| Citibank
Wire Transfer Trial Has Brigade Rep Who
Worked From Home Withholding Exhibits
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Dec 10 – As Citibank
tries to recoup the money it
wired out on August 11, 2020,
the virtual / Zoom trial began
on December 9 before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Inner City Press is covering
it.
Here
for now some of the Day blow
by blow. On Day 2, Brigade's
Jeff Frusciante described his
morning of August 12, 2020,
working from home in
Connecticut. He said he could
not remember how he
communicated about the
Citibank wire transfer; he was
asked about Brigade's document
retention policy.
Meanwhile Inner
City Press' written requests,
following instructions, from
defendants' exhibits have been
stonewalled - not a single
such exhibit has been
provided, despite follow up.
In the docket, there's a
reference to skeptism about
demands for confidentiality.
Skepticism is growing. Here's
some of Day 2:
Vinella is on
re-direct, after yesterday's
cross examination. "Here is
says the maturity date,
principal due, zero
withholding tax." Yeah - zero
tax.
Re-direct of
Vinella ends with him being
asked if he spoke with the
lawyers after yesterday's
testimony. No, he says. But he
did speak with his mother and
told her it went well.
Now getting
grilled is Jeff Frusciante of
Brigade Capital. He was at
home in Connecticut on Aug 12,
2020 when he became aware of
the August 11 wire transfer
from Citibank. Some things he
remembers clearly, others not
so much.
Q: Is it
true you cannot speak to what
Ms. Turk was doing for that 45
minutes, to 12:15 pm?
Frusciante: No.
But after that, I have
personal knowledge.
Q: Let's look at
your deposition, page 96, line
19
Frusciante
of Brigade is still on the
"stand." He is being asked
about Defendants' Exhibit
1144, a Bank of America
document. Meanwhile defendants
have yet to provide the Press
any exhibits. We're reminded
them of skepticism of
confidentiality expressed in
docket ...
Now up: Matthew
Perkal. But there's an
objection, from Citibank,
pointing to a portion of his
declaration. What about the
exhibits?
Following
up, before 2 pm Inner City
Press requested the exhibits
in "Appendix B to Docket
Number 189, consistent with
the Court's skepticism in
claimed needs for
confidentiality. Zip file is
fine. Please advise." Three
and a half hours later,
nothing.
Again, on Day 1
some Plaintiff Exhibits were
provided. Due to recent
problems with Scribd platform,
analysis and some exhibits on
Patreon, here.
That where we can put zip; here's
one on DocumentCloud, here.
Thread Part
1:
Prior to any
witnesses, the discuss is of
jurisdiction - not only
diversity, but under the Edge
Act / international wires.
Many uses of the
phrase "belt and suspenders,"
very SDNY. "The rules on
redacting in the Southern
District are pretty clear."
[That's not what Michael
Avenatti says, withholding
everything as opposed by Inner
City Press, here]
Still in preliminaries,
discussing which documents
will come in and how. Question
arises how the media will get
access to the documents. Judge
Furman does his best, for now;
Inner City Press pursues.
Now first
witness is up: Vincent
Farrell. Judge Furman:
"Welcome to my virtual
courtroom." Indeed....
On the screen,
Defendants' exhibit 668, a
chat involving Vincent
Farrell: "it is not a
repayment" (of principal on
the Revlon term loan)
In response
to an objection, Judge Furman
says "I'll allow it, subject
to the caveats I've given. I'm
not going to defer to the
witness on legal conclusions."
Now he's asking
Farrell his own
questions. Farrell is in
a black suit, with a black
tie. Next witness:
Vincent Fratta.
Judge Furman
sustains objections to Para 39
of his declaration / direct
testimony, the sentencing
beginning "it was important"
& "we also wanted."
In Citibank
trial, witness is Brendan
Zeigan, being asked about the
general ledger.
And Part
II:
Now "Mister
Vinella," sounding like
Vanilla, being cross examined
about his deposition, which we
don't have - yet?
Interesting to
compare Vinella wooden floor
(cabin?) to the lawyer cross
examining him, from office.
Zoom trial.
Vinella is
sparring back well, it
seems Q: Do you
consider this to be a cash
break? Objection!
Judge Furman:
Sustained. Q: (rephrased to
compare to industry standard)
Vinella: There's also the
payment break. Or a notice
break. Three types of break.
Q: Any definition you want.
Objection, form.
Overruled.
Vinella is being
shown a notice Q: Scroll up to
page 005. This is an email
from Harmodic Fund Services,
on August 12 at 2:20 Vinella:
The GMT is 4. There's a London
or Dublin address.
Q: Not relevant
to my question. Have you seen
this before? Vinella:
No. Vinella: These
notices have a lot of
problems. But this isn't
questioning if the payment is
incorrect.
Q:
"Harmonic had requested... so
we can book." Vinella: A cash
reconciliation break. Let me
get more granular. Harmonic
believes the notice is not
sufficient
Q: You were a
member of the trade
association LSTA? Vinella:
Yes.
Q: And LSTA says
that the funds should be
returned to Citi? Objection -
"he has not knowledge." No
further questions.
Judge Furman: So
we'll stop. Redirect 9 am.
Vinella: 6 am for me.
Note: in fairness, the Farrell
exhibits were provided. But not the
Vinella, at least not yet, while he was
bring examined and cross. Analysis and
some exhibits on Patreon, here.
The case is
In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire
Transfers, 20-cv-6539 (Furman)
***
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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
