Free Consultation: (610) 621-4550Tap to Call This Lawyer
Adam Savett
Savett Law Offices, LLCBadges
Claimed Lawyer ProfileQ&AResponsive Law
Summary
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.
Practice Areas
- Consumer Law
- Securities Law
- Antitrust Law
- Business Law
Additional Practice Area
- Telemarketing Abuse
Fees
- Free Consultation
- Contingent Fees
Jurisdictions Admitted to Practice
- District of Columbia
- District of Columbia Bar
- New Jersey
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia
- D.C. Circuit
Languages
- English: Spoken, Written
Professional Experience
- Managing Partner
- Savett Law Offices, LLC
- - Current
- CEO & Founder
- TXT Capital, LLC
- - Current
- Director of Securities Class Actions
- Claims Compensation Bureau, LLC
- -
- Director, Securities Class Action Services
- MSCI / RiskMetrics Group / Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)
- -
- Senior Associate
- Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
- -
- Associate
- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
- -
- Associate
- Finkelstein Thompson LLP
- -
- Associate
- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan
- -
Education
- Villanova University School of Law
- J.D.
- -
- American University
- B.A. | Broadcast Journalism
- -
Awards
- Top Contributor - Class Actions
- Avvo
- Top 5% most viewed profile
- National Finalist - Leading Lawyers in America
- Lawdragon Magazine
Professional Associations
- Hedge Fund Business Operations Association
- Member
- - Current
-
- SIFMA's Corporate Actions Division
- Member
- - Current
-
- National Association of Public Pension Attorneys
- Member
- - Current
-
- Professional Liability Underwriting Society
- Member
- - Current
-
- District of Columbia Bar
- Member
- - Current
-
- American Bar Association
- Member
- - Current
-
Publications
Articles & Publications
- Update on the Options-Backdating Class Actions
- TXT Capital
- A Billion Here, A Billion There: Solving the Historical Data Problem and Recouping More in Securities Litigation
- RiskMetrics Group
- SCAS 50 for 2008
- RiskMetrics Group
- The Subprime Meltdown Heads to Court
- RiskMetrics Group
Speaking Engagements
- Securities Litigation Post-Halliburton , 11th Annual National Directors & Officers Insurance ExecuSummit
- ExecuSummit
- D&O: Regulatory, Enforcement & Securities Litigation Update , 10th Annual National Directors & Officers Insurance ExecuSummit
- ExecuSummit
- Securities Class Actions: Nuisance or Opportunity? , FRT Webinars
- FRT
- The Evolving Securities Class Action Industry , FRT Webinars
- FRT
Websites & Blogs
- Website
- Website
Legal Answers
61 Questions Answered
- Q. If I sign a bank loan application and it states we intend to service your loan am I to understand I am approved?
- 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
- 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.
- Q. what happens if i did not receive a letter that was claimed to be sent without tracking under section 641 of California
- 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.
Social Media
Contact & Map
