|
Les Greenberg, Business Section, USA Today 1/14/01
|
Law
Offices of
LES GREENBERG
10732 Farragut Drive Culver City, CA 90230-4105 Tel. & Fax: (310) 838-8105
Email:
|
Business/Investment
==== Litigation/Arbitration
|
Business/investment litigation/arbitration can be complex. It is very important that you engage the services of an attorney who has experience related to your situation and is able and willing to try your case to conclusion.
There are many reasons why you should select me to represent your legal interests.
I am duly licensed as an attorney with more than 30 years of diversified experience involving litigation/arbitration of business and investment disputes. I have represented business entities, individual investors and more than twenty (20) securities brokerage firms before arbitration panels in several forums and in various state and federal courts in hundreds of disputes. I have served as the Associate General Counsel and/or Compliance Director of a New York Stock Exchange Member Firm. I have served as a business/investment arbitrator for 30 years.
I serve as a public advocate for better corporate governance as Chairman of the Committee of Concerned Shareholders. I have written extensively to improve the securities arbitration process by expressing my concerns in formal comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission, e.g., Petition for Rulemaking (SEC File No. 4-502) (severe problems with FINRA arbitration and questionable SEC oversight). My Petition for Rulemaking has received favorable media coverage, e.g., 9/1/05, Registered Representative Magazine, "The Real Arbitration Nightmare"; 7/31/05, San Diego Union-Tribune, "Stockbroker losses bring no trials, lots of tribulations"; 7/17/05, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Systems for resolving disputes may need an overhaul." I have conducted extensive litigation against the SEC, under the Freedom Information Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act and Administrate Procedure Act, that resulted in the SEC acting upon the Petition for Rulemaking. Recent litigation against Anthem Blue Cross based upon allegations that HIPAA premium charges exceeded legal limits received favorable media coverage, i.e., 9/25/09, Los Angeles Times, "Anthem Blue Cross is ordered to repay customer $7,300."
Disclaimer: The information presented on this website is not intended to be nor should it be interpreted to be the rendering of legal or other advice. Any email inquiry should not contain confidential information. An email inquiry and/or responding to an email inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results should not be interpreted as a guaranty of future performance.
Last Revised: December 30, 2009