LAWRENCE R. GELBER, ATTORNEY AT LAW

Education

Lawrence R. Gelber, born in the Bronx in 1947, entered City College of
New York in 1964, with a New York Regent's State Scholarship. After
taking a year off to travel, he received his B.A. in 1969.

After graduation, Mr. Gelber traveled extensively and in 1970-71 Mr.
Gelber worked for six months in a civilian capacity for the United States
Army in Heidelberg, Germany.

Mr. Gelber entered New York Law School in 1978.

Mr. Gelber was a member of the Law Review, wrote for the then award
winning school newspaper Aequitas, and participated in Moot Court. He
graduated with a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, in 1981.

Work History

In the summer after his first year of law school, Mr. Gelber worked
for legal publisher Matthew Bender as a Contributing Editor to the
1979 supplement to Warren's Weed New York Law of Real Property,
4^th Edition. The next year, he worked as a summer associate at Parker
Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, and then continued at that firm after graduation.

Initially, Mr. Gelber was interested in Wills, Trusts and Estates. He wrote
"Annuities: An Overview for the Estate Planner", published in the New
York Law School Law Review (Vol. XXVI, Number 4, 1981 at 1059). And
though Mr. Gelber soon gravitated to litigation, he authored the 1985
revision of "Chapter 15 - Appointment and Compensation of Fiduciaries"
for Murphy's Will Clauses, Volume 3, published by Matthew Bender.

In 1984, he associated with Spengler Carlson Gubar Brodsky & Frischling.
He worked with the late Edward Brodsky, who asked Mr. Gelber to write
"Certifying A Defendant Class", New York Law Journal, Wednesday
January 16, 1985, under Mr. Brodsky's "Corporate and Securities
Litigation" by-line. Mr. Gelber became enamored of securities litigation,
after working with Mr. Brodsky on Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F. Supp.
217 (S.D.N.Y 1989), among other high profile cases.

After the stock market crash in October, 1987, Mr. Gelber accepted a
position as Assistant General Counsel at NYSE member firm Gruntal &
Co., Incorporated, where he handled scores of arbitrations at the NYSE,
AAA and NASD. After the fallout from the 1987 crash diminished, Mr.
Gelber resumed law firm practice, at Beigel & Sandler, Ltd., litigating
securities fraud claims against large brokerage firms in arbitration and
in federal and state court, largely in connection with limited partnerships.
The practice, which had offices in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles,
spearheaded litigation that ultimately resulted in the huge limited
partnership settlements that made headlines in the mid-1990s.

In late 1997, Mr. Gelber formed his own practice, continuing to focus on
securities related issues, including regulatory and criminal matters.

Media references

Mr. Gelber (or the cases he has worked on) has been quoted, published
or mentioned in many publications over the years, including: Bloomberg; The Wall 
Street Journal, The New York Law Journal; Crain’s Chicago Business; The Law 
Report; New York Newsday; Philadelphia Inquirer; Compliance Reporter; Sarasota 
Herald Tribune; The New York Observer; The Sunday Star-Ledger; Dow Jones 
Newswires; The Bergen Record; New York State Bar Journal; Securities Arbitration 
Commentator; Helsingin Sanomat, Toronto Star and Barron's, among others.

Representative Decisions

In Re Optionable Securities Litigation. (June 15, 2009). After Judge Kaplan’s decision 
at 577 F. Supp.2d 681 (S.D.N.Y 2008) dismissing the class action, plaintiffs moved 
under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case alleging “newly discovered evidence”. After 
reviewing the briefs of the parties and hearing oral argument, Judge Paul Crotty, who 
was assigned this aspect of the case, denied the motion, and thus permanently closed 
the door on the class action. Judge Crotty’s decision can be reviewed by clicking here.
http://securities.stanford.edu/1037/OPBL_01/2009615_r01m_073753.pdf

In re Optionable Securities Litigation,  577 F. Supp.2d 681 (S.D.N.Y 2008)
In this federal securities fraud class action, Mr. Gelber represented the former CEO of 
Optionable, Inc (“OPBL”). The Complaint alleged that OPBL and various individuals 
defrauded the market by: (i) misrepresenting how much OPBL’s largest customer, Bank 
of Montreal (BMO) affected OPBL’s business (ii) misrepresenting the viability of OPEX, 
OPBL’s natural gas trading platform (iii) misrepresenting the nature of an agreement OPBL 
had with NYMEX and (iv) failing to disclose the CEO’s alleged old non-securities related 
convictions, among other allegations. After full briefing, the Court upheld the arguments 
made by Mr. Gelber and other defense counsel on all points and dismissed the Complaint, 
in full, as to all defendants. The Court expressly ruled that OPBL had no obligation to disclose 
the old convictions because (1) Item 401 of Regulation S-B did not require disclosure and (2) 
such disclosure was not, in any event, necessary “to make other statements not false or 
misleading”. Plaintiffs failed to meet the judge's deadline to amend the complaint and instead 
sought discovery, in violation of the PSLRA. On October 20, 2008, Judge Kaplan entered final 
judgment of dismissal in favor of all Defendants.

SEC Opinion and Order (Release No.34-55988), decided June 29, 2007.
Mr. Gelber’s client, the president of a brokerage firm, appealed a decision of the NASD’s 
National Adjudicatory Council (“NAC”) permanently barring him from the securities industry 
in all capacities and ordering him vicariously liable for "restitution" in excess of $3.6 million 
dollars, for his alleged violations of various NASD rules and the anti-fraud provisions of the 
federal securities laws. After carefully evaluating the arguments of the parties, the SEC 
found for Mr. Gelber's client. The SEC issued an Order vacating all sanctions, holding that 
Mr. Gelber’s client could not be liable for Section 10b or Rule 10b-5 violations, that certain 
of the alleged NASD Rule violations were not chargeable to Mr. Gelber’s client and 
remanding the case to NASD for re-determination in light of the SEC ruling.

NASD Arbitration No. 02-00641, decided November 2, 2006. 
Case brought by eight former Prudential brokers, part of a group within Pru
created  to market to high net worth clients, for breach of contract, defamation, 
tortious interference and fraud. Prudential counterclaimed for unpaid portions 
of forgivable loans among other things. Six of the eight settled; one defaulted. 
The remaining broker retained Mr. Gelber in early 2005, just weeks before 
hearings were  to commence. 

Prudential sought more than $900,000.00, alleging a loan plus interest, against 
Mr. Gelber’s client . The Panel not only denied Prudential’s claims, but awarded 
Mr. Gelber’s client $625,000.00 in compensatory damages and also assessed 
100% of the $44,700.00 remaining forum fees solely against Prudential.

LoPresti v. Massachusetss Mutual Life Ins. Co., et al., (2004 NY Slip Op. 51223; 
Sup. Ct. Kings Co.) (see also, The Law Report, Vol. 7, No. 5 [Jan. 2005]).  
This case was a New York Donnelly Act (state antitrust) action against multiple 
parties, including Mr. Gelber's securities brokerage firm client, over 12b-1 fees 
on 403(b) plans (an insurance product) sold to certain hospital employees. Mr. 
Gelber, in conjunction with the other defendants, prevailed on a motion to dismiss.

Sefton v. Hewitt, 4 Misc.3d 1001(A) (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2004); 
Mr. Gelber successfully defended an architect at trial, defeating various 
contract / professional negligence claims. 

NASD Arbitration No. 03-07013, decided 2005.
An investor seeking six figure damages from losses sustained in four municipal 
bond purchases brought this case against Mr. Gelber’s clients, a brokerage firm 
and the president of the firm personally. The claimant alleged securities fraud, 
common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Gelber defended 
the claim at a full evidentiary arbitral hearing in 2005. The 2005 decision denied 
the claims in their entirety, awarding claimant zero.

Blatt et al. v. Muse Technologies, Inc., et al., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18466;
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶92,004 (D.Mass August 27, 2002)
In defending this federal securities fraud class action suit against a public 
company and its officers, Mr. Gelber, representing the company and two 
officers, succeeded in effectuating a global settlement, after mediation, of 
only 12% of the liability policy, a victory for the defense.

NASD Arbitration No. 01-00732, decided May 24, 2002.
Mr. Gelber represented an individual investor claiming against a brokerage 
firm and four individuals alleging unauthorized trading, excessive mark-ups 
and unauthorized use of margin, among other things. Respondents argued 
that Mr. Gelber’s client ratified the transactions and assumed all the risks of 
trading. The case was particularly hard fought, with respondents making 
multiple motions, including a motion to dismiss. There were 18 hearing 
sessions. The Panel awarded Mr. Gelber’s client a six figure compensatory 
damage recovery and also awarded $25,000.00 in punitive damages and 
assessed all of the forum fees against Respondents.

Barry Diller et ano. v. Steurken et al., 712 N.Y.S.2d 311 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2000); 
In this publicly reported cyber-squatting case, Mr. Gelber's clients had agreed 
to voluntarily return the plaintiff's "name", but plaintiff, represented by a premier 
New York law firm, sought substantial attorneys' fees. Mr. Gelber defeated that 
effort on motion.

Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, et al. 235 Conn., 559, 668 A.D.2d 367 (1995);

Manasse v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Sec. Reg. L. Rep (BNA) Vol. 27,
p.1295 (W.D. Pa. 7/20/95);

International Customs Associates, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 893 F.
Supp. 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1995);

Dean Witter Reynold’s, Inc. v. Prouse, 831 F. Supp. 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1993);

Duke v. Touche Ross & Co., 765 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);

Treacy v. Simmons, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ¶95,920 at 99,567 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);

Farr v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 1219 (S.D.N.Y 1991);

Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F. Supp. 217 (S.D.N.Y 1989);

Bernstein v. IDT Corp., 638 F. Supp. 916 (S.D.N.Y 1986);

Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Fox & Co., 102 F.R.D. 507
(S.D.N.Y 1984);

Bar Admissions

In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Gelber has been admitted, over the years,
on a pro hac vice basis to various federal and state courts throughout the
United States.

Mr. Gelber has also participated in securities industry arbitrations
and state and federal regulatory proceedings in most of the states of the
United States, including the District of Columbia, and has handled matters
involving regulatory agencies in some Canadian provinces.

Memberships

• Phi Delta Phi
• New York State Bar Association
• Association of the Bar of the City of New York
• Finnish - American Chamber of Commerce
• New York Law School Alumni Association