group Investment Advisors, Inc., 2006 WL 2850542 (E.D. Mo 2006) and the petitioner in Rita McConville v. SEC, 465 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2006).
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.