United States v. Ferguson
676 F.3d 260 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admission of stock price data as evidence of materiality constitutes an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly where loss causation is not an element of the charged offense and the defendants have offered to stipulate to materiality.
Facts:
- After American International Group, Inc. (AIG) experienced a stock price drop due to declining loss reserves in late 2000, its CEO, Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg, contacted Ronald Ferguson, the CEO of General Reinsurance Corporation (Gen Re), to arrange a transaction to artificially increase AIG's reserves.
- A team of executives from Gen Re (Ferguson, Monrad, Garand, Graham) and AIG (Milton) structured a Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) reinsurance transaction designed to transfer no actual risk to AIG, contrary to accounting standards (FAS 113) that require risk transfer to book a deal as reinsurance.
- The parties created a secret side agreement, omitted from the official LPT contracts, ensuring Gen Re would be paid a $5 million fee and have its purported $10 million premium repaid.
- To conceal the transaction's true origin, the Gen Re team created a false offer letter suggesting that Gen Re had solicited the deal from AIG.
- While Gen Re executives, including in-house lawyer Graham, decided to use deposit accounting for the transaction on their own books (reflecting its no-risk nature), they were aware that AIG intended to book it as reinsurance.
- AIG improperly booked the LPT as reinsurance, falsely increasing its publicly reported loss reserves by $500 million over two quarters.
- Gen Re's Garand later orchestrated a complex scheme to collect the secret $15 million fee by offsetting funds in an unrelated contract, thereby avoiding a direct payment that could attract regulatory scrutiny.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Ronald Ferguson, Christopher Garand, Elizabeth Monrad, Robert Graham, and Christian Milton on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, securities fraud, and making false statements to the SEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Following a six-week trial, a jury convicted all five defendants on all counts.
- The defendants filed motions for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, which the district court denied.
- The convicted defendants (appellants) appealed the judgments of conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a company's stock price decline to prove the materiality of a fraudulent transaction, when the decline could have been caused by other contemporaneous scandals and the defendants offered to stipulate to materiality?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, Chief Judge
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by admitting the stock-price data, and the defendants' convictions must be vacated. The evidence was highly prejudicial because AIG was simultaneously beset by several other unrelated scandals, making it impossible for the jury to isolate the LPT as the cause of the stock decline. The court's attempt to mitigate this prejudice by using bar charts instead of a continuous line graph was ineffective, as jurors would inevitably connect the dots. Because loss causation was not an element of the charged offenses and the defendants offered to stipulate to materiality, the evidence was not necessary for the government to present a 'coherent narrative.' The prosecution then exploited this prejudicial evidence in its closing argument by making an emotional appeal to the jury about ordinary investors losing their retirement funds, which went far beyond the evidence's purported purpose of showing materiality. The court also identified a second, independent error in the 'willfully caused' jury instruction, which improperly omitted the essential element of causation, thereby allowing the jury to convict based solely on the defendants' intent without finding that their actions actually caused the crime.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts white-collar criminal prosecutions by reinforcing the trial court's gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. It establishes a strong precedent that prosecutors cannot introduce highly prejudicial evidence, like stock-price declines, to prove an element like materiality when less prejudicial alternatives, such as a defendant's stipulation, are available and loss causation is not an element of the crime. The ruling serves as a strong caution against using inflammatory evidence of investor losses to sway a jury emotionally, emphasizing that such tactics can lead to the reversal of a conviction. Furthermore, the court's finding of plain error in the 'willfully caused' jury instruction highlights the absolute necessity of including every essential element of an offense in the charge to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Ferguson