GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC

DAVID A. GEHN MARTIN H. KAPLAN MARLEN KRUZHKOV** LAWRENCE G. NUSBAUM MARTIN P. RUSSO
** MEMBER NY AND NJ BAR

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 120 W A L L STREET N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K 10005 TEL: (212) 2 6 9 - 1 4 0 0 FAX: (212) 8 0 9 - 5 4 4 9 www.gusraekaplan.com

OF COUNSEL ROBERT L. BLESSEY CIRINO M. BRUNO

October 1, 2013

Departmental Disciplinary Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department Attn: Joel Peterson 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 Re: Complaint of Alan J. Weberman Docket No. 2013.1905

Dear Mr. Peterson: We write in response to your letter dated September 17, 2013, which forwards a letter from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York. That letter, in turn, forwards a "consumer" complaint filed by Alan Weberman. We assume that it is Mr. Weberman's complaint that you are considering. Please be advised that Mr. Weberman's complaint is unfounded and was filed in an attempt to gain advantage in a civil litigation. Mr. Weberman is not a client of this firm; he is a judgment debtor and adverse party that this firm has been hired to pursue for collection. The underlying unsatisfied judgment was entered in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County on March 27, 2002 against Mr. Weberman and others for $851,000.00 plus interest. See, Steven Rombom a/k/a Rambam et ano. v. A.J. Weberman et al, Index No. 1378/00, Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. A copy of the judgment is attached as Exhibit "A". The judgment was rendered in an action where it was alleged that Mr. Weberman had posted a defamatory website which damaged our client, Steven Rambam (the judgment creditor). Our investigation in this matter has disclosed that such defamatory conduct is Mr. Weberman's modus operandl In addition to the conduct directed at this firm described below, we have been informed of similar actionable conduct perpetrated against Mr. Rambam's California counsel. Since we commenced collection efforts through supplemental proceeding disclosure devices, Mr. Weberman has targeted our firm and one of our attorneys with libelous website postings. The website "matthewbaumattorneynyc.com" was purchased, and false content

GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC
Mr. Joel Peterson October 1,2013 Page 2 published (some of which has been removed), under the caption "ATTENTION JEWISH NATIONALISTS!! MATHEW B. BAUM IS TRYING TO DESTROY AN ANTI-NAZI ORGANIZATION." Ten days later, the domain name "gusraekaplan.org"1 was purchased, and libelous statements were posted about this firm. Among the false statements made on this website 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 Commission. It is clear to us from the content of both websites that Mr. Weberman is their architect. Turning to the allegation of fraudulent advertising, Mr. Weberman5 s claim that our website reports that "Bert Lee Gusrae was Chief Enforcement Officer at the SEC's NYC Office" is simply and intentionally incorrect. Our website states that our 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 five plus years is well-established. To our knowledge, the statement regarding Mr. Gusrae is accurate. Unfortunately, Mr. Gusrae passed away approximately two years ago and is not available to testify. Nevertheless, I attach as Exhibit "B" a photograph of a plaque which Mr. Gusrae's spouse has provided to us which states the following under the SEC's Seal: Bert L. Gusrae Chief Attorney From His Friends N.Y.R.O. 1962-1967 The plaque is available for your inspection upon request. We have also searched for published opinions from the 1960's which mention Mr. Gusrae as an attorney appearing for the SEC. In this regard, we located five publicly available cases (administrative and federal) during the period 1964-1967 which record such appearances and have attached them at Exhibit B. The decisions affirmatively demonstrate that Mr. Gusrae was an attorney for the SEC in the New York Regional Office who tried and argued enforcement cases. They also indicate that Mr. 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, 268 F.Supp 412 (D.NJ 1967).

1 Notably, the complaint filed by Mr. Weberman identifies this defamatory website, not our actual domain - www.gusraekaplan.com - as our internet address.

GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC
Mr. Joel Peterson October 1,2013 PageS It is our sincere hope that this letter is sufficient to satisfy your inquiry. If you have any questions, or need additional materials, please contact me at (212) 269-1400.

lartin H. Kaplan Managing Member

BERT LGUSRAE
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 STEKLOF MORRIS COHEN (8-11330)

INITIAL DECISION

Before:

Warren E. Blair, Hearing Examiner

Appearances:

Bert L. Gusrae and Richard L. Zorn, of the New York Regional Office of the Commission, for the Division of Trading and 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

KAMEN & COMPANY ABRAHAM KAMEN

,-

:

File No. 8-4175
FREDERICK CIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. FREDERICK CIRLIN BRIAN FREDERICK BARRABEE

:
: : INITIAL DECISION

File No. 8-11319 LAURENCE H. ROSS File No. 8-11033

: : :

BEFORE;

Sidney Gross, Hearing Examiner

APPEARANCES; Geoffrey M. Kalmus of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flora for Kamen & Company and Abraham Kamen. Andrew E, Kuchinsky and Louis Jacobus for Frederick Cirlin Associates, Inc. and Frederick Cirlin. Charles Snow, Bert L. Gusrae and Corner W. Krise for the Division of Trading and Markets.

I

(Securities Exchange Act Release No, 7965) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

; j

Washington, D, C«
September 29, 1966

'!
j

In the Matters of KAMEN & COMPANY 50 Broadway New York, New York

: : :

and
ABRAHAM KAMEN File No. 8-4175 FREDERICK CIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC. 50 Broadway New York, New York

:
: : : : FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE CONCESSION

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 National^Securities Exchanges, 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 adequate 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 registered 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.

i

- 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 of the 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 Cirlin Associates, Inc. and Frederick Cirlin.

These consolidated proceedings pursuant to Sections 15 (b) , ISA and 19 (a) (3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") present the issues of what if any remedial action is appropriate in the public interest with respect to Kamen & Company ("K Co.") and Abraham Kamen/ its managing partner/ and Frederick Cirlin Associates/ Inc. ("Cirlin Associates") and Frederick Cirlin and Brian F. Barrabee/ its principal officers. Background of the Proceedings These proceedings are an outgrowth of a manipulative scheme involving 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 reciprocation for business in listed securities furnished by such broker-dealers to K Co./ a member of the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") . Five persons/ George Herman/ Laurence H. Ross and Jerome M. Grossinger/ registered representatives/ and Frances Ginsburg and Anthony Perrotta, clerical assistants/ sometimes hereinafter referred to as "the group*/ were the principal actors in devising and carrying out this scheme.

j 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 of j 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 to the Commission that the offering was terminated jf 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. ! i i! i The scheme was put into effect in December 1962 while members of ji 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 continued 1 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 securities, first with Rose Co. and subsequently with K Co. , on the representation that those firms would reciprocate by furnishing over-the-counter business, 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, 1964 (Securities Act Release No. 4723), and the suspension became permanent on October 14, 1964.

; j i .

WestlaW
Pagel 268 F.Supp. 412 (Cite as: 268 F.Supp. 412) Cases (Formerly 212k23, 349Bkl75) 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 Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 should issue despite defendant's disclaimer of likelihood of future violations. Order accordingly. Injunction 212 €^1040 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 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 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., 15 U.S.C.A. $ 80a-l et seq. 121 Injunction 212 212 Injunction 2121 Injunctions in General; Permanent Injunctions in General 212KB) Factors Considered in General 212kl032 k. Grounds in general; multiple factors. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 2 12k9)

© 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 349B Securities Regulation 349BI Federal Regulation 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. § 80a— 1 et seq. 121 Securities Regulation 349B €=^177 349B Securities Regulation 349BI Federal Regulation 349BKE) Remedies 349BIQB)2 Injunction 349Bkl75 Evidence 349Bkl77 k. Weight and sufficiency. Most Cited Cases Securities Regulation 349B €>^>221 349B Securities Regulation 349BI Federal Regulation 349BKH) Investment Companies 349Bk221 k. Injunction and receivership. 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, New York City, for plaintiff. John H. Kelley, New York City, for Louis R. Dreyling & Co. Inc. and Louis R. Dreyling. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 212kl28(8)) 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 the permanent injunction restraining defendant from further violations of Securities Act of 1933 and Investment Company Act of 1940 should 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 349B Securities Regulation 349BI Federal Regulation 349BKE) Remedies 349BI(E)2 Injunction 349Bkl71 k. Nature and grounds of injunction in general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 212k89(4))

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful