Rajat Gupta ordered to pay $6.2 mn to Goldman Sachs

Rajat Gupta

India-born former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta has been ordered to pay USD 6.2 million for legal expenses incurred by his former employer during his trial in insider trading case.

Gupta, 64, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment after he was convicted of leaking secrets about the company to his friend and business associate Galleon founder Raj Rajaratnam, who is serving an 11-year prison term for running one of the biggest insider trading schemes in US history.

Gupta, who is currently on bail while applying his conviction, was told to pay USD 6.2 million for legal fees to Goldman Sachs by federal Judge Jed Rakoff in New York.

Goldman had sought USD 6.9 as reimbursement from former McKinsey head Gupta, which he did not contest in the court.

After reviewing the firm's 542 pages of billing records related to the case, Judge Rakoff however cut the bill by 10 per cent noting that there were some extraneous entries in the 542 pages of billing records submitted by Goldman Sachs.

"On a few occasions the number of attorneys staffed on a task - while perhaps perfectly appropriate on the assumption that Goldman Sachs wished to spare no expense on a matter of great importance to it - exceeded what was reasonably necessary" under the statute, Rakoff wrote.

In 2008, Gupta's net worth was USD 84 million.

In addition to USD 6.2 million, his legal bill runs into more than USD 30 million.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus