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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute read'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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