Brooklyn Federal Prosecutors Question Alleged Payment of Fraud Defendant's Legal Bills by Huawei Subsidiary
After his Texas arrest, Mao filed an affidavit saying he could not afford a lawyer, and he was assigned counsel from the Federal Defenders on that basis, according to prosecutors. But now he's represented by lawyers from Thompson & Knight and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
November 20, 2019 at 03:35 PM
4 minute read
Prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York requested a conflict-of-interest inquiry into the work of Thompson & Knight and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorneys in an intellectual property dispute Wednesday, saying that the firms are being paid by a U.S. subsidiary of Huawei, the Chinese tech company that has been linked to the crime under investigation.
Bo Mao, a Chinese citizen, was arrested in August while working as a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. He was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. His case was moved to New York for reasons that prosecutors refused to reveal—one of several details that has been redacted or sealed in the case.
Reuters and The Wall Street Journal have reported that the Chinese company referred to in court papers as "Company 1" is Huawei, the telecom giant.
After his Texas arrest, Mao filed an affidavit saying he could not afford a lawyer, and he was assigned counsel from the Federal Defenders on that basis, according to prosecutors.
But now he's represented by lawyers from Thompson & Knight and Wilson Sonsini. Huawei initially agreed to pay the lawyers, prosecutors have said, alleging that a U.S.-based subsidiary of Huawei is now paying the bills.
The U.S. Attorney's Office is therefore requesting a Curcio hearing to settle the matter.
The five lawyers listed on Mao's court papers—Wilson Sonsini's Kate McCarthy, Michael Sommer and Moe Fodeman and Thompson & Knight's Marion Bachrach and Richard Roper—did not respond to requests for comment by phone and email Thursday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Solomon signed the motion on a potential conflict of interest, explaining to U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York that third-party payments must be carefully examined, especially in cases like this where the so-called third party is connected to the allegations.
"Notably, the defendant does not work for Company 1 or U.S. Subsidiary 1 … so the commitment by U.S. Subsidiary 1 to pay what are likely substantial legal fees to two expensive law firms demonstrates the closeness of the relationship between the defendant and Company 1, as well as the magnitude of Company 1's interest in the outcome of the instant litigation," Solomon wrote.
The payments could be introduced at trial as evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, Solomon wrote, or the lawyers' advice could be affected by who's paying their bills.
Both firms' engagement letters and payment agreements were provided for prosecutors' examination but are not being filed in open court, according to Solomon's letter.
Mao is accused of helping to steal proprietary technology from a California startup to help Huawei, according to court documents.
Public information officers for Huawei did not respond to requests for comment, and a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment.
A status conference in Donnelly's courtroom is set for Thursday afternoon.
Read more:
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 AllNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
The American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute readGE Agrees to $362.5M Deal to End Shareholder Claims Over Power, Insurance Risks
2 minute readJudge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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