As I mentioned in comments, a moment ago — the first three pages of this latter, filed overnight are fascinating.
What fascinates me about the letter is that the proffered expert’s opinion — as to what creates “restrictions” on controlling stake shares is accurate — insofar as it goes — but is incomplete.
This actually matters — as to the motion for acquittal filed by Mr. Brafman, as well. [I will have much more on the last few pages, as to Professor Gillers’ testimony, in a future post.]
The expert says that giving employees shares doesn’t (by itself) make them restricted.
That is true — but incomplete. We have been told that the shares CAME FROM Fearnow (thus were initially restricted, in his hands and were so, in his transferees) — and due to Mr. Shkreli’s directions to Mr. Greebel: i.e., “split them up in this way…” Mr. Shkreli ALSO exercised control over them (and he was plainly an affiliate and control person at the relevant time)…
So… there is really no question that the so-called Fearnow shares — even after they reach ordinary employees’ hands… AND even after, fraudulently, those employees say they are NOT EMPLOYEES (parroting an email form Mr. Greebel asked them to return to him)… All those shares would STILL be considered restricted under Rule 144, as Mr. Shkreli fully intended, and did, in fact, exercise control over them — with overt oral and written threats (some of those of violence), among other things.
In sum, the AUSAs will have a field day with the Greebel experts on this score. And Mr. Shkreli’s chances of winning an appeal will go/have gone… poof.