GLEN KAISER. November 10, Jonathan R. Streeter Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District New York. Re: Pequot Capital. Dear Attorney Streeter:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "GLEN KAISER. November 10, Jonathan R. Streeter Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District New York. Re: Pequot Capital. Dear Attorney Streeter:"

Jessie Hart
5 years ago
Views:

1 November 10, 2009 Jonathan R. Streeter Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District New York Re: Pequot Capital Dear Attorney Streeter: I have new in formation that I believe is directly relevant to the ongoing SEC and DOS investigations of David Zilkha and Art Samberg. Specifically, I am referring to the case that pertains to the insider trading of Microsoft stock by Pequot Capital rather than the subsequent questions that arose following the $2-I million dollar payment that Mr. Zilkha received from Pequot- I am aware that you have already received some of this information from my attorney Mark Sherman via telephone approximately 2 weeks ago. Presumably you have already passed this development on to the SEC. At the time we concluded our interviews with the Dal and SEC on Feb. 4, 2009, both my wife Karen and I were asked to provide you with any additional information as it became available. I believe two recent depositions taken of Mr- Zilkha on October 20-21, 2009 and of Dr. Peggy Thomson on October 15, 2009 (an expert witness for Mr_ Zilkha) would be responsive to that request. As has been my position from the start of my involvement in this case, for the sake of transparency, I will be providing the very same information that giving you now to the Chief Council for both Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen- Charles Grassley. I would ask that you please forward this to the appropriate authorities and investigators at the SEC as I do not possess their contact information- It is my belief that neither Karen nor her family court attorneys would be willing to provide this recent deposition testimony to authorities as they believe disclosure of these depositions might be viewed negatively by the family court judge assigned to their upcoming trial involving Mr. Zilkha. It is my understanding however, that it is not illegal for me to pass on this information and I do so now of my own volition and without my wife's consent. I am confident that your office will take every precaution necessary to protect the privacy of the Zilkha children and to this end will redact any portion of the deposition testimony that is not relevant to the Pequot investigation.

2 I feel that it is my civic responsibility, if not my legal obligation to disclose this information 'to the DO) and the SEC before any final decision is made on the disposition of this case. Very truly yours, Glen Kaiser Addendum: I wish to add a few comments about the testimony in the attached depositions. 1) Much of the content of these depositions involve family court matters regarding child custody litigation. I am providing an attachment in which I attempt to list only those pages that can be deemed relevant to the Pequot case. Some of these pages have only been included because they provide a necessary foundation for testimony that follows or may simply include information to impeach credibility (i-e. admission of perjury during previous trial.) 2) Dr_ Thomson's testimony can essentially be distilled down to a critical passage on deposition pages 90-91; lines 20-25, 1-2 (printed pages 77-78) as follows: 20 Q I think we are on the top of page 5? 21 A Ills first boss in New York was Art 22 Samberg who was disrespectable and was investigated 23 for insider trading. This is the Pequot Company. It 24 turn out he wanted Mr. Zilhka to get inside 25 information on Microsoft and Mr. Zilhka stopped 91 1 PEGGY THOMSON, PH.D. 2 providing it he was fired. A similar passage can be found on deposition page 41, lines

3 3) The above testimony of Dr. Thompson was based upon the notes (on the top of page 5 in her notes) that she took during her evaluation of Mr_ Zilkha in June/July a pivotal time period given Mr. Zilkhars belief that the SEC/DOJ investigations were well behind him and the current investigation was not even hinted at until Dec at the earliest. It should also be clear that these self incriminating statements made by Mr. Zilkha were made nearly six months prior to my wife and I ever learning that Art Samberg/Pequot paid David Zilkha $2.1 million. As you are aware, several weeks then passed before I ultimately decided to access the old Zilkha family hard drive in Dec It was at that time that I discovered the incriminating ernails to and from Mark Spain. 4) Please note that both deposition documents are expedited copies and contain obvious typos and missing words. I do not possess the final versions, which you can ultimately obtain by subpoena. 5) Copies of Dr. Thomson's notes were marked as exhibits during her deposition which was taken by attorney Jill H. Blomberg. I have not personally seen these documents nor do I have access to them. Presumably, they are still in the possession of attorney Blomberg. 6) Page 5 of the deposition indicates that Attorney Smith, on behalf of his client David Zilkha, waived privilege to allow Dr_ Thomson to testify. While Dr. Thompson is a psychologist, she was retained by Mr- Zilkha to perform a psychological evaluation in anticipation of her later being called as an expert witness. She at no time functioned as a therapist to Mr. Zilkha. 7) I suspect that Mr. Zilkha was being truthful when he testified during his deposition (page 197 lines 4-7) that he did not recall telling Dr. Thomson that he was being investigated for insider trading- Obviously, based on Dr. Thomson's notes referenced above he told her far more than he should have given the evidence you already have in your possession. The fact is that Mr. Zilkha only previewed a draft of the final report that Dr. Thomson prepared (page 189; lines 3-25.) She did not send him a copy of her notes that contain the incriminating admission that he engaged in insider trading and was fired when he stopped providing it. There is little doubt that neither Mr. Zilkha nor his attorney Norm Pattis would have used Dr_ Thomson as an expert witness had Mr_ Zilkha recalled his initial conversations with her. 3

4 Finally, I wish to make some personal comments about this investigation. I am not concerned that Mr_ Zilkha or others may attempt to defend themselves or deflect blame by suggesting that I wish to subvert the legal process in retaliation for the ongoing contentious family court litigation between Mr. Zilkha and my wife Karen. My response to this is simply that the evidence in the Zilkha/ Samberg insider trading case speaks for itself Despite having a limited understanding of technical legal matters, from a lay person's perspective the evidence in this case appears to be quite compelling. The Samnberg- Zilkha trail that was initially uncovered by Mr. Aguirre before being fired by SEC is now crystal clear with the addition of the Mark Spain found on Mr. Zilkha's family hard drive. Other documents on the hard drive serve to confirm Mr. Zilkba's distorted belief that he was entitled to additional compensation from Pequot for the money he made for Mr- Samberg based on his prior recommendations. Mr. Zilkha even boldly included the profits generated for Mr. Samberg which were the direct result of insider information Zilkha had obtained from Mr. Spain while both were still under employment by Microsoft. Zilkha was not even on the Pequot payroll at the time. We can now add to this list of evidence Mr. Zillcha's most recent admission of insider trading culpability as documented in Dr. Tlaomson's notes in which Mr. Zilkha asserts that he was fired when he stopped providing inside information. It is my understanding, based on limited comments made by attorney Paths during Mr. Zilklia's recent deposition, that the SEC may finally be about to take some action in this case. What is far less dear to me is whether the circumstances surrounding the $2.1 million dollar settlement is currently (or has ever been) under investigation? While secrecy may be standard operating procedure for the SEC or DOI, it is certainly not comforting given the past history of this particular investigation_ As you are aware, the U.S. attorney's office made it quite clear to my wife's family court attorney Jill Blomberg, as well as to our attorney Mark Sherman, that it did not want her to pursue the Oneglia hearing against David Zilkha. Suffice it to say that no explanation has been forthcoming. It was not lost upon either my wife or me that when questioned by the U.S. attorney's office and the SEC in Feb that the conversation was entirely about the insider trading case. Inexplicably, there was virtually no discussion with either of us about issues related to the $2.1 million received by Mr- Zilkha in the wake of the previous investigation.

5 One can easily speculate that this payment by Mr. Samberg has more to do with Mr. Zilkha's selective memory regarding Mr- Spain than with actual compensation, for a distant employment related matter_ Indeed, a settlement with Pequot apparently was reached without a lawsuit ever being filed. While I can imagine that proving such a case may be difficult it should not preclude investigators from asking even the most fundamental questions about it. At the very least, it should be now be obvious that Mr. Zilkha's prior testimony to the FBI and U.S attorney's office under the promise of limited immunity was less than -truthful_ Perhaps Mr. Zilkha and his SEC attorney Henry Putzel feel that Mr- Zilkha is entitled to another round of limited immunity. After all, he has only received $1.4 million of the $21 million he was promised by Pequot. Given the controversial history behind this case is it any wonder that transparency is called for? Glen Kaiser

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and IAC-AH-SAR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th October 2015 On 6 th November 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE