Jacob (Jake) H. Zamansky is a securities arbitration attorney based in New York, NY. After working for both the Federal Trade Commission as a federal prosecutor, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Zamansky opened his own firm in 1998. He quickly established a reputation as an investor advocate[1] and expert securities employment lawyer[2] and is noted for his tenacity in dealing with opponents; he even earned the nickname, ’Jaws’ from one of his clients, "for his ability to devour the competition."[3]
On March 1, 2001, Zamansky filed a securities arbitration case against Wall Street firm Merrill Lynch, and its highly touted stock analyst Henry Blodget.[4] Zamansky represented Debasis Kanjilal who had purchased $571,000 of stock in InfoSpace; at that time InfoSpace stock was trading at roughly $122 a share. Over the course of nine months the stock plummeted, but Kanjilal’s broker convinced him not to sell, citing Blodget’s enthusiastic buy ratings in research reports. The stock eventually dropped to $3 a share, causing Kanjilal to lose almost everything he invested.[5]
During his investigation Zamansky uncovered evidence showing that although Blodget was giving multiple stocks a positive “buy” rating, in order to enhance Merrill Lynch banking fees, he was privately describing the stocks as average at best. One email from a mutual fund manager to Blodget asked what was special about a stock to which Blodget had given a long-term buy rating; it seemed to the manager that the stock held little value. In Blodget’s reply he admitted in his reply that the stock was otherwise insignificant, its only purpose was to boost Merrill’s banking business.[6] In more blunt emails, Blodget described stocks with high buy ratings as, a “dog” “disaster” or “such a piece of crap!” [7]
As a result of the damaging evidence Zamansky uncovered, Merrill Lynch settled the Kanjilal case for $400,000 in June 2001.[8] After learning about the settlement, the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was interested in why Merrill Lynch had settled with Zamansky.[9] Spitzer’s subsequent investigation led to the Wall Street Global Settlement of 2002.
Employment Disputes
In addition to his extensive work as an advocate for individual investors, Zamansky also represents securities professionals involved in employment disputes.
A notable example is Zamansky’s representation of Mark Hurant, a former managing director with Bear Stearns. Hurant was terminated during the market timing scandal of 2002-2003. Although he admits to market timing, he maintains that he did it with Bear Stearns' “full knowledge, consent, support and assistance" and that he is being used as a scapegoat by the firm. This case is currently still pending.[10]
Form U-5 Defamation
Zamansky is also on the forefront of Termination Form U-5 defamation cases. Form U-5 is the document that details why a securities professional left a particular firm and in a sense becomes their “permanent record,” detailing the professional’s movements and motives. In many documented cases, the Form U-5 has been used to defame and undermine a parting broker.
A recent case against Merrill Lynch outlines the importance of a broker’s Form U-5. The firm was found to have defamed three former brokers (Christopher Chung, William Savino and Kevin Brunnock) on their Form U-5’s resulting in, "lost income and pain and suffering"[11]
Zamansky has also been vocal opponent [12] of a recent court ruling, (Rosenberg v. Metlife)[13] from the New York Court of Appeals, which provides brokerage firm’s with “absolute privilege” regarding what they write on a Form U-5.[14]
Mortgage Fraud
In 2007, the housing market bubble produced mortgage fraud and abuse similar to the technology bubble of 2000 and 2001. Zamansky has also proved to be a leading attorney at the forefront of this issue.
In late 2006, Zamansky filed a case against Peter Dawson, a Long Island-based financial adviser; the case has received significant media attention.[15] According to the SEC [16] and a separate civil suit, Dawson cheated his clients out of as much as $100 million despite promises of huge returns for their investments. Zamansky asserts that Dawson’s clients received unsuitable loans and were the victims of predatory lending; as a result, many of the largest lenders in the country are also named in the suit.[17] This case is still pending.