Friday, December 2, 2016

In Which (It Seems) Mr. Shkreli's Criminal Defense Lawyers Are Having Trouble... Keeping All The Stories Straight.

[Yet another cross-post, from the Shkreli property.] This has to be the most fascinating cha-cha -- between some white shoe/silk stocking New York law firms I've seen in quite a while. . . .

Crowell & Moring, representing Marek Biestek (Mr. Shkreli's college friend and co-creator at MSMB, it is now claimed), says that it was (innocently of course) misquoted (in a filing prepared by the law firm of Mr. Brafman), and then filed with the court last week. It, and another letter filed this past Sunday (of Thanksgiving weekend, by Cooley) -- about Mr. Biestek's actual positions -- regarding waiver of client privilege, on the Katten MSMB documents, are in error they say.

I personally think Mr. Shkreli, and Mr. Biestek (chatting through their respective lawyers) are realizing that it is not a smart idea to say that Mr. Biestek surrenders everything (on these documents) to Mr. Shkreli -- since Mr. Shkreli has already broadly waived, here. So -- "I. Told. You. So. . ." is all I'll say. [I am guessing that -- since Mr. Biestek has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the criminal matter, in Brooklyn -- and because it is possible that the government might see evidence of crimes which might put Mr. Biestek in jeopardy of being charged -- the able Judge Matsumoto may well accept Crowell's argument (as to an error, here), and allow Mr. Biestek to at least argue for his client privilege. That is, the Judge isn't likely to penalize Mr. Biestek, in a criminal matter -- for any error or miscommunication -- by the various defense counsels, inter se.]

Just read this five page burner of a letter. More soon.

Hilarious -- but I previously told you what Mr. Shkreli's lawyers were saying. . . made absolutely no sense. Now (I conjecture) even Mr. Brafman's firm has been awakened to this fact. And when I refer to white shoe firms, or silk stocking New York firms above, I was not primarily thinking of his firm. Just to be clear, here.

As I say. . . more -- when I get some free time. Fascinating. Personally, I am not sure how one can assert an officers' "client" privilege, when one says (despite having founded the company) that one had no real day to day role in it -- nor did one own a majority/controlling stake of the equity. Me? I think this one is going to unravel -- and unravel badly -- as to Mr. Shkreli, at least.

Now -- off to dinner, with my young guy who is sitting for graduate exams in the morning. Smile. . .


No comments: