Second Conviction of Ex-Securities Trader Tossed by Second Circuit
The panel said the district court was wrong to allow a bond buyer's testimony that Jesse Litvak was operating as an agent, when he was not.
May 03, 2018 at 05:09 PM
3 minute read
The trials of former mortgage-backed bonds trader Jesse Litvak are likely to go on, thanks to Thursday's decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn his second conviction.
The panel, composed of Circuit Judges Ralph Winter, Denny Chin and U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, agreed with Litvak that the Connecticut district court erred in allowing the jury to hear the testimony of a bond buyer who misstated the nature of the relationship he had with Litvak. The transaction the buyer was involved in was tied to the sole fraud count Litvak was convicted of during his second criminal trial in 2017.
The panel's vacating of Litvak's conviction is the second time the appellate court has now sent the case back to U.S. District Chief Judge Janet Hall for a retrial. Litvak's earlier conviction on 10 counts of securities and other fraud, as well as false statements, was overturned by the Second Circuit in 2015.
During the appeal of the first conviction, the panel raised the issue that would bedevil the government in the second appeal. The panel noted then that whether Litvak was operating as an agent for a bond buyer would be important because it could change the jury's view of the reasonable investor question at the core of the securities fraud charges.
As the panel noted, it is undisputed that Litvak was not the agent of Invesco bond buyer Brian Norris. Yet Norris testified that, from his point of view, Litvak was acting on his behalf when he purchased the $23 million mortgaged-backed bond. Litvak did not tell Norris that the price Invesco was paying was actually more than he himself secured the bond at, creating a profit for himself of over $70,000 in the transaction.
The district court even instructed the jury that Litvak was not Invesco's agent, and the government stated during summation that the agency issue was a “red herring.” However, since Norris' statements were intended to show how a reasonable investor would operate, the panel said there was a chance that the jury, hearing his incorrect statements, could have been swayed to convict based on them.
“Norris's testimony about a perceived agency relationship was the only rational reason for the jury to have convicted appellant on that [single] count of securities fraud while acquitting him on all other counts,” the panel stated.
Litvak was imprisoned while the appeal was pending. The court ordered him released on bond pending further proceedings. His attorney, Washington, D.C.-based Williams & Connolly partner Kannon Shanmugam, declined to comment on the decision.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut said the office was reviewing the decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250