10/11/2021 0 Comments Frank Quattrone Dmg
At Deutsche Bank, he advised clients in the semiconductor, software and telecommunications industries the beginning of a. Kelly was an investment banker in the Silicon Valley office of DMG Technology Group, Deutsche Bank’s industry leading technology investment banking practice, headed by Frank Quattrone. Inspired by the sociology of translation and constructivism, Quattrone and.« AON: Why the IBM and Cisco Relationship Is Headed For A Break-Up |Before joining Cappello, Mr. Alexander stated that: there is so. Quattrone left Morgan Stanley in 1996 to form DMG Technology Group, an investment banking business for Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.6 In early 1998, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB or the Firm) recruited Quattrone to head its Global Technology Group (Tech Group).7 Quattrone joined CSFB in In an interview with the DMG Newsletter.
![]() Frank Quattrone Dmg Software And TelecommunicationsAs you may recall, the government charged Andersen, as a firm, with obstruction of justice based on a set of circumstances very similar to Frank’s. Arthur Andersen To The Rescue: Frank’s best chance for an acquittal has to do with a recent Supreme Court case involving Authur Andersen, the once mighty accounting firm. Having followed the case closely I have had an opportunity to read Frank’s appeal as well as a bunch of other documents (you can read the latest doc here) and I have come to conclusion that if there is any justice in the world Frank will, at the very least, get a new trial, and if he’s lucky he will either have the case either thrown out completely or sent back with so many restrictions that the government will have to finally give up the ghost.Now I am no lawyer and I am definitely not a Federal Appeals Court judge, so my opinion basically counts for nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I can read and I can reason, and given this it’s hard to see how Frank won’t at least get a new trial given the following points: The judge in both trials, who made little secret of his dislike for Frank and is a great exhibit for why mandatory retirement ages for Federal judges should be enacted, not only gave him the maximum sentence for the three counts, but gratuitously tacked on some extra time because the judge personally believed that Frank lied when he was on the stand (even though he wasn’t charged with perjury and the jury never considered that charge).The reason I am rehashing all of this is that tomorrow Frank’s lawyers are presenting to the Federal Appeals Court in New York in an attempt to get his conviction overturned. The second time proved the charm for the government and Frank was convicted on all three counts of obstruction. The first trial ended in a hung jury, but the government decided to try again. ![]() How he is supposed to have obstructed a subpoena that his firm’s own lawyers apparently didn’t even tell him about is beyond me and probably would have been beyond a jury, but they never got to hear about that. For example, the judge wouldn’t let Quattrone’s lawyers enter into evidence discussions amongst CSFB’s own lawyers in which they, in violation of their own policies, decided not to tell anyone in the firm about the government’s document subpoenas, the same subpoenas Frank was supposed to have obstructed. There’s This Little Bit of Evidence We Forgot To Tell You About…: Turns out the judge excluded so much evidence in Quattrone’s trial you’d think he was a North Korean censor editing a Heritage Foundation report on Kim Il Jong. It’s too bad though as that sure would be a sight to behold. Unfortunately, I suspect that will never happen as Wall Street probably doesn’t hold the same allure these days and Frank’s experience with the “justice” system has likely left him with more important battles to fight. If he were to beat both the Feds and the SEC, there would be nothing preventing Frank from coming back to Wall Street and putting "the hurt" back on all the competitors that merrily jumped up and down on his supposed grave. In Frank’s case, the judge’s instructions basically said “you can convict this guy even if you think he just had a hunch that he might be breaking the law and you can even convict if him if you think he played stupid and consciously avoided trying to find out that he might be breaking the law.” These instructions were similar to ones in Andersen’s case that the Supreme Court said were silly so there’s a decent chance that the appeals court will follow suit.There are a lot of other little things that bolster Frank’s appeal, but if the appeals court finds in Frank’s favor on any of these main issues outlined above, it will probably get him a new trial at a minimum and may just get him completely acquitted as the government knows it will face a much tougher fight a third time around with the precedent now set by the Andersen case.In fact, if Frank does get acquitted the stage will be set for a Phoenix-like comeback as it looks like he also has a decent shot of overturning the SEC’s lifetime ban in another appeal. Following the Wrong Instructions: At the end of trials, judges give juries instructions in which they basically tell the jury how they are supposed to apply the law. The defense obviously wanted to show the jury that it was routine for Frank to offer short endorsements of other people’s e-mails so they could demonstrate that the e-mail about the document retention policy was not unusual in the slightest, but the judge inexplicably excluded the e-mails as irrelevant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStephen ArchivesCategories |