Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C. Large enough to to the job right, small enough to listen
 

L. Andrew Brehm
Shareholder

Andrew Brehm's most outstanding characteristic is his unwavering commitment to clients, colleagues and Schuyler, Roche & Crisham—dedication that has won him respect from opposing counsel and results in court. Drew joined Schuyler, Roche & Crisham after graduating from the University of Michigan Law School more than 20 years ago, attracted by the opportunity to work on complex cases within the more personal and collegial atmosphere of a midsize firm. Becoming a shareholder seven years later, Drew has remained loyal to Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, serving securities brokers and working primarily for our more institutional clients, often on employment-related issues. He is friendly and professional, described by clients as conscientious, dedicated and committed to their cause.

The chance to participate in dispute resolution, a societal tool of increasing value, compelled Drew to study law; his background in economics and fascination with the stock market led to his specialization in securities litigation, whose numerous intellectual challenges continue to fuel his interest in this complicated legal realm.

Areas of Practice
Drew has participated in hundreds of matters involving disputes arising when securities brokerage firms hire registered representatives away from their competitors, and he has managed numerous securities law claims brought by public customers against brokerage firms. He has handled many regulatory proceedings brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) against securities brokerage firms, registered representatives, market makers and other personnel. He also has pursued and defended claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Typical examples of his work on behalf of brokerage firms include:

  • representing a brokerage firm through multiple sessions of a protracted New York Stock Exchange arbitration, proceedings that arose from a raid by a competitor on one of the brokerage firm's offices (PaineWebber, Inc., v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 1985)
  • representing a securities trading firm—RFG Company—and its principals against SEC disciplinary charges that they had violated various provisions of the Federal Reserve Board’s margin rules
  • representing a brokerage firm—Institutional Investor Services, LLC—against charges by the NASD that the firm’s principal proprietary trading program violated that organization’s prohibition against practices inconsistent with “just and equitable principles of trade.”

In addition, Drew has represented clients in commercial and intellectual property disputes differentiated by their depth and variety.

Achievements
One celebrated case in particular provides a good example of the challenges inherent in Drew’s securities and commodities work and his skill in confronting them. In a jury trial he successfully helped defend a brokerage firm that innocently sold stock stolen from the safety deposit box of a deceased individual by an inheritance tax examiner employed by the Treasurer's Office of the State of Illinois.

An outgrowth of a broad criminal conspiracy, the case spawned additional civil litigation, including claims against:

  • the criminal conspirators engaged in stealing the decedent’s stock, in selling it through various brokerage firms and in cashing the checks from the proceeds
  • the bank whose teller, a conspiracy member, accepted checks bearing forged signatures
  • the state of Illinois—based on its alleged negligent hiring of a person recently released from a penitentiary in Massachusetts—for employing a felon as an inheritance tax examiner (Estate of John Krasa v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 1980 to 1982).

Two noteworthy cases best illustrate Drew’s representation of securities brokers against claims involving diverse and unique financial instruments, including options, derivatives and hedge funds. In the first he secured the dismissal of federal securities law and other claims made by a wealthy speculator into a hedge fund (Weiss v. Ganz, 1998). In the second case he successfully represented a major broker-dealer against allegations of securities fraud made by a securities trader following losses incurred on the trader's investment in a derivative security—an “inverse IO” tranche of a collateralized mortgage obligation (Birger Nyborg v. PaineWebber, Inc., 1999).

In other critical matters, Drew:

  • successfully argued the first federal appellate case involving the time limits during which a customer's securities fraud claim is eligible for arbitration [PaineWebber v. Farnam, 870 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989)]
  • obtained an appellate court decision that the operator of a marketplace was not liable as a "contributor infringer" for the sale in its markets of counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark [Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc., 955 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1992)]
  • participated in the successful defense of a major corporation liable for raiding personnel from one of its competitors [Lawson Products, Inc., et al. v. Avnet, Inc., 782 F.2d 1429 (7th Cir. 1986)]
  • represented a major distributor of computer equipment against breach of contract and claims of fraud made by a supplier; this case resulted in the pretrial grant of summary judgment in favor of our client on certain of its counterclaims, a favorable jury verdict on the plaintiff's fraud claim and a successful post-trial motion significantly reducing the damages awarded on the breach of contract claim {Genroco International, Inc., v. Avnet, Inc., U.S.D.C., E.D. Wisc., Case No. 94 C 1052 (1997) [Jury Trial]}
  • obtained restraining orders in favor of the licensee of various rock bands to sell tee-shirts and other authorized merchandise at the concerts of those bands, participated in enforcing those orders through the seizure of counterfeit goods at concert sites and handled follow-up court proceedings [Winterland Concessions Company, d/b/a Winterland Productions, Raindrop Products, Inc., d/b/a Rolling Stones, et al. v. Sileo, et al., 528 F.Supp. 1201 (N.D. Ill. 1981); Winterland Concessions Co. v. Creative Screen, 214 U.S.P.Q. 188; 1981 WL 59411 (N.D. Ill.); decided November 16, 1981].

Other cases of interest include:

  • a claim against officers and directors of a bank based on an alleged promise to sell the bank [Koplin v. Labe Federal Savings & Loan Association, 748 F.Supp. 1336 (N.D. Ill. 1990)]
  • defense of a securities brokerage firm against a claim involving multiple alleged violations of federal and state securities laws [Capalbo v. PaineWebber, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1988) and 672 F.Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ill. 1987)]
  • a commercial case involving allegations of breach of contract, fraud and breaches of warranty arising out of the sale of a going business [Wabash, Inc., v. Avnet, Inc., 516 F.Supp. 995 (N.D. Ill. 1981)].

If seeking an attorney knowledgeable about and sensitive to the nuances of securities and commodities litigation and arbitration, please give Drew a call.