Awaiting Judge’s Decision On FINRA Expert — Tuesday 7/18 Open Thread…

Hello all — I’m a little groggy here this morning, so forgive me if I didn’t yet like all the comments — I do “like” them all… just still catching up on my sleep, post travel. I am a believer in free and open marketplaces, for ideas — disagreements, even — as it all increases the spice of the conversation, and the likelihood that we learn from one another. So… have at it!

Now, since I have a busy week in the office (see view, in banner), on other matters — I’ll open this trial log thread for today in response to FTD’s question about the FINRA expert by simply saying we haven’t seen a ruling yet, from Judge Matsumoto, on PACER, as to how much of the SEC rules and laws she (the FINRA expert) will be able to explain in plain English for the jury — along with “the reasons for those rules“. But she will be allowed to testify, at some point, likely this week — perhaps even today.

[It is likely that the “feisty” exchanges — between Mr. Brafman and the ever able and level-tempered Judge Matsumoto — at day’s end yesterday, reported by Dan M. by tweet — relate to this sort of a dispute. That is, the dispute likely has to do with what evidence the prosecution may elicit from a witness — and how and/or whether Mr. Brafman may attack that testimony,  on cross. I would guess that the dispute was aired outside of the jury’s earshot.]

So do post here all the bits of Marty goodness (or badness, if you prefer!) you find scattered about on the inter-tubes.

I will try to catch up on the comment boxes later this week.

Namaste — and… onward!

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Awaiting Judge’s Decision On FINRA Expert — Tuesday 7/18 Open Thread…

  1. R West says:

    Wait until the defense gets a shot at it … 2013 10-K filed in 2014:

    In the second quarter of 2013, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, MSMB CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP (“MSMB Capital LP”), a Delaware limited partnership, MSMB CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC (“MSMB Capital LLC”), a Delaware limited liability company, MSMB HEALTHCARE LP (“MSMB Healthcare”), a Delaware limited partnership, MSMB HEALTHCARE INVESTORS LLC (“MSMB Investors”), a Delaware limited liability company, MSMB HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC (“MSMB Management” and, together with MSMB Capital LP, MSMB Capital LLC, MSMB Healthcare and MSMB Investors, the “MSMB Entities”), a Delaware limited liability company became parties to a series of agreements to settle up to $2,284,511 of liabilities owed to certain investors in the MSMB Entities which had invested in the Company and objected to the number of shares of common stock in the Company that they received as a distribution from such funds. Because the Company was a party to these settlements, it applied the accounting guidance provided in ASU 2013-04 (“ASU 2013-04”). This guidance requires companies to measure obligations resulting from joint and several liability arrangements as the sum of the amount that the entity has (a) contractually agreed to pay and (b) any additional amounts that the entity expects to pay on behalf of its co-obligors. Company management believes such liabilities are the obligation of the MSMB Entities and concurrent with the execution and payment of such settlement agreements, the Company entered into indemnification agreements and received promissory notes from the MSMB Entities, whereby the MSMB Entities jointly and severally agreed to pay the Company the principal amount of $2,284,511, plus interest at an annualized rate of 5% as reimbursement of payments that the Company made to settle a portion of the agreements. The Company paid $2,284,511 of these settlements during the year ended December 31, 2013. The Chief Executive Officer also agreed to deliver or cause to be delivered 47,128 shares of common stock to one of the counter parties as a separate component of one of these agreements. Accordingly, the Company does not believe it is required to record a liability for the shared-based component of this specific agreement during the year ended December 31, 2013. There is uncertainty as to whether the MSMB Entities will have sufficient liquidity to repay the Company or fund the indemnification agreements should it become necessary.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Hmmm. Yes R West — I had previously read that SEC disclosure by Retrophin.

      But I think it is the opposite of helpful — in a criminal defense — where one of the charges is parking.

      We shall see.

      Do elaborate for us — how do you imagine that the above will be of help to Mr. Brafman — in a non-civil (i.e., monetary damages only) setting?

      Do let us know!

      Namaste…

      Like

      • R West says:

        I appreciate all the technical securities law knowledge and points on here, and if this were on “The Good Wife,” Brafman would tell Martin (and maybe he has already) “you’re toast … you need to plead this out.” But with no deal, Brafman is thinking more like “Boston Legal.” In the beginning, the older Board members and company lawyer seemed to go along with everything Martin was doing (and the Board Chairman was caught on cross in some inconsistencies). Then later, the Board either got scared or saw a chance to take the company for themselves, and they fired Martin and updated the SEC filings … leaving Martin holding the bag. So it’s more like a conspiracy where the other members withdrew mid-stream. They were older and more experienced… and Martin was younger, even if the CEO. Brafman is going for jury nullification … it’s just unfair to convict younger Martin when RTRX backed out of the original plan … set Martin up to take the wrap … and RTRX never went after the stock that was issued. “Parking” could be a problem, but Brafman will make the same reliance on counsel argument. It all comes down to the Judge’s rulings on what can be argued by the defense… she hasn’t ruled on all the motions yet …and whether her rulings are incorrect and can be appealed later.

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        Parking will cost lil’ old Marty ten years. I’ll take that — and I’ll bet you a root beer that this jury doesn’t …nullify.

        In my experience juries only do that for defendants they find… appealing.

        Not so, Mr. Shkreli. Do we have a wager, R West?

        Namaste! Do stop back…

        Like

  2. FTD says:

    Double yikes :O

    “After getting the shares in Retrophin, along with the group of other friends and associates, Pierotti said, Shkreli made “comments… that people who had traded… should trade the stock, buy it and sell it, buy it and sell it.”

    Pierotti noted that “stocks are more valuable if they have liquidity.”

    “If a group of people just decided to trade stock back and forth, buying amongst themselves, just for the appearance of creating volume, that would be insider trading,” Pierotti said.”

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/stock-trader-didnt-see-shkreli-doing-much-stock-buying-or-selling.html

    Liked by 1 person

      • FTD says:

        You know, I think this is a perfect example of why everyone should get a court transcript every hour. No one is going to get misquoted or taken out of context. It is going to be the trial statement by statement. This is the 21st century, we dont need newspapers to wait for the content. 🙂

        Like

  3. billythekid9919 says:

    Condor, a very serious question here. When the judge goes to give instruction to the jury before their deliberations… What is said about “no ultimate harm”? If RTRX had any shareholders that weren’t part of the MSMB payouts they were harmed were they not? Some in the media seem to be hanging their hat on the fact that eventually investors got their money back plus a gain for their troubles. I’m puzzled how the jury is going to view that and apply it to the actual law if they aren’t given how it applies. I have no clue how this jury trial thing works. Please help.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      In New York, no ultimate harm is no defense. The prosecution has asked for — and will likely get — the able judge to admonish the jury in writing that they take with them, that they may not consider whether anyone made or lost money, in the end.

      That the government need only prove that for a time, he lied to deprive them of the use of their money — and that is what she will instruct.

      We shall see. Namaste… try to breathe, FYD (;-)

      Liked by 1 person

  4. FTD says:

    What’s happening this morning? No one is early out the gate for reporting. Wonder what some of the professional businessmen have said on their facebook walls. Get this guy outta here and if you win this case, you can prosecute others who are trying to cheat the little guy with double speak & dense babble to try to confuse the audience. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  5. FTD says:

    Condor, just say “i like all the comments , everytime you do a blog have it as a signature. That’s minutes you can enjoy watching funny cat videos on youtube. Besides, do likes do anything? None of us are going to be missing anything. Let condor have more time for cat videos, y’all. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.