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.
Several more things from the Securities Enforcement Forum 2012 occurred to me after my last post, and I thought I would note them here.
You have surely heard by now that Rajat Gupta was convicted on four of six counts in his insider trading trial last Friday. Amid a number of recent high-profile flops, Gupta’s conviction is a bright spot for the Justice Department, and in particular for prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and the SEC.
Rajat Gupta, the former Managing Director of McKinsey & Company and board member at Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble, was convicted on four of six counts by a federal jury in New York today for providing nonpublic material information to Raj Rajaratnam in 2008. Specifically, Mr. Gupta was convicted of conspiring to commit insider trading and three counts of insider trading (but was acquitted on two other counts of insider trading).
Rajat Gupta’s insider trading trial is proceeding apace in the Southern District of New York. While there have certainly been enough entertaining witnesses to keep close observers busy so far, none would be as Earth-shaking as news of Raj Rajaratnam’s testimony. As you know if you’re reading this post, Rajaratnam was convicted in the same courthouse last year for insider trading in a large number of issuers.
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.