- “A federal judge on Tuesday rejected Charlie Javice’s bid to throw out her conviction for defrauding JPMorgan Chase into buying her education startup Frank for $175 million, after she said two law clerks had conflicts of interest by accepting jobs at the bank’s outside law firm.”
- “U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said his clerks’ past and future employment at Davis Polk & Wardwell, including as summer associates prior to their clerkships, ‘did not create an appearance of partiality’ requiring a new trial for Javice and co-defendant Olivier Amar,”
- “Frank’s former chief growth officer. Hellerstein, 92, also said there was no proof he relied too heavily on his clerks, including when the defendants accused a clerk of ‘participating in real time’ in decisions about important testimony, and no reasonable person who watched the entire case would question his impartiality. “‘The evidence in this case was strong, and there is no concern here that an innocent person may have been convicted,’ he added.”
- “Davis Polk has more than 1,000 lawyers according to its website, and neither the law firm nor JPMorgan was a defendant in the criminal case. Javice, 34, founded Frank in 2017 and won praise for simplifying college financial aid for students and parents. Prosecutors said she deceived JPMorgan by claiming Frank had far more customers than it actually had.”
- “JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has called the 2021 purchase a ‘huge mistake.’ Hellerstein sentenced Javice to 85 months in prison and Amar to 68 months in prison. Both were convicted last March of ?bank fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud. Javice has appealed her conviction. Amar is scheduled to surrender on May 5, Hellerstein said.”
“McGuireWoods Beats Sun Pharma’s DQ Bid In NJ Suit” —
- “A New Jersey federal court has denied Sun Pharmaceutical’s bid to disqualify McGuireWoods LLP from representing pharmaceutical company Biofrontera in litigation over the alleged breach of a settlement agreement, ruling the firm’s continued representation won’t harm Sun Pharmaceutical and will avoid significant harm to Biofrontera.”
- “U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day held in a redacted opinion that while McGuireWoods attorney Kevin Madagan’s previous work for Sun Pharmaceutical as a regulatory lawyer at another firm disqualifies him from the Biofrontera case, and imputes that conflict to McGuireWoods, disqualifying McGuireWoods at this state in the case would be ‘immense and unfair.’”
- “‘In the court’s judgment, this is the rare case in which the balance of equities tips decisively against disqualification and in favor of allowing Biofrontera to maintain its counsel of choice,’ the judge said in the opinion dated Feb. 25 and filed Friday.”
- “Judge Day found disqualification was not warranted for several reasons: McGuireWoods didn’t violate New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct when it screened Madagan from the case at the time he joined the firm; Sun Pharmaceutical did not move for disqualification for more than a year after the conflict arose; Sun Pharmaceutical significantly overstated the prejudice it would face; disqualifying McGuire Woods would upend the years it spent developing its familiarity with the case; and the disqualification would result in months, if not years, in delays.”
- “The judge also cited the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the case and the facts that led to the conflict as reasons for not disqualifying McGuireWoods.”
- “According to the opinion, Sun Pharmaceutical argued McGuireWoods should be disqualified because Madagan had provided regular legal advice to Sun Pharmaceutical on multiple issues at the core of Biofrontera’s counterclaims while he was at Reed Smith LLP, and that New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conflict 1.10 imputes that conflict to McGuireWoods.”
- “The judge noted, however, the question is one of first impression and one that the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics may wish to clarify ‘how to address imputation and screening of conflicts arising from a corporate, regulatory, or transactional lawyer’s legal advice to a former client well before litigation unfolds.’”
- “According to the opinion, imputation and screening issues most often arise when an attorney advises a client in connection with litigation and then switches to a firm representing the adversary in litigation. Judge Day said although he sides with Sun Pharmaceutical’s reading of the rules of professional conduct at issue, Biofrontera’s reading of the rule is ‘neither implausible nor unreasonable.’”
- “‘Although the court has concluded above that the best reading of the rule applies to this situation, it agrees with Biofrontera that, in the balance of things, it would be unfair to penalize it and its chosen counsel on a close question of first impression,’ Judge Day said.”
- Decision: here.
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
