High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE )COMMISSION, ))Plaintiff, ))v. )
Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-02050 (SAF)
)MARK CUBAN,
))Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
M
EMORANDUM OF
L
AW OF
M
ARK
C
UBAN
I
N
S
UPPORT OF
M
OTION FOR
A
TTORNEYS
’
F
EES AND
E
XPENSES
Case 3:08-cv-02050-D Document 42 Filed 08/28/2009 Page 1 of 28
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1RELEVANT FACTS.......................................................................................................................3A. Testimony Obtained by SEC Showed There Was No Confidentiality Agreement between Mamma.com’s CEO and Mr. Cuban.....................................................................3B. Evidence of SEC Bias..........................................................................................................5C. SEC’s Improper Use of Wells Notice Process.....................................................................6D. Investigation by Mr. Cuban’s Counsel Confirmed There Was No ConfidentialityAgreement between Mamma.com and Mr. Cuban..............................................................8(1) The Mamma.com Board did not instruct Mr. Fauré to enter into aconfidentiality agreement with Mr. Cuban..............................................................8(2) Mr. Fauré did not enter into a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Cuban..............8(3) Mr. Fauré did not tell Mr. Goldman that Mr. Cuban had entered into aconfidentiality agreement.........................................................................................9(4) Mr. Owen did not enter into a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Cuban...........10E. SEC Staff’s Inappropriate Reaction to New Wells Submission........................................11F. SEC Took Testimony of Mr. Fauré For Second Time In An Attempt To ChangeHis Prior Statements..........................................................................................................13G. SEC’s Unfounded Complaint............................................................................................16H. OIG Investigation of SEC Staff’s Misconduct..................................................................16ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................17A. Court Can Award Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses under Either Inherent Power toSanction or 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b)........................................................................................17B. SEC Acted In Bad Faith In Bringing Its Case Against Mr. Cuban....................................19C. Attorneys’ Fees and Out-of-Pocket Litigation Expenses Are an AppropriateSanction in this Case..........................................................................................................21CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................22
Case 3:08-cv-02050-D Document 42 Filed 08/28/2009 Page 2 of 28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Barton v. Drummond Co
.,636 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1981)....................................................................................................17
Bowden v. United States,
106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997).................................................................................................20
Bradley v. United States
,866 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1989)....................................................................................................18
Chambers v. Nasco
,501 U.S. 32 (1991)...................................................................................................................17
Davis v. Veslan Enters
.,765 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1985)....................................................................................................21
FDIC v. Maxxam
,523 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2008)........................................................................................17, 18, 19
Interfederal Capital, Inc. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
, No. CIV.A. 399CV2318P, 2001 WL 1645480 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2001).............................20
Merriman v. Security Ins. Co
.,100 F.3d 1187 (5th Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................21
Nemeroff v. Abelson
,704 F.2d 652 (2d Cir. 1983).....................................................................................................18
Official Airlines Schedule Information Services, Inc. v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
,333 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1964)....................................................................................................21
Perales v. Casillas
,950 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 1992)........................................................................................18
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
,447 U.S. 752 (1980)...........................................................................................................17, 18
Ryan v. Hatfield,
578 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1978)..................................................................................................18
Sanchez v. Rowe
,870 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1989)....................................................................................................17
SEC v. Berlacher
, No. 07-cv-3800 (ER) (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2008)..........................................................................22
Case 3:08-cv-02050-D Document 42 Filed 08/28/2009 Page 3 of 28
Commenting has been disabled.