Securities Fraud Hotline - Telephone: (212) 679-6000

Who We Are :

The attorneys at Eppenstein and Eppenstein, securities, commodities and hedge fund fraud lawyers, have extensive experience representing investors in actions against securities and commodities brokers and broker dealers. We have successfully recovered millions of dollars in assets for investors. We are qualified to represent your interests whether you are national or international investors or creditors in securities fraud and commodities fraud matters.

Eppenstein and Eppenstein is a respected New York-based securities fraud and commercial litigation law firm with a global practice, widely known nationally and in the international community for protecting the rights of defrauded investors and businesses, as well as for obtaining record-setting arbitration awards for our clients. The firm's Securities Law Arbitration website traces our 25 year history of successful representation of investors. Contact us today to discuss your potential claims.

Visit Our Main Website!

The Mortgage-Backed Securities Mess: The Due Diligence Gambit

January 28th, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

Following up on the last posting here, it seems that rigorous due diligence and accurate reporting of risk actually may not have been a high enough priority in the mortgage-backed securities business, not when there was so much to be made off unsuspecting investors induced to buy into this hyped market. Thus, the New York state attorney general’s probe into the mortgage-backed securities industry is reported to be heating up after Clayton Holdings, Inc., a full service management firm catering to players in the MBS business, struck a deal with the AG. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation

What Now?: Investors and the Sub-prime Mortgage Fiasco

January 25th, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

Investors are numb from losses attributable to investments in collateralized debt instruments linked to the residential sub-prime mortgage meltdown and continuing market volatility from a variety of other causes. The question is, what should they do now? It may be time to contact a professional to explore the options. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation

Update: Investors Face Uphill Battle to Prove Reliance on Wrongdoing

January 23rd, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped the other shoe this week when it spurned putative class action investor attempts to get the Court to review their case against “secondary” players (financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse), who were alleged to have participated in the activities leading to the Enron collapse in 2001. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation

Another Setback for Securities Investors

January 16th, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

The big business oriented majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has again asserted (this time in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc.) the Court’s narrow view of the ability of investors to seek redress under the securities laws unless investors can show actual “reliance” on the behavior/communications of secondary actors such as banks and accountants. As already noted in the media, the decision may not bode well for a pending class action suit by Enron investors against investment banks. (see Linda Greenhouse, “Supreme Court Limits Lawsuits by Shareholders,” (N.Y. Times, January 16, 2008)). Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation

Mandatory Securities Arbitration: What Else Is on the Way Out?

January 10th, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

Is mandatory securities arbitration on the way out? If Congress (either this year or under a new administration come January 2009) and the state securities regulators at NASAA (the North American Securities Administrators Association) have their way, two of investors’ biggest complaints may become a thing of the past: mandatory securities arbitration AND the mandatory securities industry arbitrator now required to sit in judgment of securities fraud and other investor claims (on three-member arbitration panels as a so-called “non-public” arbitrator).

We’ve supported both reforms vigorously for over twenty years in places where it should count, making the case for prohibiting the fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional predispute imposition of these mandatory requirements on investors: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation

Securities Arbitration 101: Back to Basics

January 4th, 2008 by Madelaine Eppenstein

Now that we’ve turned the corner into the New Year – though not quite leaving behind the lingering geo-political crises, turmoil in the markets, the health care morass and the housing/mortgage debacle, among other socio-economic woes – it might be timely to revisit some of our own basic themes here at the Securities Fraud Hotline, like banning mandatory arbitration of investor disputes AND returning to investors the right and choice to go to court (or an alternative forum independent of the brokerage industry) to have a judge and jury assess their grievances. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Securities Arbitration & Litigation