Alex V. Hernandez's Legal Cases (4)

Securities and investment fraud

Non-litigated Matter #1

Dec 11, 2013

OUTCOME: No criminal indictment, SEC declined enforcement action

Keeping clients from being charged in the first place surpasses trial court wins. Early in 2012, I was retained to represent the former president of a hedge fund who was then the subject of a crimin ... al investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut and the subject of an investigation by the New York office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Two former principals and another officer of the hedge fund were also the subject of the criminal and SEC investigations. Throughout 2012, I met regularly with fellow defense counsel and my client, reviewed, organized, scrutinized and digested thousands of emails and financial and legal documents related to the investigation. Eventually, I made an attorney proffer on behalf of my client to members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the SEC explaining why their theories of criminal and civil liability did not stand scrutiny and could not be proven against my client. Later, I participated in a group attorney proffer with fellow defense counsel to the supervisory staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, again trying to convince them not to charge our clients. Eventually, in 2013, I received notice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the SEC that my client, despite being named as “unindicted co-conspirator #1” in a federal criminal indictment and SEC complaint, would not be indicted criminally or sued by the SEC. The three other individuals were each indicted on a number of federal criminal charges (United States v. Bryson, et al, 3:13-cr-41(JCH)). They are also presently facing an enforcement action by the SEC (3:13-cv-264(JCH)). On May 21, 2014, each of the three charged individuals pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 and are awaiting sentencing.

Appeals

Mr. Hernandez's Published Decisions

Nov 05, 2013

OUTCOME: Consult each published decision for outcome

I have extensive appellate experience and many of the cases I have worked on resulted in published state and federal court decisions at all levels of review: Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 928 F ... .Supp.2d 414 (D.Conn. 2013) Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 691 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2012) Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 728 F.Supp.2d 62 (D. Conn. 2010) Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 616 F.Supp.2d 277 (D. Conn. 2009) United States v. Jones, 455 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Estrada, 403 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2005) United States v. Estrada, 428 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2005) United States v. Lewis, 386 F.3d 475 (2d Cir. 2004) United States v. Luciano, 311 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2002) United States v. Moree, 220 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Rogers, 209 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2000) United States v. Stephenson, 183 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1999) United States v. Luciano, 158 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1998) United States v. Sicignano, 78 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1996) United States v. Batista, 22 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 1994) United States v. Darmand, 3 F.3d 1578 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Murphy, 979 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1992) United States v. Breckenridge, 472 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D. Conn. 2007) United States v. Calhelha, 456 F. Supp. 2d 350 (D. Conn. 2006) United States v. Colon, 429 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Conn. 2006) United States v. Jones, 291 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D. Conn. 2003) United States v. Soler, 289 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D. Conn. 2003) United States v. Estrada, 188 F. Supp. 2d (D. Conn. 2002) Parise v. United States, 135 F. Supp. 2d 345 (D. Conn. 2001) Parise v. United States, 117 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 2000) United States v. Holguin, 946 F. Supp. 157 (D. Conn. 1996) United States v. Javier, 882 F. Supp. 266 (D. Conn. 1995) United States v. Monocchi, 836 F. Supp. 79 (D. Conn. 1993) United States v. Murphy, 786 F. Supp. 1105 (D. Conn. 1992) People ex rel. Strachan v. Colon, 77 N.Y. 2d 499; 571 N.E.2d 65; 568 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1991) Strachan v. Soloff, 157 A.D.2d 122, 554 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1990) People v. Shapiro, 129 Misc. 2d 344; 527 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1988)

Class action

Biediger, et al. v. Quinnipiac University

May 01, 2013

OUTCOME: Federal District Court and Appellate Court wins, consent decree

Represented women student-athletes in class action lawsuit pursuant to Title IX alleging that defendant University discriminated in its athletics program. Case resulted in numerous published decisions ... . Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 616 F.Supp.2d 277 (D.Conn. 2009); Biediger, 2010 WL 2017773 (D.Conn); Biediger, 728 F.Supp.2d 62 (D.Conn. 2010); Biediger, 691 F.3d 85, 91 (2d Cir. 2012)

White collar crime

Non-litigated Matter #2

Dec 06, 2011

OUTCOME: No criminal charges filed; client permitted to stay in United States

Convincing prosecutors not to charge a client surpasses any trial court victory. Early in 2010, I was contacted by a foreign national living and working in the United States on an investor’s visa. ... The New York branch of a Rhode Island banking company had come under scrutiny by federal and New York State banking authorities and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. He was concerned because he and officers and employees of the ATM servicing company by which he was employed – with the knowledge of an officer of the subject bank – had engaged in a multi-million dollar scheme to skim cash from his company’s machines. After thoroughly debriefing my client and advising him of the potential risks, I contacted former colleagues of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut and arranged to make a detailed attorney proffer to them and the FBI of what my client was prepared to say about the scheme. After the attorney proffer, the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office expressed an interest in following up on my client’s allegations. Thereafter, I arranged for my client to enter into a proffer agreement which permitted him to speak to the investigating authorities under circumstances which would prohibit their using his statements against him as admissions in any criminal proceeding. After thoroughly preparing my client, he and I met with the authorities and he explained the scheme. Although the authorities were not willing to grant my client immunity, my client and I decided that it was in his best interest to cooperate in the investigation and potential prosecution of his business associates, and build a strong, positive record in support of a request that he not be prosecuted. As a result of my client’s extensive cooperation the government was able to secure and execute a number of search and seizure warrants. This lead to the arrests and charging of his former business associates. Throughout this time, I continuously cajoled, advocated and pleaded with the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to charge my client. Eventually, I negotiated a non-prosecution and cooperation agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Four individuals eventually entered guilty pleas in the District of Connecticut and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. (See, United States v. Baig, 3:11-cr-167(JBA); United States v. DeMilo, 3:10-cr-220 (JBA); United States v. Sarlo, 3-10-cr-211(JBA); United States v. Vestuti, 3:11-cr-002(JBA).) My firm also represented this client in connection with the renewal of his investor’s visa. He is presently living in the United States with his wife and child in another state.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained