Skip Navigation LinksServices > Financial Services > Securities and Investment Litigation


Securities and Investment Litigation

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS
The scope and complexity of the securities laws, coupled with expanded participation in the securities markets, created a growth industry in securities litigation and arbitration. Since the downturn in the economy, more people than ever before are looking for someone to blame for the poor performance of their portfolios and are filing suits against those who issue, manage and buy and sell securities and other investments.

It is important to have experienced counsel working to protect you against such claims. Our attorneys are as effective in front of an arbitration panel as they are in front of a judge, regulatory body or jury. We have extensive experience in the state and federal trial and appellate courts and have litigated cases in 16 states. Sherri Strand, a partner on the securities litigation team, was named “Missouri’s Best Lawyer if the SEC Calls” in a survey sponsored by Missouri Lawyers Weekly.

Our Securities/Investment Litigation team routinely handles matters, such as:
  • Defense against claims of improper broker misconduct
  • Representation in investigations and enforcement proceedings brought by regulatory agencies,

    including the SEC and State Securities Commissions and SROs
  • Defense against "unsuitable investments" claims
We have defended clients against numerous claims of the most common types, as well as unusual claims arising out of different types of investment products and markets. We defended securities and commodities brokerage firms against claims that employees and/or clients of the firm were engaged in market manipulation schemes. We have defended a securities firm against claims that the firm improperly secured institutional business through complex kickback schemes involving soft-dollar arrangements with investment advisors.

Our attorneys counsel brokerage firms concerning both regulatory and liability issues arising from situations in which employees were alleged to have defrauded investors through fictitious private securities transactions conducted away from the brokerage firm. In appropriate cases, we work with clients to devise strategies to preemptively resolve potential claims for damages and reduce regulatory compliance penalties.

Thomas E. Douglass

314.552.6029
email

Partners
Douglass, Thomas E.
Kingston, John S.
Knickmeyer, Kenton E.
Mattingly, Mark A.
Strand, Sherri C.
Associates
Azar Jr., Thomas L.
  • Furlong, et al. v. Appiant Technologies, Inc., et al.: Thompson Coburn defended a group of officers and directors of Appiant Technologies in a securities fraud action. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by a group of investors who purchased secured convertible debentures and warrants in Appiant, a public company. The investors claimed that Appiant and the other defendants violated federal securities laws, as well as the securities laws of Missouri, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and Maine, by failing to disclose investment risks known to the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss, citing, among other grounds, the investors’ failure to plead with specificity any untrue statement of material fact or omission of material fact, or any facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. The judge granted the motions to dismiss.
  • Class Action Dismissals for Scottrade, Inc. We secured orders of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in separate class action suits filed against Scottrade, Inc. The suits were unrelated and separately filed in California and Michigan state courts. Each asserted various state law theories of recovery based upon allegedly false advertising by Scottrade, and each was plead in an effort to avoid removal. The California case was successfully removed based on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, and the Michigan case was successfully removed based on the Class Action Fairness Act. Following removal, each case was dismissed, with prejudice, on Scottrade's motion.
  • Alex Herman, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor v. Mercantile Bank of St. Louis, N.A., et al.: Mercantile Bank was the trustee of the Lenco, Inc., a closely held Missouri corporation, Employees’ Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Mercantile, acting as trustee of the ESOP, sold the ESOP’s Lenco stock to an individual. This individual, with this purchase and several others, was able to acquire all of Lenco’s stock. Lenco’s ESOP committee immediately replaced Mercantile as trustee of the ESOP. The new trustee bought back all Lenco stock for the ESOP. Several years later, Lenco experienced financial problems and filed for bankruptcy, resulting in the ESOP losing the vast majority of its funds. The Secretary of Labor brought suit against Mercantile, alleging ERISA violations for the ESOP buy-back of Lenco stock because Mercantile failed to prevent it. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for Mercantile. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.