Securities and Exchange Commission v. Galleon Management, LP et al

Filing 266

ORDER: On November 5, 2010, the Court entered a Consent Order and Judgment as to Defendant Rajiv Gael, ordering permanent injunctive relief, a permanent officer and director bar, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest. The Consent Order and Judgment, however, provided that the Court would determine at a later date whether it would impose civil penalties against defendant Gael and, if so, to what extent. On April 11, 2012, the Court received the attached letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which requested that this Court terminate this action against defendant Goel without imposing civil penalties. The Court agrees. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the attached letter, the Court hereby terminates this action with respect to defendant Goel. The Consent Order and Judgment shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/16/2012) (lmb)

U~'ITED

STATES DISTRICT-COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

-against-

09 Civ. 881I (JSR)
ECF CASE

GALLEON MANAGEMENT, LP, et aI.,
Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

On November 5,2010, the Court entered a Consent Order and Judgment as to Defendant
Rajiv Goel, ordering permanent injunctive relief, a permanent officer and director bar,
disgorgement, and prejudgment interest. The Consent Order and Judgment, however, provided
that the Court would determine at a later date whether it would impose civil penalties against
defendant Goel and, if so, to what extent. On April 11, 2012, the Court received the attached
letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which requested that this Court terminate
this action against defendant Goel without imposing civil penalties. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the attached letter, the Court hereby terminates this action
with respect to defendant Goel. The Consent Order and Judgment shall otherwise remain in full
force and effect.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

\;'[1[1/\;[10'

::I

New York, New York
April~2012 '

9S:9L

~LO~/LL/PO

UNITED STATES

. SECURITIES AND EXCH~'J'GE COMMISSION

NEW YORK REGIO-;\AL OFFICE

3 WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER

ROOM 400

NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10281-1022

Apri11!,2012

Via Facsimile

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

SEC v. Galleon Mgmt., LP, et al.; 09 Civ. 8811 (JSR) (S.D.N.1':)

Dear Judge Rakoff:
In accordance with Your Honor's Individual Rule of Practice I, and with prior
permission of the Court, counsel for the Commission submits this letter and a proposed order
concerning defendant Rajiv GoeL An electronic copy of the proposed order also was submitted
by email to the Judgment Clerk of the Court, in accordance \\1th ECF Rule 18.4.
On November 5,2010, the Court entered a Consent Order and Judgment as to Defendant
Rajiv Gael, ordering permanent injunctive relief, a permanent officer and director bar,
disgorgement in the amount $230,570.52 and prejudgment interest thereon in the amount
$23,447.21. for a total of$254,017.73. The order provided that the Court would determine at a
later date whether, and to what extent, civil penalties were appropriate. At the time the parties
submitted the settlement for the Court's approval, they agreed that a deferral of the decision
whether to impose a civil penalty was warranted, so that Mr. Goel's cooperation with the
Commission and with the Government could be taken into consideration in the determination
whether and to what extent civil penalties were appropriate. On December 23,2011, upon
stipulation by the parties and by order of the Court, the date by which such a determination
would be made was adjourned to April 27, 2012. Mr. Goe! was separately charged and has
pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case. Mr. Gael's sentencing date in that case has not yet
been set.
Since the time the Court entered the Consent Order and Judgment) Mr. Goel's
cooperation has been continuing. Most significantly, Mr. Goel provided multiple days of
testimony in the Governmenes trial against Raj Rajaratnam in the case United States v.
Rajaratnam, 09 CR 1184 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y.). We understand that Mr. Goel met with AUSAs

11(1(1/<:00' d

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff
4/11/2012
Page2
from the SDNY whenever requested to do so in order to assist in the Govcn;mcnt's investigation
and prosecution. Although he has not been sentenced, we understand that Mr. Gael faces
criminal sanctions for his admined conduct.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that further puniti ve sanctions in the
form of a civil penalty are not necessary under these circumstances to further the Commission's
goals.' The Conunission respectfully requests that Your Honor terminate this matter with respect
to Mr. Goel without imposing civil penalties. A proposed orderis attached for the Cou~'s
consideration. Counsel for Mr. Goel, Norman A. Bloch, Esq., has informed the undersigned that
he agrees with the contents of this letter andjoins in the Commission's request. The parties
remain available for a conference should the Court have any further questions.

ReS~i~mitted" ~
Valerie A.

szczepJ

Counsel for the Corrunission
cc:

1100/:::00'd

Norman A. Bloch, Esq. (by email)