Lawrence Steckman is a principal attorney of the law firm Offit Kurman and has been litigating securities and business cases since 1988. In July, 2006, Super Lawyers Magazine, in its inaugural New York edition, identified Mr. Steckman as one of New York's first "Super Lawyers" in both securities and business litigation. He received that honor again in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. The independent attorney rating service, AVVO, has awarded him a rating of “superb,” its highest achievement level, based on a 10/10 score. Mr. Steckman has handled billions of dollars in client matters and been counsel in leading securities, derivatives and RICO litigations and arbitrations. He has authored or been the principal co-author of more than fifty published works on the law. He sits on the Boards of foreign and domestic companies and, since 1996, on the Advisory Board of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter.
Mr. Steckman’s practice areas include securities and derivatives fraud private and class suits, including Rule 10b-5 cases, commercial and state litigation, prosecuting and defending civil RICO private and class suits, merger and acquisition, corporate and contract litigation, bond, arbitrage and real estate fraud litigation, international arbitration, broker-dealer and broker-customer securities arbitration, including, municipal arbitrage fraud arbitration, securities regulatory matters and professional liability litigation.
Mr. Steckman has represented mutual, hedge and private equity funds, insurance companies, accounting and audit firms, real estate/mortgage companies, technology companies, a rating company, domestic and foreign companies, a mining company, banks, investment banks and bankers, securities brokers, law firms, lawyers, foreign and domestic entrepreneurs. He has also represented political figures including a former member of the Egyptian Parliament, Germany’s former Industrial Ambassador to the Middle East and Africa, Panama’s former Governor General and ambassador-at-large and a high-profile Russian Oligarch.
Mr. Steckman has published book chapters, articles and law review articles on federal procedure, attorney client privilege, evidence, constitutional law, securities fraud pleading, loss causation and causal modeling, the reliance element in securities fraud litigation, insider trading, risk arbitrage, fiduciary duty, securities arbitration, class certification and preparation of expert reports, tortious interference with contract, index adjusted damages, damage computation, mitigation in securities and commercial cases, litigating offset defenses, punitive damages, class suit attorney fees, corporate governance, and litigating statute of limitation defenses and suitability cases. He has published, as well, on civil RICO litigation, including articles on RICO predicate acts, RICO enterprise theory, RICO standing and the direct injury requirement, RICO claims accrual and statute of limitations, RICO causation and the PSLRA RICO Amendment.
Mr. Steckman’s published work has been cited on public policy matters ranging from international terrorism to government contract law and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Outside the law, he has published on the philosophy of science and the philosophy of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and the American Pragmatist philosophers. In 2017, he co-authored a volume on existential psychology, published by Nova Science Publishers. He pursued doctoral studies in philosophy at Columbia University, after receiving his undergraduate degree summa cum laude in classic guitar. He began his legal career at Shea & Gould.
HONORS & AWARDS
- Super Lawyers Magazine – business and securities litigation
- AVVO Rating – “superb”
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION MATTERS
CMG Holdings Group v. Wagner, 2016 WL 4688865 (September 7, 2016) (Oetken, J.) (plaintiff counsel to advertising company suing several companies and former officers and employees for $60 million RICO damages arising from looting of company over a five year period, destroying hard copy and computer files and establishing, by theft and otherwise, a competing entity. The court refused to dismiss plaintiff’s RICO claims, noting the “comprehensive” scheme and “extensive” concealment efforts. He sustained CMG’s claim for ten times compensatory damages for all damages arising from non-RICO predicate criminal acts: “Based on CMG’s allegations, this case may present a rare occasion where punitive damages may be potentially justified.”).
Hanson v. Frazer, LLP, 2015 WL 4561707 (July 17, 2015) (Rakoff, J.) (defense counsel to audit firm in Rule 10b-5 class suit seeking in excess of $45 million. This Order set forth the court’s reasons for dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ amended class complaint which had alleged that the auditor defendant recklessly failed to include a subsequent events disclosure regarding alleged improper, related-party loans rendering the auditor’s GAAP and PCAOB compliance opinion fraudulent under Rule 10b-5, holding plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter).
REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS AND CITATIONS
Loss Causation, Economic Loss Rules and Offset Defenses – Dismissal Motion Practice After Acticon A.G. v. China N.E. Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 31 Touro Law Review 501 (No. 3, 2015) (co-authors Robert E. Conner and Kris Steckman-Taylor), reprinted in expanded form from 37 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Reporter, (No. 5 at 53, August, 2014).
Multiple Regression Modeling -- the Importance of Modular Theories of Damage Causation in Antitrust Class Certification Motion Practice After Comcast v. Behrens, 30 Touro Law Review 127 (2014) (co-authors R. Conner and S. Rosenthal).
Litigating Offset Arguments in Compensatory Damage Litigation and Lead Plaintiff Motion Practice in Class Cases: Are Apparently Inconsistent Outcomes Reconcilable?, 3 Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 150-179 (No. 2, April, 2010) (co-author R. Conner).
and Adam Rader
Offit Kurman attorneys Adam J. Rader and Lawrence A. Steckman obtained a unanimous decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in which a receiver’s claims seeking more than $65 million damages against three accounting firms were properly dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice.
Author: Adam Rader, Esq.
Under what circumstances can United States federal statute apply extraterritorially—that is, outside of the U.S.? And in an increasingly globalized society, where parties in a legal dispute...
Can you rely on allegations contained in a separate, unadjudicated proceeding to make your own case in court? That question,…View All