David Graff’s career has been defined by his pursuit of novel legal solutions to the problems faced by his clients. A commercial litigator dedicated to trial work, David counsels his clients across a broad spectrum of legal disciplines, including business litigation, financial litigation, securities litigation, real estate litigation, restructuring and business bankruptcy, corporate takeovers, legal malpractice claims, and trusts and estates litigation.

      David’s interest in inventive solutions arose early in his career, when he originated a new legal strategy designed to seek remedies for investors in foreign companies that have “gone dark” on U.S. exchanges. David’s legal process —unprecedented at the time—included pursuing put options for affected stock at fair market value, seeking out contempt orders, and establishing a court-ordered receiver to seize company assets in foreign countries, including China, Hong Kong, and the British Virgin Islands. This process required numerous all-new legal strategies, including several pioneering valuation techniques that David developed to best determine the fair value of a nonresponsive company’s stock.

      These creative legal solutions opened the door for David to take leadership positions in cases very early in his career. While working for a previous employer, David’s successes in the courtroom led him to achieve partner status at the age of 30. By the time he was 33 years old, David had been elected chair of the litigation department of a national law firm, with responsibility for fifty lawyers and hundreds of  litigation matters per year. Since then, he has pushed forward tirelessly in his role as a trial lawyer, first chairing numerous cases through trial and spending more than 100 days per year in the courtroom. Still in his mid-30s, David has developed a diverse and substantial practice, one that has seen him represent 50+ clients in more than 100 legal matters in jurisdictions throughout the United States. . His experience spans a range of industries, including energy, apparel, food and beverage, financial services, real estate, and construction.

      David’s professional achievements have been recognized by many organizations in the industry. Benchmark Litigation, The New York Law Journal, and Super Lawyers have all identified him as a rising star in the New York metro. In 2014, Law360 named him one its “top 10 securities litigators under 40” in the United States. He is proudest of his two sons.

Selected Cases: 

Represented strategic investor in a telecom equipment company registered in Delaware with principal operations in China. When the company stopped reporting and refused to produce its books and records, brought a contempt action and obtained an order for: (i) a ‘put’ option at fair market value for the plaintiff’s shares; (ii) attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing the action; and (iii) appointment of a receiver to carry out the court’s orders - likely the first time ever that a receiver was appointed over a solvent Delaware company. Gained control with help of court-appointed receiver of subsidiaries in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Hong Kong, and ultimately the People’s Republic of China. 

Represented an investor in multi-million dollar securities litigation against one of the nation's largest broker-dealers. Case engages complex securities issues such as broker-dealer diligence and the propriety of broker dealer securities lending, as well as foreign law in multiple venues. Constructed a complex damage model in pursuit of largest award in the history of the forum. 

Represented an investor in a FINRA claim alleging misappropriation of trade secrets against a major broker-dealer. Complaint alleges the defendant lured away plaintiff’s registered sales representative, induced him to deliver information pertaining to hundreds of customers, and to pitch his new employer to them before notifying the plaintiff that he was resigning. 

Represented individual investors in litigation to recover funds stolen via a multi-million dollar fraudulent "pump-and-dump" scheme. Tracked down and identified misappropriated funds and quickly moved to recoup clients' investments. Pursued novel claims against not only the individual bad actors but the law firms and other agents that have represented the individuals and facilitated the fraud. 

Served as national counsel to a special servicer of student loan debt with over $1 billion under management. 

Represented a company specializing in analytics of mortgage backed securities in an intellectual property claim. Sought damages for theft of the company’s trade secrets including its algorithms, source codes, and databases, by its former CEO and employees. Successfully restrained the bank accounts of multiple entities engaged in the misappropriation prior to a final award to ensure monetization of the judgment.

Represented the estate and children of an individual who entered into an oral partnership for the purpose of purchasing, holding, refinancing, selling, and leasing parcels of real estate. The real estate interests are also held in various trusts and LLCs in which the trustees and fiduciaries have engaged in illegal acts of self-dealing and oppression by failing to provide monetary distributions and information relating to the entities. Sought compensatory and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of partnership agreement, minority oppression based on consistent and repeated failures to disclose basic information, self-dealing by conversion of the partnership’s, trusts’, and LLCs’ assets, unjust enrichment, and fraud for the concealment of illegal conduct. 

Represented various institutional investors in litigation to recover funds invested for non-performing debt and equity positions in foreign corporations. In response 

to defaults on debt instruments, obtained and enforced judgments, including the appointment of receivers to assist in liquidation and distribution of the corporate assets. In response to failures to report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act and otherwise “going dark,” obtained judgments requiring the corporation to “put” or repurchase the outstanding corporate stock held by the investors at prices we propose via complex but transparent modeling. 

Represented individual and institutional investors that invested funds in a foreign entity through debenture purchase agreements. After obtaining judgment against the corporation for defaulting on the debentures, commenced action against a corporate executive pursuing various fraud claims for misappropriation of the invested funds, including furtherance of a Chinese reverse merger scam designed to defraud the investors out of their investment. 

Represented and provided strategic advice to a leading civil rights law firm in a bid to enforce a multi-million dollar judgment against employees of a municipality and the municipality itself, and in resolving complex issues of municipal and state constitutional law as they relate to the municipality’s obligation to indemnify its employees and a plaintiff’s ability to bring a direct action against the municipality. 

Obtained an order by which the municipality agreed to indemnify its employees and obtain a $45 million bond to cover its indemnification obligations. 

Represented a prominent company in the spirits industry in prosecution of ordinary breach of contract, account stated, unfair business practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent conveyance claims against its former members and employees. Sought liquidation of a promissory note, recovery of monies due and owed for outstanding invoices, and damages for breach of non-competition provisions. Provided strategic defense against employment related counterclaims, including wrongful termination and unfair business practices. 

Negotiated settlement of an age discrimination suit on behalf of a former employee terminated pursuant to a large professional organization’s official policy of demoting or terminating employees at age sixty-five. 

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and does not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.