When investments do not perform as expected, investors often demand recompense. Litchfield Cavo attorneys are skilled in handling high-volume client matters involving financial and securities institutions with industry knowledge of institutional products and services. Our attorneys understand the devastating impact these lawsuits can have on our clients’ reputations and bottom lines and offer unique solutions to manage and resolve the myriad of legal issues these institutions confront.
Litchfield Cavo attorneys’ nationwide reputation as being a leader among financial institutional clients stems from abiding by efficient, effective strategies grounded in vast amounts of knowledge in this complex and ever-changing area of law. Our clients include financial institutions, publicly traded companies, professional service firms and their financial lenders, brokers and loan servicers, savings associations and investment firms, and advisors and their insurers throughout the United States.
Understanding Diverse Groups of Clients
Litchfield Cavo clients are our attorneys’ business partners and receive concise feedback, practical solutions and favorable results in civil litigation matters. When litigation ensues, our talented team of trial attorneys and their accrued records of success appear in court, administrative proceedings and in arbitration hearings before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and arbitrators to defend our clients. Our attorneys regularly work with national and international financial institutions and provide prosecution and defense strategies relating to the following:
- Asset recovery
- Breach of fiduciary duty claims
- Class action litigation
- Conflict of interest
- Lender liability claims
- Mortgage and title litigation
- Privacy and cyber security claims
- Real property litigation
- Securities fraud
- Suitability of investment
- Unfair or deceptive trade practices
- Consumer Credit Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Creditors’ and Equity Holders’ Counsel
- Equal Credit Opportunity Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Truth in Lending and Regulation Z
Our Financial Institutions Defense Record
Litchfield Cavo attorneys defend financial institutions and their related class actions in United States state, federal and appellate courts as well as in arbitration proceedings on behalf of clients, including the following representative matters:
- Obtained judgment for financing client on the pleadings that the language of the parties’ agreement permitted client to charge interest on funds not yet advanced to recreational vehicle manufacturers; defended our corporate client in the class action suit brought about by the R.V. dealers asserting breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment claims arising from financing for the manufacture of recreational vehicles.
- Obtained $2.15 million judgment on behalf of FSB client for mortgage fraud against a mortgage broker, its principal, a real estate appraiser and other parties on residential mortgage loans that client underwrote, approved and funded.
- Obtained policy limits payment in full from title insurer for mortgage lender client who insured and foreclosed on incorrect property after title insurer twice denied coverage and a bona fide purchaser acquired the correct property.
- Defended insurance company client in a class action suit brought by various groups of providers asserting antitrust, price-fixing, conspiracy and slow-pay claims arising from the processing and payment of physician reimbursement by health insurance companies.
- Defended two corporate energy clients in a lawsuit brought by a commercial property owner who sought damages for breach of a written lease arising from loss of rental income due to contamination of a former gas station site; a non-jury court trial found in our clients favor when the plaintiff failed to prove its case and ruled that both energy company clients could not be held liable.