United States District Court, Southern District of New York
For the SEC: Bridget Fitzpatrick, Esq., Hope Augustini, Esq., Gregory Nelson Miller, Esq., John David Worland, Jr., Esq., Martin Louis Zerwitz, Esq., Daniel Staroselsky, Esq., Angela D. Dodd, Esq., Marsha C. Massey, Esq. United States Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E.
For Defendants: Stephen D. Susman, Esq., Harry P. Susman, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP
David D. Shank, Esq. Terrell Wallace Oxford, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP
Steven M. Shepard, Esq., Mark Howard Hatch-Miller, Esq., Susman Godfrey LLP
For Samuel Wyly: Josiah M. Daniel III, Esq. Vinson & Elkins LLP
For Caroline D. Wyly: Judith W. Ross, Esq.
For Donald R. Miller, Jr., John Graham, Cheryl Wyly, Evan Wyly, Martha Miller, David Matthews, Laurie Matthews, Lisa Wyly, Kelly Wyly O’Donovan, Andrew Wyly, Christiana Wyly, Emily Wyly Lindsey, Charles J. Wyly, III, James W. Lincoln, and Jennifer Wyly Lincoln: David L. Kornblau, Esq. Eric Hellerman, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP
For Jennifer Wyly Lincoln: Chaim Zev Kagedan, Esq. Venable LLP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.
This Court issued an Opinion and Order on December 19, 2014 (“the December 19 Order”) imposing an alternate measure of disgorgement on Samuel and Charles Wyly (the “Wylys”). On December 23, 2014, the Wylys filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 19 Order. The Wylys contend that this Court was “misled” by the SEC’s expert, Dr. Chyhe Becker, and erroneously concluded that Dr. Becker accounted for the difference between the rate of return on options and the rate of return on stocks in concluding that the SEC had established a reasonable approximation of the profits causally connected to the Wylys’ securities laws violations. The Wylys argue that, in fact, Dr. Becker did not account for this difference, and therefore the SEC did not establish a reasonable approximation of the Wylys’ ill-gotten gains. For the following reasons, the Wylys’ motion is DENIED.
A. Legal Standard
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. “Reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”“Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an ‘extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” Typical grounds for reconsideration include “an ...