| With Larmore on Trial for
WeWork Fraud US Rests Then Defense
Rule 29 Motion Denied
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 18 – Seven months
ago, Manhattan Federal
prosecutors unsealed an
Indictment charging JONATHAN
MOYNAHAN LARMORE with tender
offer fraud and securities
fraud in connection with
LARMORE’s announcement of a
fake tender offer to
manipulate the stock price of
WeWork, Inc.
They said
LARMORE is alleged to have
announced a false $77 million
tender offer for WeWork stock,
news of which immediately led
investors to buy WeWork stock
at fraudulently inflated
prices during after-hours
trading, in an effort to drive
up the value of his WeWork
call options and
shares. On October
16, with the trial on before
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer Inner
City Press live tweeted to the
end of the trial day - and
beyond, when it got
interesting, here on X for
Subscribers and on Substack
here. First, the thread:
AUSA: What did
you mean here, "Get it live"?
Witness: Get the website up.
Get it indexed in Google.
AUSA: And these messages?
Witness: It's me and Jon
Larmore, launching the web
site. He asked me to call him.
AUSA: What did
you discuss? Witness: The
press release AUSA: Then what
did you do? Witness: I found I
needed a press release agency.
I Googled and found
BusinessWire.
AUSA: What do
they do? Witness: Help get
articles out to like Yahoo
News and big blogs. AUSA: GX
1307, you texted Mr. Larmore
about it? A: Yes AUSA:
What were they proposing?
Witness: To acquire over 50%
of WeWork. Judge: Let's break
here.
Then things began
to get interesting But wait
there's more: with jury gone,
AUSA tells judge Larmore get a
Mr. Cochrane & his family
T-shirts about "Getting
Larmored, meaning getting
blind truck. This witness was
on the yacht on Nov 3, it was
said, the SEC is going to be
mad
Even more: The
defense lawyer objects to the
AUSA talking about a couple
moving their young child while
drunk - home was nearby, it
was a stroller, not a car,
lawyer says, adding that "I've
been accused of it too and I
don't appreciate it." Judge:
Don't go there.
More here
on X for Subscribers and on
Substack here
On October 17,
testimony turned to the yacht
off Florida (and then to
bankers). From the thread:
AUSA: Where were
you with Mr. Larmore?
Cochrane: On the yacht, off
Florida. He wanted to go out
into international waters.
AUSA: Why?
Cochrane: There was some
trading he wanted to do there.
AUSA: Did you make it?
Cochrane: No, there was a
small craft advisory
AUSA: What
did he want to purchase?
Cochrane: Call options, short
term, I think. AUSA: What was
your reaction? Cochrane: I
didn't get it, I would have
bet against WeWork because I
thought the company was going
down.
AUSA: What was
his demeanor? Cochrane: He was
like, I want to get this done.
I was on my computer, trading.
But not WeWork. He said he
wanted to get out a press
release. I hooked him up with
my friend Justin [yesterday's
last witness]
https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-with-larmore-on-trial-for-wework
Cochrane:
He asked me to try to get some
social media on it. I
choose two accounts with a lot
of followers and DM-ed em
AUSA: What is a DM? Cochrane:
A Direct Message. On Instagram
I asked them to talk about the
press release, there's a
tender offer being made
After a break,
some cross examination:
Larmore's lawyer: Mr.
Cochrane, you testified about
going into international water
to do some for-ex trading -
AUSA: Objection! Judge;
Sustained. Misstates the
testimony.
On October 18,
the Government rested its
case, and Larmore's Rule 29
motion was denied. From the thread:
Now in WeWork
fraud trial of US v. Larmore,
the Rule 29 motion - Larmore's
lawyer says no reasonable
trier of fact could find him
guilty, "he is not charged
with a short squeeze." Defense
case on Monday,
Judge: He needed
$77 million to carry out the
tender offer. How do you get
there from $46 [million]?
Larmore's lawyer: He's a
successful businessman, there
is evidence - Judge:
What evidence is that? I'm
engaging on the terms you're
setting out the argument
Judge: If
he couldn't [or wouldn't] pay
his mortgages, isn't there a
question for the jury about
whether he had the $77 million
for the tender offer?
Larmore's lawyer: My client
reached out to Softbank. How
is that consistent with an
intent to pump and dump?
Judge: There's
obviously substantial evidence
of consciousness of guilty
here. How can the government
use that? AUSA: Defendant was
not operating in good faith he
was going to fund the tender
offer through his options
trading. It was CYA for lack
of a better term
Judge: There is
sufficient evidence on which a
jury could find guilt. I note
the absence of any Rule 29
motion related to state of
mind... As to if Mr. Larmore's
family could have paid for the
tender offer, what will the
dog walker [a defense witness]
testify to?
Judge: That
witness will be subject to
objections while he testifies.
Is it confirmed that Mr.
Larmore will not testify? It
is.
The case is US v.
Larmore, 24-cr-140
(Engelmayer)
***
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
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
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 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
