X hits on this document

85 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

13 / 22

34.

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

would answer.

35.

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.

36.

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

37.

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

10

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 13 of 22

Document info
Document views85
Page views86
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 19:29:08 UTC 2016
Pages22
Paragraphs728
Words5463

Comments