SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 8
Download to read offline
U.S. V. GELLENE: MORE TO THE STORY

1.       Introduction:
         1.1      Who am I, and who cares about John Gellene?
         1.2      Short answer: Gellene’s case is a cautionary tale, but not necessarily the one we think.
2.       Background: U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999)
         2.1      Bucyrcus—Erie (BE) LBO
         2.2      BE’s Lawyer, Larry Lederman, goes to Milbank
         2.3      BE’s Bankruptcy:
                  2.3.1. Gellene’s Role & Retention:
                     “[F]or better or worse, you’re stuck in Wisconsin.” 182 F.3d at 582, n. 4
                  2.3.2    Gellene’s Conflict: Salovaara (see attached schematic)
                  2.3.3    Gellene’s (Two ) Disclosures:
                     “[A]fter due inquiry I am unaware of any other current representation by Milbank of an
                      equity security holder of institutional creditor of [BE]. 182 F.3d. at 583.
                  2.3.4    A Plan is Confirmed; a Fee Application is Filed—and Approved
         2.4      Things Get Ugly:
                  2.4.1    JNL Discovers Milbank Represented Salovaara
                  2.4.2    Things Get Uglier: UST tells USA; Gellene Indicted
                  2.4.3    Gellene is Convicted:
                     18 USCS § 152 (3) A person who . . . (3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false
                      declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under
                      section 1s746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11 . . . shall be fined under
                      this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
                     18 USCS § 1623(a). (a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification,
                      or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States
                      Code) in any PROCEEDING before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States
                      knowingly makes any false material declaration
3.       The Meaning of Gellene’s Story
      3.1   Conventional Wisdom: REGAN, EAT WHAT YOU KILL: THE FALL OF A WALL
STREET LAWYER (2004):
        Question: “How had [Gellene] fallen so far so fast?” (12)
        “Understanding how Gellene’s experience was both similar to an different from other lawyers helps us
         construct an account of what happened that is more complex than the claim that Gellene was an ethical rogue,
         or that Milbank was fundamentally corrupt.” (10)
     “Gellene’s personality is not dramatically different from that of other lawyers, and may in fact be
           functional for succeeding in highly competitive law practices (294)
          [I]f Gellene had a character flaw, it was that he tended to lie when he wanted to avoid the consequences
           of his own negligence. That surely is not admirable, but it is understandable.” (302)
          “The culture of the large law firm is shaped by three especially notable features: a tournament among
           partners, the presence of specialized practice groups, and the creation of teams of lawyers to handle high-
           stakes projects for clients” (304) (ex: THE “TOURNAMENT OF LAWYERS” (GALANTER &
           PALAY)).
     3.2       More to the Story
4.   What Does It Mean?
     4.1       When do lawyers get in trouble?
          The client is a criminal (Refco & Joseph Collins)
          The lawyer is a criminal (Mark Dreier)
          The “X” Factor
     4.2       Team production and commodification
              Credit Crisis
              Robosigning
     4.3       The Venue Debate: LoPucki (2005) v. Skeel, et al.
Case Brief: U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999)

Facts:

        Gellene (partner at Milbank) represented Bucyrus in Ch 11. Filed Rule 2014 declaration that
didn’t disclose Milbank’s representation of senior secured creditor (South Street) or related parties
(Greycliff Partners, Salovaara, and Eckert). Disclosed representation of Goldman Sachs (largest
equity shareholder) and Jackson National Life Insurance Co. (JNL – largest creditor).

        US Trustee and JNL filed objections. Court ordered second declaration with more detail.
The second statement detailed Milbank’s representation of Goldman Sachs and the “Chinese wall”
the firm would use. It did not disclose representation of South Street, Greycliff or Salovaara. It
included this statement: “After due inquiry I am unaware of any other current representation by
Milbank of an equity security holder or institutional creditor of [Bucyrus].”

         On two occasions, a Milbank partner (Toni Lichstein) raised the possibility of conflict of
interest with Gellene. Both times Gellene said it was not a problem and all disclosure obligations
were satisfied.

        At a hearing regarding Milbank’s request of over $2MM in atty’s fees, Gellene testified about
the second disclosure filed, but did not testify that Milbank represented Greycliff and South Street.
The court awarded $1.8MM in fees and expenses.

       JNL later discovered that Milbank represented Salovaara and filed a motion to disgorge fees.
Gellene did not respond to the motion, and lied to his partners about the due date for his answer.
He also altered the JNL filing to conceal the date it was signed.

       Gellene filed a third declaration, explaining an error in legal judgment by omitting the
representations of South Street and Salovaara and taking “full personal responsibility” for it.

        Gellene was charged and indicted on two counts of knowingly and fraudulently making false
material declarations under penalty of perjury in violation of 18 USC § 152(3) (for filing the first two
declarations), and one count of using a document while under oath knowing that it contained a
material false declaration in violation of 18 USC § 1623 (perjury for testifying about 2nd declaration
at fee hearing). After a 6 day trial, the jury found Gellene guilty on all three counts. He was
sentenced to 15 months in prison, a $15,000 fine, and two years of supervised release following his
incarceration.

Issues/Analysis:

A. Bankruptcy Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 152(3)

   Does “fraudulently” within 18 USC 153(2) mean intent to deceive, or intent to defraud?
        Gellene argues that he must have had a specific intent to alter or impact the distribution of
assets.
The Court found “fraudulently” means intent to deceive, and it does not matter whether
deception is aimed at thwarting the bankruptcy court or the parties to the bankruptcy.

   Was Gellene’s failure to disclose representation of a major secured creditor “material?”


        Yes. Materiality requires that the false oath or account relate to some significant aspect of
the bankruptcy case in which it was given, or that it pertain to the discovery of assets or to the
debtor’s financial transactions. Materiality does not require proof of the potential impact on the
disposition of assets. No doubt that misstatement about other affiliations is a material misstatement.
Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires disclosure of any connections with debtor, creditors, and any
other party in interest.

   Was there sufficient proof of Gellene’s guilt to convict?


    Yes. Gellene was an expert in bankruptcy and the disclosure requirements. Lichstein asked him
twice about the potential conflict of interest. He withheld the info for over 2 years.

B. Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623

   Since Gellene didn’t reference the paragraph mentioned in the indictment (“I am unaware of any
    other current representation”) at the perjury hearing, did he “use” the declaration?


         Yes. A fair interpretation of the record is that the main concern was Milbank’s divided
loyalties (not only the Goldman Sachs issue). The statement at issue assured the court that aside
from Goldman Sachs, there were no other areas of representation of which Gellene was aware.

   If the second declaration was literally true, can it be the basis of a perjury conviction?


       Yes. Gellene is raising this issue for the first time on appeal, so must demonstrate a
“manifest miscarriage of justice” to obtain reversal. If falsity is established by a “common sense
reading” of the language used, the conviction can be upheld. No miscarriage of justice here – it was
reasonable for jury to find that Gellene’s supplemental declaration was false.

   Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting 404(b) evidence?


    No. Gellene made intent an issue in this case, so the gov’t was entitled to rebut his argument
that he did not have the requisite fraudulent intent for the charged crimes. And the jury was
instructed to use the evidence solely on the issue of fraudulent intent.

    (Evidence was presented that Gellene claimed to be a member of the NY bar since 1981, and
practiced law in NY from 1981-1990, but was never actually a member of the NY bar. Made
misrepresentation to CO bankruptcy court concerning failure to produce discovery documents.
Also made misrepresentation to WI bankruptcy court in this case concerning Milbank’s relationship
with Lotus Cab Company.)

   Did the district court abuse its discretion in enhancing sentence for abuse of position of trust?


     No. Gellene claims he did not occupy a position of trust with Bucyrus, the court, creditors, or
his law partners. The court found a position of trust with Bucyrus and with the bankruptcy court,
and that he abused both of those positions of trust.

   Did the district court properly consider Gellene’s claimed inability to pay the $15,000 fine?


    Yes. Gellene had the opportunity to prove his inability to pay at a lunch meeting regarding his
pre-sentence investigation. He did not dispute that he made over $2.72MM in a 4 year period at
Milbank. He provided no grounds for the court of appeals to reevaluate the decision.

Holding:

Gellene knew of Milbank’s representation of Greycliff, South Street, and Salovaara, and intended to
conceal that information. All 3 of Gellene’s convictions are upheld, and the firm must disgorge
$1.8MM in fees.
Statutes Gellene violated:

18 USCS § 152 (3) Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery
A person who--
…(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case
under title 11; …
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 USCS § 1623(a). False declarations before grand jury or court
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of
perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or
ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material
declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record,
recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


Sentence enhancement statute:

USSG 3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill

If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that
significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels. This
adjustment may not be employed if an abuse of trust or skill is included in the base offense level or
specific offense characteristic. If this adjustment is based upon an abuse of a position of trust, it may
be employed in addition to an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role); if this adjustment is
based solely on the use of a special skill, it may not be employed in addition to an adjustment under
§ 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role).



Bankruptcy Code provisions:

11 USC § 327: Employment of Professional Persons

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court’s approval, may
        employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional
        persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are
        disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties
        under this title.
        …
(c)     In a case under chapter 7, 12, or 11 of this title, a person is not disqualified for employment
under this section solely because of such person’s employment by or representation of a creditor,
unless there is objection by another creditor or the United States trustee, in which case the court
shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest.



FRBP 2014: Employment of Professional Persons

(a) Application for an order of employment. An order approving the employment of attorneys,
accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or §
1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application
shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be
transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts
showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for
the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation,
and, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor,
creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States
trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be
accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's
connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and
accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States
trustee.
U.S. v. GELLENE




            ECKERT                        SALOVAARA




                          SOUTH                          MILBANK
                          STREET




     JNL                 GREYCLIFF                           GOLDMAN



$60 MM               $35 MM
                                                                   49%
UNSECURED            SENIOR SECURED
                                                                   EQUITY




                                          BUCYRUS-ERIE

More Related Content

What's hot

51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien
51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien
51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlienjamesmaredmond
 
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)Kate Taylor
 
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond  US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond  US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05jamesmaredmond
 
10.03.12 order re assignment of rights
10.03.12   order re assignment of rights10.03.12   order re assignment of rights
10.03.12 order re assignment of rightsjamesmaredmond
 
Ruling in Sailor v Walker
Ruling in Sailor v WalkerRuling in Sailor v Walker
Ruling in Sailor v WalkerRuss McGuire
 
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)Richard Goren
 
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)Zapproved
 
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et al
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et alSc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et al
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et aljamesmaredmond
 
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Daniel Alouidor
 
Arbitration-Law-Darren-Chaker
Arbitration-Law-Darren-ChakerArbitration-Law-Darren-Chaker
Arbitration-Law-Darren-ChakerDarren Chaker
 
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rules
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rulesBernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rules
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rulesLegalDocs
 

What's hot (18)

51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien
51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien
51.sulphur mtgrespmotavoidlien
 
10000000050
1000000005010000000050
10000000050
 
10000001245
1000000124510000001245
10000001245
 
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)
 
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond  US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond  US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05
SMLLC v Geraldine Redmond US BK CT Transcript - Case No. NDO3-12487 - 4-20-05
 
Attachment2
Attachment2Attachment2
Attachment2
 
Gaggero Background 1
Gaggero Background 1Gaggero Background 1
Gaggero Background 1
 
10.03.12 order re assignment of rights
10.03.12   order re assignment of rights10.03.12   order re assignment of rights
10.03.12 order re assignment of rights
 
Ruling in Sailor v Walker
Ruling in Sailor v WalkerRuling in Sailor v Walker
Ruling in Sailor v Walker
 
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
D'Agostino v Federal Ins Co , 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
 
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)
Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)
 
Writing Sample
Writing SampleWriting Sample
Writing Sample
 
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et al
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et alSc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et al
Sc100361 Bunges v. Gaggero, et al
 
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
 
Arbitration-Law-Darren-Chaker
Arbitration-Law-Darren-ChakerArbitration-Law-Darren-Chaker
Arbitration-Law-Darren-Chaker
 
10000001216
1000000121610000001216
10000001216
 
10000001213
1000000121310000001213
10000001213
 
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rules
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rulesBernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rules
Bernie Madoff can go free on bail, Judge rules
 

Viewers also liked

Hello i’m karlia ball
Hello i’m karlia ballHello i’m karlia ball
Hello i’m karlia ballKarliaBall
 
Symbolism
SymbolismSymbolism
Symbolismbahams
 
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228Laser Haas
 
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures Campaign
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures CampaignMary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures Campaign
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures CampaignQuincyPublicLibrary
 
The bahamas
The bahamasThe bahamas
The bahamasbahams
 
Keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard shortcutsKeyboard shortcuts
Keyboard shortcutsajit_kelkar
 
Lettings Without The Headache
Lettings Without The HeadacheLettings Without The Headache
Lettings Without The HeadacheNockolds
 
Maths gr11-web
Maths gr11-webMaths gr11-web
Maths gr11-webnhoupert
 
Powerpoint project
Powerpoint projectPowerpoint project
Powerpoint projectIrvin2015
 
Semantic devices 1
Semantic devices 1Semantic devices 1
Semantic devices 1bahams
 
τακης τσακαλακος τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)light
τακης τσακαλακος   τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)lightτακης τσακαλακος   τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)light
τακης τσακαλακος τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)lightTakis Tsakalakos
 
Everything maths grade10
Everything maths grade10Everything maths grade10
Everything maths grade10nhoupert
 
鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本只歡 扣
 
鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本只歡 扣
 
錦書難託之演員功課
錦書難託之演員功課錦書難託之演員功課
錦書難託之演員功課只歡 扣
 
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!![錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!只歡 扣
 

Viewers also liked (18)

Hello i’m karlia ball
Hello i’m karlia ballHello i’m karlia ball
Hello i’m karlia ball
 
Symbolism
SymbolismSymbolism
Symbolism
 
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228
Mark kenney motion kb toys to strike haas 2228
 
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures Campaign
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures CampaignMary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures Campaign
Mary Weems Barton Furniture and Fixtures Campaign
 
The bahamas
The bahamasThe bahamas
The bahamas
 
Keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard shortcutsKeyboard shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts
 
Lettings Without The Headache
Lettings Without The HeadacheLettings Without The Headache
Lettings Without The Headache
 
Maths gr11-web
Maths gr11-webMaths gr11-web
Maths gr11-web
 
Powerpoint project
Powerpoint projectPowerpoint project
Powerpoint project
 
Semantic devices 1
Semantic devices 1Semantic devices 1
Semantic devices 1
 
τακης τσακαλακος τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)light
τακης τσακαλακος   τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)lightτακης τσακαλακος   τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)light
τακης τσακαλακος τραπεζα θεματων γεωμετρια α λυκειου (4ο θεμα)light
 
Everything maths grade10
Everything maths grade10Everything maths grade10
Everything maths grade10
 
鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本
 
鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本鐵花村劇本
鐵花村劇本
 
錦書難託之演員功課
錦書難託之演員功課錦書難託之演員功課
錦書難託之演員功課
 
錦書難託
錦書難託錦書難託
錦書難託
 
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!![錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!
[錦書難託]鐵花村劇本!!
 
錦書難託
錦書難託錦書難託
錦書難託
 

Similar to John gellene talk lou jones breakfast materials

George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief
George V. Jordan Marsh Co. BriefGeorge V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief
George V. Jordan Marsh Co. BriefKelly Ratkovic
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalLegalDocs
 
Strangers as constructive trustee
Strangers as constructive trustee Strangers as constructive trustee
Strangers as constructive trustee Hafizul Mukhlis
 
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceeding
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingDoc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceeding
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
 
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreement
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea AgreementZyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreement
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreementguestfd3d7
 
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docx
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docxQUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docx
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docxSueBozgoz
 
Holden Cases Against State Dismissed
Holden Cases Against State DismissedHolden Cases Against State Dismissed
Holden Cases Against State DismissedAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Guerra chevron criminosa
Guerra   chevron criminosaGuerra   chevron criminosa
Guerra chevron criminosaTom Pereira
 
CASE BRIEF 12.1 Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docx
CASE BRIEF 12.1  Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docxCASE BRIEF 12.1  Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docx
CASE BRIEF 12.1 Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docxjasoninnes20
 
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsDefendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
 
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins Alexei Schacht
 
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...Guy Boulianne
 
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling Litigation
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling LitigationStatus of Canadian Compulsive Gambling Litigation
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling LitigationGaming Research Partners
 
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Rich Bergeron
 

Similar to John gellene talk lou jones breakfast materials (20)

George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief
George V. Jordan Marsh Co. BriefGeorge V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief
George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
 
Strangers as constructive trustee
Strangers as constructive trustee Strangers as constructive trustee
Strangers as constructive trustee
 
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceeding
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingDoc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceeding
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceeding
 
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreement
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea AgreementZyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreement
Zyprexa - Eli Lilly's Guilty Plea Agreement
 
Megabucks Ltd
Megabucks LtdMegabucks Ltd
Megabucks Ltd
 
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docx
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docxQUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docx
QUo Warranto 1 Dec 2022.docx
 
Holden Cases Against State Dismissed
Holden Cases Against State DismissedHolden Cases Against State Dismissed
Holden Cases Against State Dismissed
 
Guerra chevron criminosa
Guerra   chevron criminosaGuerra   chevron criminosa
Guerra chevron criminosa
 
Symposium Presentation
Symposium PresentationSymposium Presentation
Symposium Presentation
 
Divorce: Cancel that line of credit
Divorce: Cancel that line of credit Divorce: Cancel that line of credit
Divorce: Cancel that line of credit
 
CASE BRIEF 12.1 Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docx
CASE BRIEF 12.1  Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docxCASE BRIEF 12.1  Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docx
CASE BRIEF 12.1 Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of .docx
 
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsDefendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights
 
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins
Alexei Schacht - Robert Martins
 
Case Briefs
Case BriefsCase Briefs
Case Briefs
 
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...
Neil F. Keenan; The Dragon Family v. Danielle Dal Bosco; The United Nations a...
 
Geosource Case Study
Geosource Case StudyGeosource Case Study
Geosource Case Study
 
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling Litigation
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling LitigationStatus of Canadian Compulsive Gambling Litigation
Status of Canadian Compulsive Gambling Litigation
 
Motion to Disqualify
Motion to DisqualifyMotion to Disqualify
Motion to Disqualify
 
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
 

Recently uploaded

Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfSABC News
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...virgfern3011
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduDreamTamilnadu
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioAlexisTorres963861
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde NewsFeed1
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinIpsos France
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...University of Canberra
 

Recently uploaded (9)

Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdfMinistry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
Ministry of Justice Extradition Eswatini 3.pdf
 
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
Green Aesthetic Ripped Paper Thesis Defense Presentation_20240311_111012_0000...
 
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream TamilnaduOne India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
One India vs United India by Dream Tamilnadu
 
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicioPor estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
 
Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde  Anantkumar Hegde
Anantkumar Hegde
 
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe WhitleyAnother Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
Another Day, Another Default Judgment Against Gabe Whitley
 
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutinEuropéennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
Européennes 2024 : projection du Parlement européen à trois mois du scrutin
 
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
19032024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
 
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
Light Rail in Canberra: Too much, too little, too late: Is the price worth th...
 

John gellene talk lou jones breakfast materials

  • 1. U.S. V. GELLENE: MORE TO THE STORY 1. Introduction: 1.1 Who am I, and who cares about John Gellene? 1.2 Short answer: Gellene’s case is a cautionary tale, but not necessarily the one we think. 2. Background: U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999) 2.1 Bucyrcus—Erie (BE) LBO 2.2 BE’s Lawyer, Larry Lederman, goes to Milbank 2.3 BE’s Bankruptcy: 2.3.1. Gellene’s Role & Retention:  “[F]or better or worse, you’re stuck in Wisconsin.” 182 F.3d at 582, n. 4 2.3.2 Gellene’s Conflict: Salovaara (see attached schematic) 2.3.3 Gellene’s (Two ) Disclosures:  “[A]fter due inquiry I am unaware of any other current representation by Milbank of an equity security holder of institutional creditor of [BE]. 182 F.3d. at 583. 2.3.4 A Plan is Confirmed; a Fee Application is Filed—and Approved 2.4 Things Get Ugly: 2.4.1 JNL Discovers Milbank Represented Salovaara 2.4.2 Things Get Uglier: UST tells USA; Gellene Indicted 2.4.3 Gellene is Convicted:  18 USCS § 152 (3) A person who . . . (3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1s746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11 . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.  18 USCS § 1623(a). (a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any PROCEEDING before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration 3. The Meaning of Gellene’s Story 3.1 Conventional Wisdom: REGAN, EAT WHAT YOU KILL: THE FALL OF A WALL STREET LAWYER (2004):  Question: “How had [Gellene] fallen so far so fast?” (12)  “Understanding how Gellene’s experience was both similar to an different from other lawyers helps us construct an account of what happened that is more complex than the claim that Gellene was an ethical rogue, or that Milbank was fundamentally corrupt.” (10)
  • 2. “Gellene’s personality is not dramatically different from that of other lawyers, and may in fact be functional for succeeding in highly competitive law practices (294)  [I]f Gellene had a character flaw, it was that he tended to lie when he wanted to avoid the consequences of his own negligence. That surely is not admirable, but it is understandable.” (302)  “The culture of the large law firm is shaped by three especially notable features: a tournament among partners, the presence of specialized practice groups, and the creation of teams of lawyers to handle high- stakes projects for clients” (304) (ex: THE “TOURNAMENT OF LAWYERS” (GALANTER & PALAY)). 3.2 More to the Story 4. What Does It Mean? 4.1 When do lawyers get in trouble?  The client is a criminal (Refco & Joseph Collins)  The lawyer is a criminal (Mark Dreier)  The “X” Factor 4.2 Team production and commodification  Credit Crisis  Robosigning 4.3 The Venue Debate: LoPucki (2005) v. Skeel, et al.
  • 3. Case Brief: U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999) Facts: Gellene (partner at Milbank) represented Bucyrus in Ch 11. Filed Rule 2014 declaration that didn’t disclose Milbank’s representation of senior secured creditor (South Street) or related parties (Greycliff Partners, Salovaara, and Eckert). Disclosed representation of Goldman Sachs (largest equity shareholder) and Jackson National Life Insurance Co. (JNL – largest creditor). US Trustee and JNL filed objections. Court ordered second declaration with more detail. The second statement detailed Milbank’s representation of Goldman Sachs and the “Chinese wall” the firm would use. It did not disclose representation of South Street, Greycliff or Salovaara. It included this statement: “After due inquiry I am unaware of any other current representation by Milbank of an equity security holder or institutional creditor of [Bucyrus].” On two occasions, a Milbank partner (Toni Lichstein) raised the possibility of conflict of interest with Gellene. Both times Gellene said it was not a problem and all disclosure obligations were satisfied. At a hearing regarding Milbank’s request of over $2MM in atty’s fees, Gellene testified about the second disclosure filed, but did not testify that Milbank represented Greycliff and South Street. The court awarded $1.8MM in fees and expenses. JNL later discovered that Milbank represented Salovaara and filed a motion to disgorge fees. Gellene did not respond to the motion, and lied to his partners about the due date for his answer. He also altered the JNL filing to conceal the date it was signed. Gellene filed a third declaration, explaining an error in legal judgment by omitting the representations of South Street and Salovaara and taking “full personal responsibility” for it. Gellene was charged and indicted on two counts of knowingly and fraudulently making false material declarations under penalty of perjury in violation of 18 USC § 152(3) (for filing the first two declarations), and one count of using a document while under oath knowing that it contained a material false declaration in violation of 18 USC § 1623 (perjury for testifying about 2nd declaration at fee hearing). After a 6 day trial, the jury found Gellene guilty on all three counts. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison, a $15,000 fine, and two years of supervised release following his incarceration. Issues/Analysis: A. Bankruptcy Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 152(3)  Does “fraudulently” within 18 USC 153(2) mean intent to deceive, or intent to defraud? Gellene argues that he must have had a specific intent to alter or impact the distribution of assets.
  • 4. The Court found “fraudulently” means intent to deceive, and it does not matter whether deception is aimed at thwarting the bankruptcy court or the parties to the bankruptcy.  Was Gellene’s failure to disclose representation of a major secured creditor “material?” Yes. Materiality requires that the false oath or account relate to some significant aspect of the bankruptcy case in which it was given, or that it pertain to the discovery of assets or to the debtor’s financial transactions. Materiality does not require proof of the potential impact on the disposition of assets. No doubt that misstatement about other affiliations is a material misstatement. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires disclosure of any connections with debtor, creditors, and any other party in interest.  Was there sufficient proof of Gellene’s guilt to convict? Yes. Gellene was an expert in bankruptcy and the disclosure requirements. Lichstein asked him twice about the potential conflict of interest. He withheld the info for over 2 years. B. Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623  Since Gellene didn’t reference the paragraph mentioned in the indictment (“I am unaware of any other current representation”) at the perjury hearing, did he “use” the declaration? Yes. A fair interpretation of the record is that the main concern was Milbank’s divided loyalties (not only the Goldman Sachs issue). The statement at issue assured the court that aside from Goldman Sachs, there were no other areas of representation of which Gellene was aware.  If the second declaration was literally true, can it be the basis of a perjury conviction? Yes. Gellene is raising this issue for the first time on appeal, so must demonstrate a “manifest miscarriage of justice” to obtain reversal. If falsity is established by a “common sense reading” of the language used, the conviction can be upheld. No miscarriage of justice here – it was reasonable for jury to find that Gellene’s supplemental declaration was false.  Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting 404(b) evidence? No. Gellene made intent an issue in this case, so the gov’t was entitled to rebut his argument that he did not have the requisite fraudulent intent for the charged crimes. And the jury was instructed to use the evidence solely on the issue of fraudulent intent. (Evidence was presented that Gellene claimed to be a member of the NY bar since 1981, and practiced law in NY from 1981-1990, but was never actually a member of the NY bar. Made
  • 5. misrepresentation to CO bankruptcy court concerning failure to produce discovery documents. Also made misrepresentation to WI bankruptcy court in this case concerning Milbank’s relationship with Lotus Cab Company.)  Did the district court abuse its discretion in enhancing sentence for abuse of position of trust? No. Gellene claims he did not occupy a position of trust with Bucyrus, the court, creditors, or his law partners. The court found a position of trust with Bucyrus and with the bankruptcy court, and that he abused both of those positions of trust.  Did the district court properly consider Gellene’s claimed inability to pay the $15,000 fine? Yes. Gellene had the opportunity to prove his inability to pay at a lunch meeting regarding his pre-sentence investigation. He did not dispute that he made over $2.72MM in a 4 year period at Milbank. He provided no grounds for the court of appeals to reevaluate the decision. Holding: Gellene knew of Milbank’s representation of Greycliff, South Street, and Salovaara, and intended to conceal that information. All 3 of Gellene’s convictions are upheld, and the firm must disgorge $1.8MM in fees.
  • 6. Statutes Gellene violated: 18 USCS § 152 (3) Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery A person who-- …(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11; … shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 18 USCS § 1623(a). False declarations before grand jury or court (a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Sentence enhancement statute: USSG 3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels. This adjustment may not be employed if an abuse of trust or skill is included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic. If this adjustment is based upon an abuse of a position of trust, it may be employed in addition to an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role); if this adjustment is based solely on the use of a special skill, it may not be employed in addition to an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role). Bankruptcy Code provisions: 11 USC § 327: Employment of Professional Persons (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title. … (c) In a case under chapter 7, 12, or 11 of this title, a person is not disqualified for employment under this section solely because of such person’s employment by or representation of a creditor,
  • 7. unless there is objection by another creditor or the United States trustee, in which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest. FRBP 2014: Employment of Professional Persons (a) Application for an order of employment. An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.
  • 8. U.S. v. GELLENE ECKERT SALOVAARA SOUTH MILBANK STREET JNL GREYCLIFF GOLDMAN $60 MM $35 MM 49% UNSECURED SENIOR SECURED EQUITY BUCYRUS-ERIE