In an effort to obtain this information informally and-without resort to
court proceedings, Petitioners’ counsel, Theodore Krebsbach, sent a letter dated January
11, 2010 to the three K&K attorneys Petitioners knew to be working on the Arbitration --
Michael Kim, Robert Henoch and Elizabeth Wolstein. A copy of the letter is annexed as
Exhibit G. The letter cited the applicable New York Rule of Professional Conduct --
Rule 1.11 -- and included a number of “Information Requests” Petitioners hoped K&K
By letter, dated February 16, 2010, K&R responded to some but not all of
the Information Requests. Enclosed with the letter was a two page affidavit from Mr.
Casey. Copies of the February 16, 2010 letter and Mr. Casey’s affidavit are annexed as
Exhibits H and I respectively.
After review of K&K’s letter and Mr. Casey’s affidavit, counsel for
Petitioners believed there were still a number of unanswered questions and that the most
expeditious way to proceed would be to take Mr. Casey’s deposition. K&K agreed to
make Mr. Casey available for a deposition and advised that special ethics counsel
Michael S. Ross of the Law Offices of Michael S. Ross would represent Mr, Casey and
K&K in connection with these issues.
Mr. Casey’s Deposition Testimony
Mr. Casey was deposed for approximately two hours on March 12, 2010
Citing Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would neither confirm
nor deny whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office had conducted an investigation into the sale
of ARS by Lehman, much less whether that investigation related to any sales to
Respondents. He also rehsed to say whether he had spoken with anyone from K&K
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 13 of 22