Rajat Gupta Ordered to Repay Goldman Sachs $6.2 Million for Attorney’s Fees

By | The D & O Diary | February 26, 2013
Rajat Gupta Ordered to Repay Goldman Sachs $6.2 Million for Attorney’s Fees

By the time you read this blog post, you undoubtedly will have seen one of the stories in the mainstream media reporting on the February 25, 2013 decision of Southern District Court Jed Rakoff ordering former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta to repay most of the legal fees the company incurred in connection with the government’s investigation and prosecution of Gupta.

Judge Rakoff V. SEC and Citigroup

By | Mortgage Crisis Watch | August 15, 2012
Judge Rakoff V. SEC and Citigroup

Judge Rakoff Not Going Out Quietly

In a story we’ve been following since the outset, on Monday, Judge Rakoff filed his brief before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It is not every day that you see a federal judge litigating against two parties who were theoretically adverse before him. But that is precisely the framework of this appeal.

The SEC V. Citigroup Appeal: SEC and Citigroup File Their Briefs Explaining Why Judge Rakoff’s Opinion Should Be Vacated

The SEC V. Citigroup Appeal: SEC and Citigroup File Their Briefs Explaining Why Judge Rakoff’s Opinion Should Be Vacated

On Monday, May 14, 2012, both the SEC and the Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. filed their appellate briefs (available here and here) in the three consolidated appeals regarding Judge Jed Rakoff’s November 28, 2011 Opinion and Order rejecting the SEC’s proposed settlement with Citigroup.

Judge Rakoff Issues Opinion in Civil Gupta Case Explaining Why He Will Not Compel the SEC to Produce Documents Relating to Settlement Negotiations

In a Memorandum Order entered on May 1, 2012, Judge Jed Rakoff formally denied a motion to compel by Rajat Gupta and Raj Rajaratnam, who were seeking an order that the SEC produce documents concerning settlement negotiations between the Commission and cooperating witnesses. In an April 11, 2012 telephone conference, Judge Rakoff tentatively ruled in the Commission’s favor, but allowed the parties to submit letter briefs on the issue.