Adam Savett

Adam Savett is a complex litigator who represents small businesses, institutional investors, and government entities, in securities, antitrust, consumer protection, and other complex litigation. Recently, Adam was named one of the 100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation by Lawdragon Magazine. He has published a number of articles and original research pieces on class action and securities litigation topics and is also a member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA), the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS), SIFMA's Corporate Actions Division, the American Bar Association (ABA), and the Hedge Fund Business Operations Association (HFBOA). Adam is a nationally recognized expert on complex litigation. He is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on securities litigation and class actions. His comments have appeared in a wide variety of publications, such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CFO Magazine, and Pensions & Investments.

Consumer Law

Class Action, Lemon Law

Securities Law

Antitrust Law

Business Law

Business Contracts, Business Dissolution, Business Finance, Business Formation, Business Litigation, Franchising, Mergers & Acquisitions, Partnership & Shareholder Disputes

• Telemarketing Abuse

• Free Consultation
• Contingent Fees

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Bar

Since 2003

New Jersey

Since 2000

Pennsylvania

Since 2000

Virginia

Since 2006

D.C. Circuit

Since 2004

Managing Partner

Savett Law Offices, LLC

2015 - Current

CEO & Founder

TXT Capital, LLC

2011 - Current

Director of Securities Class Actions

Claims Compensation Bureau, LLC

2010 - 2011

Director, Securities Class Action Services

MSCI / RiskMetrics Group / Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)

2007 - 2010

Senior Associate

Mehri & Skalet, PLLC

2006 - 2006

Associate

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

2003 - 2005

Associate

Finkelstein Thompson LLP

2002 - 2003

Associate

Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan

2000 - 2002

Villanova University School of Law

J.D.

1997 - 2000

American University

B.A. | Broadcast Journalism

1993 - 1997

Top Contributor - Class Actions

Avvo

2014

Top Contributor - Class Actions

Avvo

2013

Top 5% most viewed profile

LinkedIn

2012

Top Contributor - Class Actions

Avvo

2012

National Finalist - Leading Lawyers in America

Lawdragon Magazine

2010

Hedge Fund Business Operations Association

Member

2009 - Current

SIFMA's Corporate Actions Division

Member

2008 - Current

National Association of Public Pension Attorneys

Member

2007 - Current

Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Member

2007 - Current

District of Columbia Bar

Member

2003 - Current

Securities Class Action Trials in the Post-PSLRA Era

TXT Capital

February 5, 2019

Update on the Options-Backdating Class Actions

TXT Capital

July 18, 2017

A Billion Here, A Billion There: Solving the Historical Data Problem and Recouping More in Securities Litigation

RiskMetrics Group

2009

SCAS 50 for 2008

RiskMetrics Group

2009

The Subprime Meltdown Heads to Court

RiskMetrics Group

2009

Securities Litigation Post-Halliburton, 11th Annual National Directors & Officers Insurance ExecuSummit

May 19, 2015

ExecuSummit

D&O: Regulatory, Enforcement & Securities Litigation Update, 10th Annual National Directors & Officers Insurance ExecuSummit

May 13, 2014

ExecuSummit

Securities Class Actions: Nuisance or Opportunity?, FRT Webinars

October 1, 2013

FRT

The Evolving Securities Class Action Industry, FRT Webinars

June 19, 2013

FRT

Q. I received a check from Computershare/KCC AAG TCPA Settlement, claim AVO-10196354301 and I dont recall what this is for.

15 December 2020

A: I believe that the check is your pro-rata portion of the settlement in Abramson v. American Advisors Group (W.D. Pa. No. 2:19-cv-01341-MJH). This was a case alleging that AAG violated a federal law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (“TCPA”) by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls using an automated telephone dialing system and prerecorded voice, and calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. You can find more information by visiting the case specific website - http://www.tcpasettlementaag.com/, calling them at - 855-786-0906 or emailing them - admin@tcpasettlementaag.com

Q. If I sign a bank loan application and it states we intend to service your loan am I to understand I am approved?

10 September 2020

A: It likely does not mean that. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you weren't approved either. You see there are different parts of a loan - origination and servicing. Loan origination is the process by which a borrower applies for a new loan, and a lender processes that application. Loan servicing is the process by which a company collects interest, principal, and/or escrow payments from a borrower. Another way to look at it is that loan servicing covers essentially everything after disbursement of the funds until the loan is fully paid off. In the United States, the vast majority of mortgages are backed by the government or government-sponsored entities (GSEs) through purchase by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. Because GSEs and private loan investors typically do NOT service the mortgage loans that they purchase, the bank who sells the mortgage will generally retain the right to service the mortgage pursuant to a master servicing agreement. That is likely what the statement referred to. Good luck.

Q. what happens under section 641 of evidence code if you did not receive the mail that was claimed to have been mailed

26 August 2020

A: Evidence Code section 641 creates a rebuttable presumption that a properly addressed letter has been received. The plain language makes that clear - "A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail." The effect of a rebuttable presumption impacts the burden of producing evidence, like the presumption that a letter correctly addressed and properly mailed has been received (Evid. Code, § 641), “is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact [that the letter has been received] unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence [that the letter has not been received], in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.” (Evid. Code, § 604.) The rebuttable presumption that a letter correctly addressed and properly mailed has been received (Evid. Code, § 641) “disappears” and “has no further effect,” once there is evidence sufficient to support a finding that the letter was not mailed. (Evid. Code, § 604; Coffey v. Shiomoto 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1209-1210 (2015)) At that point, the trier of fact must “‘weigh the denial of receipt against the inference of receipt arising from proof of mailing and decide whether or not the letter was received.’” (Coffey v. Shiomoto, at 1210). In other words, the statute presumes that the letter, if properly addressed and mailed, was received. You have the burden to try and prove that it was not sent. Without knowing the details of what was allegedly sent to you, and allegedly not received by you, it is tough to say how you could do this. But, if for example, you were allegedly sent a check, and the office manager of the business that sent you the check explains the process for sending and recording outgoing checks, and that company's records don't line up with what they say the procedure is (e.g. not recorded in the check register, no copy of the accompanying letter in the client file, etc.) then your burden MIGHT be met. But it is a high burden. Best of luck.