Securities and Exchange Commisison v. Pentagon Capital Management PLC et al, No. 1:2008cv03324 - Document 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION: Defendants' motion in limine is granted as to the admissibility of the Cutler testimony, subject to a further ruling on relevance at an appropriate time in the proceedings. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/30/2010) (tro)

Download PDF
Securities and Exchange Commisison v. Pentagon Capital Management PLC et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 3324 -against- OPINION PENTAGON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PLC and LEWIS CHESTER. Defendants, ELECTRONICALLY FILED PENTAGON SPECIAL PURPOSE FUND, LTD. DATE FILED: Relief Defendant. A P P E A R A N C E S : Attorneys for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION New York Regional Office 3 World Financial Center New York, NY 10279 By: Paul G. Gizzi, Esq. SEWARD & KISSELL LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 By: Christopher Dunnigan, Esq. John C. Lehmann, Jr., Esq. Mark Salzberg, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 600 14th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 By: Matthew D. Foster, Esq. Frank Razzano, Esq. Dockets.Justia.com Sweet, D . J . Defendants Pentagon Capital Management PLC (PM) 'C" and Lewis Chester ("Chester") (collectively, the "Defendants") and Pentagon Special Purpose Fund, Ltd. in ("PSPF" or the "Relief Defendant") have moved - limine pursuant to Rules 801(d)(2), 803(8) and 201, Fed. R. Evid., to determine the admissibility of congressional testimony of Steven Cutler pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) (2), 803(8) and 201. For the reasons set forth below, the motion as to admissibility is granted with leave granted to the plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to renew its relevance objections prior to trial. Prior Proceedings The SEC commenced this action on April 3, 2008 and filed its amended complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2008, alleging that Defendants late traded with two broker-dealers, market timed with several brokerdealers, and were the "architects" of a scheme to

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.