| Citibank on
Trial for Colombian Hedging Scam Gives
Judge Bogota Rulings from 1945
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC -
Honduras
- CIA
Trial Book - NY
Mag
SDNY Courtroom,
Sept 6 – Colombian sugar
producer Mayaguez sued
Citibank for ripping it off on
hedging transactions. Now the
case is coming to trial,
albeit a bench trial.
On August
19, 2022 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Paul G.
Gardephe held an in-person
final pre-trial conference
with a dozen lawyers, most of
them for Citibank. Inner City
Press went and covered
it.
The plaintiff is
represented by Quinn
Emanuel, which made a
point that they had tried to
bring a few lawyers as
possible. The Citigroup team
from Shearman & Sterling
took up half of the gallery
(the rest was empty, other
than Inner City Press).
In
preparation for the bench
trial, Team Citibank sought
and obtained an order to allow
them to bring in trial
supplies, small dolly, sealed
water bottles to and from the
courtroom. There is a separate
order for technological
equipment.
Mayaguez
filed a motion in limine to
exclude evidence about an
internal audit. But it being a
bench trial, the potential for
prejudice is small. Judge
Gardephe let it in.
On August 22 the
trial began, and Inner City
Press was present, apparently
the only media in a gallery
otherwise full of corporate
lawyers. Threadette here:
OK- now in trial
against Citibank by Colombia
sugar manufacterer Mayaguez.
Courtroom gallery jammed with
corporate lawyers, printers,
boxes of documents.
Citi reduced
Mayaguez to junk status.
Witness links it to
over-hedging. Citi moves to
strike.
On the screen,
slides about FX Collar
Targeted Payout and "Limited
Compensation Collar is not a
hedge."
In the docket,
the two sides on August 22
jointly asked Judge Gardephe
to "direct the Clerk of Court
to remove the trial exhibits
filed at the following docket
numbers: ECF Nos. 238, 239 etc
etc etc 367, and 368." And a
visit to the docket at 5:30 pm
on August 22 found "You do not
have permission to view this
document."
On August 23,
another expert was on the
stand, being asked about his
report a slide entitled
"Restitutio in Integrum." In
the gallery, more boxes: a
snacks (Blue Diamond nuts were
visible), and full boxes each
witnesses like Alarcon,
Mauricio and Veronesi.
On August 24, a
witness was on the stand in
Spanish, interpreted
consecutively, asked if he
thought the transaction had
been approved by the CEO of
Mayaguez. He said he had seen
no written proof of approval.
Now the boxes in the gallery
had multiplied or spread, now
taking up the back three rows
on both sides, including a box
for "Lina Cross."
On September 5,
Labor Day, Citibank submitted
to the Court a slew of
Colombian court decision, as
far back at 1945.
On September 6,
the day the SDNY made COVID
masks voluntary, the trial
resumed. The witness was being
asked, through the
still-masked interpreter,
about the "marketing"
department. It was pointed out
this was Markets. The answers
didn't vary. This could take a
while.
The case is
Mayaguez S.A. v. Citigroup
Inc. et al., 16-cv-6788
(Gardephe)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
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 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
