SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
United States v. Kanodia



          United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit


Nos. 17-1137
     17-1590
                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Appellee,

                               v.

                          AMIT KANODIA,

                      Defendant, Appellant.


          APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]


                             Before

                       Howard, Chief Judge,
               Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges.


     Martin G. Weinberg, with whom Kimberly Homan was on brief for
appellant.
     David M. Lieberman, Attorney, Criminal Division, Appellate
Section, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom John P. Cronan,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, William D. Weinreb, Acting
United States Attorney, Randall E. Kromm, Assistant United States
Attorney, and Brian A. Pérez-Daple, Assistant United States
Attorney, were on brief for appellee.


                        November 22, 2019
          HOWARD, Chief Judge.        A jury convicted Amit Kanodia of

insider-trading securities fraud and related conspiracy offenses

after a twelve-day trial.      Kanodia challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence to sustain his convictions, as well as various jury

instructions.   He also appeals the district court's denial of his

motion for a new trial. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm

Kanodia's convictions and the denial of his new trial motion.

                               I.     Facts

          To set the stage for our analysis of the sufficiency

challenge, we sketch the facts in a manner hospitable to the jury's

verdicts, while leaving some details for later in the opinion.

See United States v. Rodríguez-Milián, 
820 F.3d 26
, 31 (1st Cir.

2016).

          In or about 2007, Kanodia, an experienced real estate

investor, met Shahana Basu, a U.S.-licensed lawyer living in

London, England, through an online dating service. The two married

in April 2008, at which time Basu moved in with Kanodia in

Brookline, Massachusetts.      In February 2012, Basu accepted the

chief legal officer position at Apollo Tyres ("Apollo") in New

Delhi, India.   After Basu moved to New Delhi, Kanodia traveled to

India roughly once every two or three months, staying with her for

two or three weeks at a time.

          In    2013,   Basu   helped       negotiate   Apollo's   proposed

purchase of Cooper Tires ("Cooper"), an American company.           Apollo


                                    - 2 -
sought to use the acquisition to expand into the U.S. market.     The

rumors of that expansion had been in the financial press since

late 2012.     Apollo's insider-trading and confidential-information

policies covered Basu's work at the company, including her role

negotiating the Cooper transaction.       Nevertheless, shortly after

Basu started at Apollo in the fall of 2012, she began boasting to

friends, sometimes in Kanodia's presence, that Apollo brought her

on board to orchestrate its acquisition of Cooper.

             By early April 2013, Apollo and Cooper preliminarily

agreed on Cooper's purchase price.       From April through May 2013,

Basu resided at the Waldorf Hotel in New York City while conducting

Apollo's due diligence on Cooper.        Apollo considered the Cooper

deal's confidentiality so important that it required Basu and other

top executives to disguise their trip to New York to finalize the

deal.   They did so in part by splitting the trip from India into

two legs, with two separate tickets.      Kanodia stayed with Basu in

her room at the Waldorf for several weeks beginning in early April.

During her stay in New York, Basu disclosed to two acquaintances

that she was in New York to negotiate Apollo's purchase of a

company, in violation of Apollo's confidentiality policy.     Both of

Basu's disclosure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

0

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top