Davidson & Grannum, LLP

Website Links

Description

JOEL DAVIDSON successfully defended a case brought by the SEC in Federal Court in New Jersey. After a 14 day bench trial, the Court dismissed the SEC’s complaint which alleged fraud, frontrunning and excessive mark-ups on institutional trades. See, SEC v. Pasternak, 2008 WL 2501355 (D.N.J. June 24, 2008). Joel also was on a Panel at the ABA’s Annual Meeting in Chicago in August 2009. The topic was “Mediation: The Seven Deadly Sins.” Joel has been a member of AMEX since 1977. On March 3, 2010, the National Adjudicatory Council of FINRA reversed a Hearing Panel's findings against John Leighton and Kenneth Pasternak, and the sanctions that had been imposed against each of them, in a 68 page decision, in Matter of Department of Market Regulation v. John Patrick Leighton and Kenneth D. Pasternak. Mr. Leighton was represented by Joel E. Davidson at the FINRA hearing and on the appeal. http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2010/P121042 SANDRA GRANNUM was a member of the Employment Law Panel of the SIFMA Compliance and Legal Division Meeting in May 2010. Ms. Grannum will be on the faculty of the upcoming Practicing Law Institute August program "Securities Arbitration 2010". The program is designed for advocates, arbitrators, mediators and regulators and will review how competing forces changed the landscape of securities arbitration in the past year. The program will address the overhaul of regulation of financial institutions and proposed elimination of mandatory arbitration for consumer and securities disputes, FINRA revisions to key arbitration rules and practices to counter relentless scrutiny of the fairness of its forum, and the Supreme Court reaffirmance of a strong national policy favoring arbitration. Find out more about what is sure to be an exciting and informative program at http://www.pli.edu/product/seminar_detail.asp?id=79386&t=DAT0_SECAB Ms. Grannum was successful in obtaining a motion for summary judgment in the Northern District of New York dismissing claims of age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation brought by a current employee who was unsuccessful in his bid for a senior position at his company. The Court held that the company successfully sustained its burden of establishing a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision by its reliance on its behavioral-based interviewing model for determining who should be appointed to senior positions after mergers. The Court held that the employee failed to provide evidence that the company's claimed reliance on this process was pretextual. The Court also held that employee had failed to establish intentional spoilage of the evidence by company, notwithstanding the company's inability to produce certain interview files. The EEOC only required the company keep such documents for 1 year and employee's claims were not filed for 3 years. The Court held that the employee failed to establish a hostile work environment as he failed to establish age discrimination.

Products & services

Similar companies nearby