Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum's Answer to my Complaint

7/27/2019 Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum's Answer to my Complaint.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gusrae-kaplan-nusbaums-answer-to-my-complaint 1/10

D A V I D A . G E H N

M A R T I N H . K A P L A N

M A R L E N K R U Z H K O V * *

L A W R E N C E G . N U S B A U M

M A R T I N P . R US S O

** M E M B E R N Y A N D N J B A R

G U S R A E K A P L A N N U S B A U M PLLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

120 W A L L STREET

NEW Y O R K , NEW Y O R K 10005

TEL: (212) 269-140 0

FAX: (212) 809-5449

www.gusraekaplan.com

O F C O U N S E L

R O B E R T L . BLES S EY

C I R I N O M . B R U N O

October 1, 2013

Departmental Disciplinary CommitteeS upreme C ourt, A ppellate D ivisionFirst Judicial DepartmentA ttn: Joel Peterson61 BroadwayN e w Y o rk , N e w York 10006

R e: Complaint of A lan J. WebermanDocket N o. 2013.1905

Dear M r. P eterson:

We write in response to your letter dated September 17, 2013, which forwards a letterfrom th e Office of the A ttorney G eneral for the S tate of N ew York. That letter, in turn, forwardsa "consumer" complaint filed by A lan Weberman. We assume that it is M r. Weberman'scomplaint that you are considering. Please be advised that M r. Weberman's complaint isunfounded and was filed in an attempt to gain advantage in a civil litigation.

M r. Weberman is not a client of this firm; he is a judgment debtor and adverse party thatthis firm ha s been hired to pursue fo r collection. The underlying unsatisfied judgment wasentered in the S upreme Court of N ew Y ork, K ings County on M arch 27, 2002 against M r.Weberman an d others for $851,000.00 plus interest. See, Steven Rombom a/k/a Rambam et ano.

v. A.J. Weberman et al, Index N o. 1378/00, Supreme Court of N ew Y ork, K ings County. A copyof the judgment is attached as Exhibit "A". The judgment was rendered in an action where itwas alleged that M r. Weberman ha d posted a defamatory website which damaged our client,Steven Rambam (thejudgment creditor). O ur investigation in this matter ha s disclosed that suchdefamatory conduct is M r. Weberman's modus operandl In addition to the conduct directed atthis firm described below, we have been informed of similar actionable conduct perpetratedagainst M r. R a m b am ' s California counsel.

Since we commenced collection efforts through supplemental proceeding disclosuredevices, M r. W eberman has targeted our firm and one of our attorneys with libelous websitepostings. The website "matthewbaumattorneynyc.com" w as purchased, an d false content



G U S R A E K A P L A N N U S B A U M P L L C

M r. Joel PetersonOctober 1,2013Page 2

published (some of which ha s been removed), under the caption "ATTENTION JEWISHNATIONALISTS!! MATHEW B. BAUM IS TRYING TO DESTROY AN ANTI-NAZIORGANIZATION." Te n days later, the domain name "gusraekaplan.org"1 was purchased, an dlibelous statements were posted about this firm. Among the false statements made on thiswebsite is the same claim made here - that one of our founding partners, Bert L. Gusrae, was not

a Chief Attorney at the Securities and Exchange C om mission. It is clear to us from the contentof both websites that Mr. Weberman is their architect.

Turning to the allegation of fraudulent advertising, Mr. Weberman5 s claim that ourwebsite reports that "Bert Lee Gusrae was Chief Enforcement Officer at the SEC's NY C Office"

is simply an d intentionally incorrect. Our website states that ou r securities litigation practice was"[established by a former Chief Attorney of the SEC's Division of Enforcement."This line is a direct reference to Bert L. Gusrae and is included only to acknowledge our founder.

This firm's prominence in the securities litigation and regulatory area over the past thirty fiveplus years is well-established. To our know ledge, the statement regardin g Mr. Gusrae isaccurate. Unfortunately, Mr. Gusrae passed away approximately two years ago and is notavailable to testify. Nevertheless, I attach as Exhibit "B" a photograph of a plaque which M r.Gusrae's spouse has provided to us which states the following under the SEC's Seal:

Bert L. GusraeC hief Attorney

From His FriendsN.Y.R.O.

1962-1967

The plaque is available fo r your inspection upon request.

W e have also searched fo r published opinions from the 1960's which mention M r.

Gusrae as an attorney appearing for the SEC . In this regard, we located five publicly availablecases (administrative and federal) during the period 1964-1967 which record such appearancesand have attached them at Exhibit B. The decisions affirmatively demonstrate that Mr. Gusraewas an attorney for the SEC in the New York Regional Office who tried an d argued enforcementcases. They also indicate that M r. Gusrae's status changed over the years to the point that he was

lead counsel representing the Administrator of the New York Regional Office in or about 1966.See, Securities and Exchange Comission v. Northeastern Financial Corporation et al, 268F.Supp 41 2 ( D . N J 1967).

1 Notably, the com plaint filed by M r. Weberm an identifies this defam atory website, not ouractual domain - www.gusraekaplan.com -asour internet address.



G U S R A E K A P L A N N U S B A U M P L L C

M r. Joel PetersonOctober 1,2013

Pa ge S

It is our sincere hope that this letter is sufficient to satisfy your inquiry. If you have anyquestions, or need additional materials, please contact me at (212) 269-1400.

lartin H. KaplanManaging Member



B E R T L G U S R A E

CHIEF ATTORNEY

FROM HIS FRIENDS

N- Y. R- 0.

1962 -1967



ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

FILE NO. 3-382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COhfilSSlON

In the Matter of

BILLINGS ASSOCIATES, INC.

PEARNE BILLINGS

JUDSON DOCKSTADER

WILLIAM J. IRVING

ARTHUR E. LAUDENSLAGER

HEDLEY MOORE

MITCHEL STEKLOFMORRIS COHEN

(8-11330)

INITIAL DECISION

Before: Warren E. Blair, Hearing Examiner

Appearances: Bert L. Gusrae and

Richard L. Zorn, of the New York Region al Office

of the Commission, for the Division of Tradingand Markets

Egbert L. Wildman, Jr., for Billings Associates, Inc.

and Pearne Billings

David C. Fielding, of Jaeckle, Fleischmann, Kelly,

Swart & Augspurger, for Judson Dockstader and

Arthur E. Laudenslager

L. Robert Leisner, for William J. Irving

Hedley Moore, pro se



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

In the Matter of•t

K A M E N & C O M P A N Y

A B R A H A M K A M E N ,- :

File No.8-4175 :

FR E DE R I C K C I R L I N ASSOCIATES, INC. : INITIAL DECISION

FR E DE R I C K CIRLIN

B R I A N F R E D E R I C K B A R R A B E E :

File No.8-11319 :

L A U R E N C E H. ROSS :

File No.8-11033 :

BEFORE; Sidney Gross, Hearing Examiner

APPEARANCES; Geoffrey M. Kalmus of Skadden, Arps, Sla te, Meagher &F l o r a for Kamen & Company and Abraham Kamen.

Andrew E, Kuchinsky and Louis Jacobus for FrederickCirlin Associates, Inc. and Frederick Cirlin .

Charles Snow, Bert L. Gusrae and C o r n e r W. Krise forthe Division of Trading and Markets.



(Securities Exchange Act Release No, 7965) ;

I SECURITIES A N D E X C H A N G E C O MMIS S IO N jWashington, D , C « '!September 29, 1966 j

In theMatters of :

KAMEN & COMPANY :

50 Broadway

New York, NewYork :

and :

ABRAHAM KAMEN :

FINDINGS

File No. 8-4175 : ANDOPINION

FREDERICK CIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. : OF THE

50 Broadway CONCESSION

New York, NewYork :

and :

FREDERICK CIRLIN :

BRIAN FREDERICK BARRABEB

:

File No. 8-11319••

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 -

Sections 15(b), 15A and 19(a)(3) :

BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDINGS

Grounds for Suspension from National̂ SecuritiesExchanges, Registered Securities Association

and Association with Broker-Dealer

Where registered broker-dealer and its managing partner

over period of about six months failed to exercise ade-

quate supervision to discover fraudulent activities by

employees in dealings with other broker-dealers, held,

under all the circumstances temporary suspension of

broker-dealer from national securities exchanges and

registered securities association, and managing partner

from association with any broker or dealer in public

interest.

Grounds for Revocation of Registration

Participation in Fraudulent Scheme

Where compelling inference from evidence was that regis-

tered broker-dealer and its president were participants

with knowledge of a fraudulent scheme, and, at the very

least, had deliberately closed their eyes to facts they

had a duty to see, held, in the public interest to revoke

broker-dealer's registration and to bar its officers from

association with any broker or dealer.



- 2 - 34-7965

_

APPEARANCES:

Charles Snow, Bert L. Gusrae, Martin E. Goldman, Harvey I. Laconr

Neal M. Goldman and David H. Smith, of the New York Regional Offfice ofthe Commission/and W. Gomer Krise, for the Division of Trading and Markets

Joseph Flom and Barry H, Garfinkel, of Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom/ and Geoffrey M. Kalmus, for Kamen & Company and Abraham

Kamen.

Andrew E. Kuchinskv and Louis Jacobus, for Frederick CirlinAssociates, Inc. and Frederick Cirlin.

These consolidated proceedings pursuant to Sections 15(b) ISA and19(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") presentthe issues of what if any remedial action is appropriate in the publicinterest with respect to Kamen & Company ("K Co.") and Abraham Kamen/ itsmanaging partner/ and Frederick Cirlin Associates/ Inc. ("CirlinAssociates") and Frederick Cirlin and Brian F. Barrabee/ its principalofficers.

Background of the Proceedings

These proceedings are an outgrowth of a manipulative scheme in-volving the use of contrived transactions in the stock of Jerome/ Richard& Co., Inc. ("Jerome")/ then a registered broker-dealer in New York City/as a means of furnishing over-the-counter broker-dealers reciprocationfor business in listed securities furnished by such broker-dealers to KCo./ a member of the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). Five persons/George Herman/ Laurence H. Ross and Jerome M. Grossinger/ registeredrepresentatives/ and Frances Ginsburg and Anthony Perrotta, clericalassistants/ sometimes hereinafter referred to as "the group*/ were theprincipal actors in devising and carrying out this scheme.

In the middle of 1962/Herman and Ross arranged to have Jerome| ;S organized and registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer/ first: ij ; as a partnership and then as a corporation/ although neither Herman nor

\ s were listed as partners or officers nor was their domination and, ! control of Jerome disclosed. In November 1962, Jerome purportedly made• : 4 a public offering pursuant to Regulation A under the Securities Act ofj i 1933 of 50/000 shares of its stock at $4 per share. I/ Herman and Ross

I sold 25/025 of these shares to relatives/ friends and associates, and| . Jerome reported tothe Commission that the offering was ter

j f the remaining shares. Herman and Ross then arranged for the repurchase| I of all of these shares/ so that they obtained control of all of the out-

• standing shares for the group's use in the scheme.

! ii ! i The scheme was put into effect in December 1962 while members ofj i j the group were employed at Reuben Rose.fic Co./ Inc. ("Rose Co.11)/ another

: NYSE member, and after January 1963 and until July 1963/ it continued1 i while members of the group were at K Co. Numerous non-exchange member; broker-dealers throughout the country were solicited by Herman/ Ross/' Grossinger or Ginsburg to place their exchange business in listed securi-

ties, first with Rose Co. and subsequently with K Co., on the representa-tion that those firms would reciprocate by furnishing over-the-counterbusiness, usually in the ratio of $1 of profit on over-the-counter

I/ We temporarily suspended the Regulation A exemption from registration; sought for the public offering of Jerome stock on September 14, 1964j (Securities Act Release No. 4723), and the suspension became permanenti . on October 14, 1964.

j



WestlaW

268 F.Supp. 412

(Cite as: 268 F.Supp. 412)

Pagel

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHEASTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Robert K. Berry, Reginald M. Bevan, Louis R.

Dreyling & Co., Inc., Louis R. Dreyling, Fred Cimino

and Paul W . Cotton, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 140-63.Jan. 17, 1967.

Action to enjoin violations of securities laws. The

District Court, Augelli, J., held that evidence which

prompted the grant of preliminary injunction when

considered with evidence adduced at subsequent

hearing warranted finding that there existed the

likelihood of individual defendant's resumption of

illegal conduct and that under the circumstances a

permanent injunction restraining defendant from

further violations of various sections of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 and the Investment CompanyAct of 1940

should issue despite defendant's disclaimer of

likelihood of future violations.

Order accordingly.

West Headnotes

HI Securities Regulation 349B

349B Securities Regulation

349BI Federal Regulation

349BKE) Remedies

349Bl(E]2 Injunction

349Bkl75 Evidence

349Bkl75.1 k. In general. Most Cited

Cases

(Formerly 212k23, 349Bkl75)

Contentions of defendant, opposing entry of

injunction which would permanently enjoin further

violations of various sections of the Securities Act of

1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, that

he was "well on in years", that his only ability was to

work as a clerk in some brokerage house and that it

would be a cruel and undeserving burden to saddle

him with the stigma of a permanent injunction at his

late date in life, while deserving of some

consideration, were not, standing alone, relevant in

determining whether to enter such injunction against

him. Securities Act of 1933, §§ 1 et seq., 17(a), 15

U.S.C.A. §§ 77a et seq.J7qfa): Investment Company

Act of 1940, § 1 et seq., 15U.S.C.A. $ 80a-l et seq.

121Injunction 212

212 Injunction

2121 Injunctions in General; Permanent

Injunctions in General212KB) Factors Considered in General

212kl032 k. Grounds in general; multiple

factors. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 212k9)

Injunction 212€̂ 1040

212 Injunction

2121 Injunctions in General; Permanent

Injunctions in General

212I(B) Factors Considered in General

212kl040 k. Necessity and effect of

statutory authorization. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 212k21)

Factors considered by court in grant or denial of

© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.



PageS

268 F.Supp. 412

(Cite as: 268 F.Supp. 412)

restraining individual from future violations of

security laws, likelihood of future violations must be

viewed in light of past conduct and defendant's

disclaimer of any intention to continue illegal

practices sought to be enjoined does not, ipso facto,

make case moot.

[61 Securities Regulation 349B €=>171



349BKK) Remedies

349BI(E)2 Injunction

349Bkl71 k. Nature and grounds of

injunction in general. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 212k21)

A defendant's disclaimer of any intention to

continue an illegal practice in violation of securities

laws is but one of the factors to be considered in

determining whether or not an injunction should issue

against discontinued acts. Securities Act of 1933, § 1

et seq., 15 U.S.C.A. § 77a et seq.: Investment

Company Act of 1940, § 1 et seq., 15 U.S.C.A. §

8 0 a — 1 et seq.

121 Securities Regulation 349B €=^177



349BKE) Remedies

349BIQB)2 Injunction

349Bkl75 Evidence

349Bkl77 k. Weight and sufficiency.

Most Cited Cases

Securities Regulation 349B €>^>221



349BKH) Investment Companies

349Bk221 k. Injunction and receivership.

Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 212kl28(8))

Evidence which prompted the grant ofpreliminary injunction when considered with evidence

adduced at subsequent hearing warranted finding that

there existed the likelihood of individual defendant's

resumption of illegal conduct and that under the

circumstances the permanent injunction restraining

defendant from further violations of Securities Act of

1933 and Investment Company Act of 1940should

issue despite defendant's disclaimer of likelihood of

future violations. Securities Act of 1933, §§ 1 et seq.,

17(a), 15 U.S.C.A. SS 77a et seq.J7q(a): Investment

Company Act of 1940, § 1 et seq., 15 U.S.C.A. §80a-l et seq.

[81 Securities Regulation 349B €=>171



349BKE) Remedies

349BI(E)2 Injunction

349Bkl71 k. Nature and grounds of

injunction in general. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 212k89(4))

In issuing injunction restraining individual from

violations of securities laws, the overriding

consideration is protection of investing public and

injunction granted is not intended to be punitive.

Securities Act of 1933, § 1 et seq., 15 U.S.C.A. § 77a

et seq.: Investment Company Act of 1940, § 1 et seq.,

15U.S.C.A. §8Qa-letseq.

*413 Llewellyn P. Young, by Bert L. Gusrae, David

Y. Handelman and Judith G. Shepard, Ne w York City,

for plaintiff.

John H. Kelley, New York City, for Louis R. Dreyling

& Co. Inc.and Louis R. Dreyling.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.Works.

Documents

Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum's Answer to my Complaint