Judge Lectures Counsel On Request to Make Documents 'Disappear'
No Subscription Required
By Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
February 14, 2006
A federal judge in Manhattan has blasted a pair of private equity executives, both of whom are also lawyers, for asking him to make allegations against them "disappear" after the settlement of a suit that accused them of "fundamentally dishonest behavior."
American International Group Inc., filed suit Feb 1. against two former top executives of its AIG Capital Partners private equity arm, Chief Executive Peter Yu and General Counsel William Jarosz. The insurance giant accused them of stealing confidential client information from AIG computers to help them launch a new private equity fund.
The parties settled under confidential terms last week, a day after a forensic computer specialist submitted a declaration that Mr. Yu appeared to have accessed thousands of documents on AIG computers in the weeks following his termination last April.
As part of the settlement, David S. Golub, the lawyer for the two executives, asked Southern District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan at a hearing last Wednesday to vacate and then seal an earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against the defendants.
"I'm quite uncertain, literally uncertain as to whether I want to be a party to that," the judge responded.
According to a transcript of the hearing, Judge Kaplan expressed concern about the swiftness of the settlement following the introduction of forensic evidence showing Mr. Yu "plugged his laptop into the AIG system and took the crown jewels, loosely speaking."
"The minute that assertion was made and the evidence placed before me," the judge continued, "Mr. Golub, like the good lawyer that I know him to be, picked up the phone, called his client and faced with what, if there were any truth to the allegations, could be a disaster for the defendants, suddenly the case was settled, and now the defendants are saying 'make it disappear'."
He likened the request to vacate and seal the prior TRO to a hypothetical cover-up by a manufacturer "accused of making a dangerous and defective product"
"[W]hen evidence finally surfaces to support the idea that that is, in fact, true, the case gets settled and everybody agrees that the case will disappear and the evidence will disappear," the judge said.
Judge Kaplan said he understood the strong argument in favor of the private settlement of disputes but he said he had to weigh that against the allegations of dishonesty against defendants "who are in the business of raising a fund, an investment fund, whereby they want to manage other people's money."
He said there was a strong argument for the public interest in such a situation.
"That may be defeated where a private settlement deprives the public of information that has been placed before a federal court, and that indicates a risk of harm to members of the public, and I wondered whether that analogy isn't present here," said Judge Kaplan.
The judge, a former litigation partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, told Mr. Golub he understood the defendants' "PR concerns" but he also questioned the value to them of sealing the temporary restraining order while keeping the complaint, the evidence, and the fact the defendants had "put up a mighty fight to keep the [TRO] language secret" in the public record.
"[W]ith all due respect," the judge said, "I think what I would say if I were representing your clients is what are you doing here? You're making it so much worse for yourself."
Despite expressing his "very substantial reservations" about granting the requested relief, Judge Kaplan said he would vacate and seal the TRO in the interests of the settlement, noting that no other parties had expressed any interest in it anyway.
"If nobody cares about this outside the litigants in this case, then it is not a hard problem, and there would be no harm in it being sealed," the judge said. But he added that he was "quite skeptical" that there would be grounds to maintain the seal "if somebody intervened with proper standing and so forth to challenge the continued sealing."
Mr. Yu, a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and was an advisor to President William J. Clinton, was fired in April 2005 as the CEO of AIG Capital Partners.
In an affidavit in which he also denied accessing AIG computers, Mr. Yu suggested his dismissal was due to his opposition to overseas investments that were later investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, resulting in the indictment of another AIG executive.
Mr. Yu and Mr. Jarosz, another Harvard Law School graduate and a former Debevoise & Plimpton associate, had also reportedly been upset that AIG backed out of a deal to sell the private equity business to them.
Mr. Golub is with the Stamford, Conn., firm of Silver, Golub & Teitell. AIG has been represented in the case by Michael Carlinsky of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges.
AIG last week agreed to pay $1.64 billion to settle federal and state charges over alleged accounting fraud and bid-rigging at the insurance giant. The company is also currently embroiled in litigation against its former CEO, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who it claims is trying to lure AIG clients away to his C.V. Starr & Co. group of insurance brokerages. Mr. Greenberg also continues to face civil charges for his role in alleged fraud at AIG.
— Anthony Lin can be reached at alin@alm.com.
DO NOT SEAL EVIDENCE OR THE RECORD
Jump to
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][2][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a][3]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][1][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest