- 106 -
In support of petitioner’s claims regarding the alleged MZ
Trading-related deposits, petitioner relies on his self-serving
testimony, Mr. Guterman’s testimony, Mr. Jordan’s testimony
including his expert report and the addendum to that report, MZ
Trading’s purported 1993 transaction summary, and Mr. Oliveras’
summary of MZ Trading’s deposits during 1993. We are not re-
quired to, and we shall not, rely on the testimony of petitioner
and of Mr. Guterman regarding those alleged deposits. Based on
the Court’s evaluation of the testimony of Mr. Jordan, we also
are not required to, and we shall not, rely on his testimony,
including his expert report and the addendum to that report,61
regarding certain of the alleged MZ Trading-related deposits.
The testimony of petitioner, of Mr. Guterman, and of Mr.
Jordan with respect to certain of the alleged MZ Trading-related
deposits referred to and relied on MZ Trading’s purported 1993
transaction summary. MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transaction
summary is a handwritten document dated August 5, 1999, most, if
not all, of which petitioner and Mr. Guterman prepared, which
listed a series of transactions in which petitioner claims MZ
Trading engaged during 1993. For each transaction listed in MZ
61In violation of the Court’s March 31, 2000 Order, which
required each party to submit to the Court and to serve on the
opposing party a copy of any expert report on or before June 30,
2000, petitioner did not proffer the addendum to Mr. Jordan’s
expert report to the Court until Aug. 21, 2000, the first day of
the further trial in this case, and did not provide a copy of
that addendum to respondent until about 5 minutes before it was
marked for identification at that further trial. On the record
before us, we find that respondent was prejudiced by that viola-
tion by petitioner of the Court’s March 31, 2000 Order.
Page: Previous 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011