Peter E. Cooper joined Lawrence Kamin over two decades ago, after positions with a Chicago securities litigation boutique and two diversified New York law firms. Peter’s practice includes representing institutions (broker-dealers, investment advisers and banks) and financial professionals in customer litigation and arbitration, restrictive covenant and trade secret disputes, and in regulatory investigations and enforcement proceedings before the SEC, FINRA and state securities regulators. He also represents both plaintiffs and defendants in non-securities litigation, ranging from business torts and breaches of contract to trust and estates disputes.
Peter strives to bring three essential attributes to all client matters: a commitment to listening; proficiency in structuring and simplifying complex legal and economic arguments; and an appreciation for the value of clients’ financial and human resources. Recognizing that most clients are not in the business of litigating, Peter understands that success cannot be measured merely by courtroom victories, but in accomplishing clients’ business and legal objectives, while not overwhelming their daily lives and professions.
An adjunct professor at the IIT Chicago-Kent School of Law, Peter previously served as the chair of the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Subcommittee of the Chicago Bar Association Securities Law Committee. Peter remains active in the Chicago Lincoln American Inn of Court, and has published a variety of articles on dispute resolution and securities and future regulation.
Peter and his wife live in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, where he has served as elected Village Trustee, and remains active in the community. A life-long sports fan, Peter prides himself on having taught one of his four children how to keep score at a baseball game.
Narrow construction of restrictive covenant aids financial professional.
Post-employment restrictive covenants proliferate in Illinois, blocking financial professionals from changing employers while continuing to serve their long-established customers. Peter and the litigation group crafted an exit strategy that permitted an established investment advisor representative to contact his existing clients to inform them of his move, and the Illinois Appellate Court confirmed that such contacts would not be deemed a violative solicitation.
Court approves substantial fee for directed trustee based on fee agreement and burden of litigation.
Peter represented a corporate trustee in an action for trustee’s fees in connection with the administration of highly-contested trust dispute. The trust beneficiaries had agreed to the appointment of the trustee, but, a year and a half later, one of the beneficiaries challenged the trustee’s fees. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the probate court awarded the trustee the full amount of the fees it sought, finding that complexity of the ongoing litigation and trust administration resulting from the beneficiary’s own obstreperous behavior warranted substantial compensation, even on “directed” assets.
Arbitration panel rejects claimant’s assertion of unauthorized trading.
Peter helped a broker-dealer successfully defend a customer’s allegations that losses in his account resulted from unauthorized trades. Using the claimant’s cellular phone records and the client’s trading logs, Peter helped establish that the customer’s protests of ignorance of the trades were not credible, resulting in a “zero” award in the broker-dealer’s favor.
FINRA Substantially Revises Customer Arbitration Rules, NSCP Currents, July/August 2007
Securities Mediation: An Alternative Path to Claims Resolution, National Regulatory Services 2006 Compliance Conference
Broker-Dealer Customer and Recruiting Disputes, Glasser LegalWorks, Broker Dealer Litigation
When is an FCM, CTA or Pool a Securities Broker-Dealer, an Investment Adviser or an Investment Company Under the Securities Laws?, Futures & Derivatives Law Report
State and Federal Court Litigation Involving Futures and Derivatives, 8 Securities News, No. 2