Man
With Yahoo Insider Trading
Plea Vacated For Shift In Law
Must Appear in SDNY on August
21
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 10 –
Ten year ago today SAC
Capital's Richard Lee bought a
slew of Yahoo stock. He later
pled guilty to insider
trading. Now U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Paul G.
Gardephe has
granted his
motion to
withdraw Lee's
guilty plea,
or rather,
found that
"given
developments
in insider
trading law
since Lee's
plea was taken
in 2013, his
guilty plea is
insufficient.
Accordingly,
Lee's guilty
plea will be
vacated on
grounds of
insufficient."
On
July 10, 2019
- ten years
after the
trades at
issue - Lee
was in court
in the run up
to a new
trial.
Discover is
being
produced;
Judge Gardephe
scheduled the
next status
conference for
August 21.
Lee's lawyer
asked if
Chicago-resident
Lee should not
travel to New
York for the
conference.
Judge Gardephe
said since he
will probably
set the trial
date at that
session, he is
not
comfortable
with Lee not
being present.
Inner City
Press will be
there. The
case is USA v.
Lee,
13-cr-00539
(PGG) - listed
on the board
in the lobby
of 500 Pearl
Street as "USA
v. John Doe
1."
Three years after
Capital One Bank was sued for
its overdraft fees on debit
card transactions for which
there were sufficient funds
available in the customers'
accounts, on June 25 the
bank's motion for summary
judgment was denied by SDNY
Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.
Judge Schofield after her
ruling joked that it felt like
the case began in last
century. She gave the lawyers
for named plaintiff Tawanna M.
Roberts two weeks to file a
letter presaging their motion
for class
certification.
The
case has already seen one
appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, which
partially reversed
Judge Schofield's granting
of Capital One's motion to
dismiss Roberts' causes of
action for breach of contract
and violation of New York
General Business Law §
349.
The
case has attracted interest as
an example, consumer advocates
say, of predatory practice,
citing a Capital One account
agreement which states that an
overdraft occurs when it
“elects to pay” a transaction
that exceeds a customer’s
available balance.
The
advocates say that by charging
overdraft fees on transactions
that the bank elected to pay
when the available balance was
sufficient, but that later
settled against negative
funds, Capital One led
consumers to believe it would
do one thing while doing the
opposite, inflicting
significant financial hardship
- that is, overdraft fees - on
affected customers in the
process.
In the
run-up to the June 25 oral
arguments, Judge Schofield
informed the parties that she
would only grant argument to
lawyers graduating in 2014 or
more recently. Capital One's
law firm Morrison Foerster
proposed a 2013 graduate,
Tiffani B. Figueroa. Judge
Schofield approved it, and the
argument took place with
Sophia Goren Gold representing
Tawanna Roberts. Now she seeks
class certification. The case
is Roberts v. Capital One
Financial Corporation,
16-cv-4841 (Schofield).
After her June 25 ruling,
Judge Schofield said that
there might be material even
in the transcript of the oral
argument, which took place in
open court, which should be
redacted. This follows an
entirely sealed criminal
sentencing Judge Schofield
held on June 17, without
disclosing even the name of
the case or defendant, much
less the reason(s) for
sealing.
In this case, both sides
quickly said no, there was
nothing to redact. Like the
sentencing, it is a matter of
public interest. Inner City
Press, which has not been told
what sentencing was moved out
of its view on June 17 (and
which was the only media in
Judge Schofield's courtroom
for the Capital One oral
arguments on June 25) will
stay on these cases. More on
Patreon, here.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office, past & future?: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now UNder
Guterres: UN Delegates
Entrance Gate
and mail: Dag H.
Center
Box 20047, NY NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2018 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
