Docket - 515

Case 1:13-cv-06326-WHP Document 515 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 11 1
FCN8USAC
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------x
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
4 Plaintiff,
5 v. 13 Cv. 6326 (TPG)
6 PREVEZON HOLDINGS LTD., et al.,
7 Defendants.
8 ------------------------------x
December 23, 2015
9 12:10 p.m.
10 Before:
11 HON. THOMAS P. GRIESA
12 District Judge
13 APPEARANCES
14 PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
15 Southern District of New York
PAUL MONTELEONI
16 MARGARET GRAHAM
Assistant United States Attorneys
17
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
18 Attorneys for Defendants
MARK CYMROT
19 JOHN MOSCOW
NICK ROSE
20 -and-
NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA
21
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
22 Attorneys for Hermitage
JACOB W. BUCHDAHL
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 (In chambers; phone conference)
2 LAW CLERK: Can you please identify yourselves again.
3 MR. MONTELEONI: Paul Monteleoni and Margaret Graham
4 for the government.
5 MR. CYMROT: Mark Cymrot, John Moscow, Nick Rose,
6 Samir Ranade, and Natalia Veselnitskaya from Russia, for the
7 defendants.
8 MR. BUCHDAHL: Jacob Buchdahl for Hermitage.
9 THE COURT: I appreciate you all being available on, I
10 guess it's Christmas Eve Eve. Anyway, there are some things
11 that should be gone into in this call, as I will describe, and
12 the attorneys may have other things, but I want to just go
13 briefly into the background, which you know.
14 Hermitage moved to disqualify Moscow and his firm.
15 Now, that motion was granted and there was an opinion
16 dated December 18.
17 Now, on December 22, the defendants served and filed
18 an order to show cause requesting that an appeal be certified
19 by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 1292(b).
20 Now, that was a perfectly orderly step, and it was
21 perfectly clear what the defendants were doing.
22 Now, what the Court did on the 22nd was to sign an
23 order, which in effect certified the matter for appeal. There
24 was no lack of clarity in that. It was perfectly clear what
25 was being done. And that was signed on the 22nd.

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 Now, the defendants had filed a memorandum of law in
2 support of the certification, and that was dated December 21,
3 and everybody, I am sure, got a copy of that. And the
4 intention of that memorandum and the substance was perfectly
5 clear. Obviously, there are parties who disagree with the
6 substance, but procedurally everything was perfectly clear.
7 Now, I signed an order on December 22nd certifying the
8 matter for appeal and staying other matters in the district
9 court pending the outcome of the appeal. Again, this was all
10 perfectly clear. There wasn't any need for the clarification
11 that one piece of correspondence asked for.
12 Now, the Court received a letter from the government,
13 and that letter is dated December 22. I am going to treat that
14 letter, in accordance with some of its terms, as a request for
15 reconsideration as to the issue of whether the matter should be
16 certified for appeal.
17 So that procedurally is where we stand as far as the
18 Court is concerned. The government's letter of December 22,
19 again, asks for reconsideration and sets forth at some length
20 the reasons for that request.
21 Now, what I am saying is, in my view, procedurally we
22 have a request for reconsideration of my certification of the
23 matter for appeal. I certified it for appeal on something that
24 I signed on the 22nd. And now I am going to treat the
25 government letter, and I am treating the government letter

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 according to its own terms, as an application for
2 reconsideration of my direction that there can be an appeal.
3 Now, what I would like to know is what the parties
4 propose in order to have a proper briefing and argument on this
5 application for reconsideration.
6 Now, there was a memorandum of law filed by Baker &
7 Hostetler dated December 21. There is the letter of the
8 government dated December 22. What I would like to know is
9 what further steps, if any, are needed to complete the
10 submission on what I will call the motion for reconsideration.
11 So I would like to have comments on that question,
12 please.
13 MR. CYMROT: This is Mark Cymrot for the defendants.
14 We would like a reply, perhaps we can do it by the end
15 of business on Friday, to that motion. But, your Honor, you
16 might give us some guidance. The government is not the movant.
17 I don't know how the government has standing to move for
18 reconsideration. I can make this point in a letter, which we
19 will, but I don't know if you have some guidance on that point.
20 They weren't the movant. They aren't our client. Why do they
21 have standing to file a motion for reconsideration?
22 MR. MONTELEONI: Paul Monteleoni. May I be heard?
23 THE COURT: Of course.
24 MR. MONTELEONI: We are certainly comfortable
25 proceeding with our motion for reconsideration based on the

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 submission that we already made. We are ready to argue it
2 today, though if defense wants to file something on Christmas,
3 we don't object.
4 Our standing is that once the district court has
5 entered an order, as the government, when that order is
6 challenged on appeal, we as a typical matter defend the orders
7 of the district court; and, additionally, the certification and
8 the stay affects the timing of this case which we are
9 litigating. But if defense wants to reply and the Court thinks
10 that that's important, we can defer actually reaching those
11 issues until that's done.
12 THE COURT: What we are talking about is whether there
13 is anything that can properly go to the Court of Appeals, and
14 the government's letter discusses that, and I am going to take
15 the government's letter on its merits for the reasons the
16 government has explained. I think the government had a right
17 to file that letter, and I think the government has a right to
18 put in its discussion what it has put in, and I will certainly
19 consider this.
20 Now, does anybody else wish to file any other
21 submission on the question of whether there is properly an
22 appealable issue here?
23 MR. BUCHDAHL: This is Jacob Buchdahl for Hermitage.
24 We certainly join the government in the position they
25 took in their December 22nd letter, and we do not think that

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 this is an issue that should be properly certified for appeal.
2 We are happy to put in a short letter setting forth our
3 position, but we don't need to do so unless the Court wishes to
4 hear from us.
5 THE COURT: I would be glad to hear from you.
6 MR. BUCHDAHL: Then we will submit a letter setting
7 forth our position. We prefer not to put it in on Christmas,
8 if that's OK, and we would ask for it to be Monday, if that's
9 all right, or we can submit it tomorrow if you'd rather have
10 everything before you.
11 THE COURT: Now, look here, we have got Christmas
12 here, and let's have some sensible and humane schedule. I
13 think, and there may be objections to this, but I think that
14 there are issues now which need to be decided, which make it
15 very unlikely that we can have a trial on the scheduled trial
16 date in January.
17 Let me back up a bit. The government has filed a
18 letter with very, very fine legal propositions and briefing,
19 but let's remember that this is a court of justice and justice
20 deals with human beings.
21 Now, on Friday, when I ordered that Mr. Moscow needed
22 to be disqualified, that was a drastic order. So what occurred
23 was something to take out of the case a lawyer who had
24 performed very well in this case over a long period of time.
25 There were reasons which were explained in what I filed why I

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 felt the disqualification had to be made, but it was a very
2 difficult decision for me, and I think I said it, and I will
3 say it again, I made it reluctantly. I have no hesitation
4 about saying that.
5 Now, certain papers have been filed to pave the way
6 for review by the Court of Appeals. There are serious
7 questions about whether there can be review by the Court of
8 Appeals at this stage. But all of that has to be very
9 carefully considered and very carefully handled. Therefore, I
10 would welcome any further briefing that would assist the Court
11 in dealing with what is a very difficult issue. And there is
12 no rush. The job must be done properly.
13 Can the lawyers on the phone tell me, or do you want
14 to adjourn and give it further consideration, what further
15 briefing anybody wishes to make. And I want to emphasize that
16 we have a very serious issue here, and it is not to be tossed
17 off lightly, and I want you to consider very carefully what
18 further briefing is necessary in the interest of your clients
19 and in the interest of providing guidance to the Court.
20 I would be glad to adjourn this telephone conference,
21 or if you are ready to tell me now what further briefing, if
22 any, you wish to submit, and when you wish to submit it, I will
23 hear that now, or I will adjourn. We can have another
24 telephone call tomorrow or early next week. There is no rush
25 about this.

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 What do you propose?
2 MR. CYMROT: It sounds like Mr. Buchdahl would like to
3 put in his submission. I think he ought to do it before the
4 defendants. I don't suggest that he do it on Christmas or
5 anything of the like. So if he would tell us a reasonable
6 time, we will tell you a reasonable time to respond.
7 The one thing I do want to point out to your Honor is
8 that you have a $15 million freezing order in place. So while
9 I think there needs to be reasonable time for the parties to
10 brief the issue and for you to consider it, I wouldn't say from
11 the defense side that time is not important, time is important
12 given that freezing order. So if Mr. Buchdahl would suggest a
13 time for his submission, I will suggest a time for ours.
14 THE COURT: Very good.
15 What about that?
16 MR. BUCHDAHL: We would request one week to prepare a
17 short brief setting forth our legal position, to be due one
18 week from today on December 30, next Wednesday.
19 THE COURT: That's excellent.
20 Mr. Cymrot.
21 MR. CYMROT: Yes, your Honor. I would say we could
22 make our submission on January 6.
23 THE COURT: Very good.
24 So the dates are the 30th and the 6th, right?
25 MR. CYMROT: Yes, your Honor.

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 THE COURT: Now, if there is anyone, the government or
2 anybody else, who has standing to file, anything must be filed
3 either the 30th of December or the 6th of January.
4 So what I think we have accomplished today is we have
5 a sensible schedule for some very, very important briefing, and
6 that is an accomplishment. I think that's all we need to do at
7 the present time.
8 MR. CYMROT: Your Honor, can we do one more thing?
9 THE COURT: Sure.
10 MR. CYMROT: Ms. Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer for
11 the defendants, has flown in because of your prior order and
12 would like just a minute or two to address the Court about the
13 defense wanting Baker & Hostetler to proceed. She is on the
14 phone. Would you just give her a minute or two to speak to
15 you?
16 THE COURT: Of course. What is her name?
17 MR. CYMROT: Natalia Veselnitskaya,
18 v-e-s-e-l-n-i-t-s-k-a-y-a.
19 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, please.
20 MS. VESELNITSKAYA: Good afternoon. I am going to
21 speak in Russian through an interpreter. And I wish you good
22 day, your Honor, and esteemed court.
23 I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity
24 to express my position before you, and this is coming directly
25 from my client. I do not want to conceal from you that your

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 decision from December 18 was very aggravating for him, and the
2 owner of the companies who are subject to this case, Mr. Denis
3 Katsyv, has asked me to fly to New York, to come back to New
4 York, to express his position to both our lawyers and also to
5 our respected opponents, and also to your Honor as well.
6 His position is that he does not wish to change
7 lawyers and wants to present his case to the people of the
8 United States with the representation of the excellent lawyers
9 who have been doing a good job on the case for two and a half
10 years. And we do hope that the justice of your country that we
11 have heard so much about would be just and would be applied to
12 us as well, and we are hoping that it would carry on to our
13 case as well.
14 May it please the Court, I wanted to thank your Honor
15 for giving me the opportunity to express this position directly
16 to you. Thank you.
17 THE COURT: Do I understand that you support retaining
18 Mr. Moscow as the attorney, as he has been retained thus far,
19 is that correct?
20 MS. VESELNITSKAYA: Absolutely. Absolutely. That is
21 the purpose of my flying in to New York yesterday, is to
22 express that. We completely support the position of our
23 lawyers, of our counsel, and we support the decision to go to
24 the appellate court.
25 THE COURT: Now, you flew in from where?

(212) 805-0300
FCN8USAC
1 MS. VESELNITSKAYA: From Moscow, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Can I say this. I appreciate your coming
3 this long distance, and although you spoke briefly, you made a
4 point which I will consider very carefully.
5 MS. VESELNITSKAYA: Thank you, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Is there anything else to be done on this
7 telephone conference?
8 MR. MONTELEONI: No, your Honor.
9 MR. CYMROT: No, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Thank you all very much.
11 (Adjourned)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(212) 805-0300

Docket - 515

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Docket - 515

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:13-cv-06326-WHP Document 515 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 11 1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

5 v. 13 Cv. 6326 (TPG)

6 PREVEZON HOLDINGS LTD., et al.,

11 HON. THOMAS P. GRIESA

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

1 (In chambers; phone conference)

2 LAW CLERK: Can you please identify yourselves again.

3 MR. MONTELEONI: Paul Monteleoni and Margaret Graham

4 for the government.

5 MR. CYMROT: Mark Cymrot, John Moscow, Nick Rose,

6 Samir Ranade, and Natalia Veselnitskaya from Russia, for the

8 MR. BUCHDAHL: Jacob Buchdahl for Hermitage.

9 THE COURT: I appreciate you all being available on, I

11 that should be gone into in this call, as I will describe, and

12 the attorneys may have other things, but I want to just go

13 briefly into the background, which you know.

14 Hermitage moved to disqualify Moscow and his firm.

15 Now, that motion was granted and there was an opinion

16 dated December 18.

17 Now, on December 22, the defendants served and filed

18 an order to show cause requesting that an appeal be certified

19 by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 1292(b).

20 Now, that was a perfectly orderly step, and it was

21 perfectly clear what the defendants were doing.

22 Now, what the Court did on the 22nd was to sign an

23 order, which in effect certified the matter for appeal. There

24 was no lack of clarity in that. It was perfectly clear what

25 was being done. And that was signed on the 22nd.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

1 Now, the defendants had filed a memorandum of law in

2 support of the certification, and that was dated December 21,

3 and everybody, I am sure, got a copy of that. And the

4 intention of that memorandum and the substance was perfectly

5 clear. Obviously, there are parties who disagree with the

6 substance, but procedurally everything was perfectly clear.

7 Now, I signed an order on December 22nd certifying the

8 matter for appeal and staying other matters in the district

10 perfectly clear. There wasn't any need for the clarification

11 that one piece of correspondence asked for.

12 Now, the Court received a letter from the government,

13 and that letter is dated December 22. I am going to treat that

14 letter, in accordance with some of its terms, as a request for

15 reconsideration as to the issue of whether the matter should be

16 certified for appeal.

17 So that procedurally is where we stand as far as the

18 Court is concerned. The government's letter of December 22,

19 again, asks for reconsideration and sets forth at some length

20 the reasons for that request.

21 Now, what I am saying is, in my view, procedurally we

22 have a request for reconsideration of my certification of the

23 matter for appeal. I certified it for appeal on something that

24 I signed on the 22nd. And now I am going to treat the

25 government letter, and I am treating the government letter

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

1 according to its own terms, as an application for

2 reconsideration of my direction that there can be an appeal.

3 Now, what I would like to know is what the parties

4 propose in order to have a proper briefing and argument on this

5 application for reconsideration.

6 Now, there was a memorandum of law filed by Baker &

7 Hostetler dated December 21. There is the letter of the

8 government dated December 22. What I would like to know is