Court grants ex-Deutsche Bank traders more time to prepare appeal in Libor rigging case

Court grants Matthew Connolly and Gavin Black an extension to April 14, 2020 to file their opening briefs in the appeal case.

About three months have passed since it became clear that former Deutsche Bank traders convicted of LIBOR manipulation – Matthew Connolly and Gavin Black, as well as the US Government are appealing from the judgment issued by the New York Southern District Court.
Let’s recall that the District Court sentenced Gavin Black to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a fine of $300,000. Matthew Connolly was issued with a sentence of two years of supervised release and a fine of $100,000.
Regarding Black, the Government had argued that, in accordance with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and associated statutory provisions, the Court should impose a substantial term of incarceration – at offense level 31, by the government’s calculation, the Guidelines call for 108-135 months – and the maximum available fine of $2,000,000.
The Department of Justice had pushed for a much harsher penalty for Connolly, arguing that he, along with Gavin Black and numerous co-conspirators at Deutsche Bank, manipulated LIBOR “with callous and knowing disregard for the far-reaching effects of their actions”. As supervisor of the bank’s New York trading desk, Connolly was said to have leveraged his position of authority and explicitly directed his subordinate, Timothy Parietti, to email the London-based submitters with the desk’s positions so they could manipulate LIBOR in New York’s favor.
The opening briefs of Connolly and Black were supposed to be filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit not later than March 20, 2020. However, the Appellants-Cross-Appellees moved for an extension to April 14, 2020 to file their opening briefs.
The appellants seek additional time, until April 14, 2020, for several reasons. First, this appeal concerns convictions after a four-week trial pertaining to complex financial issues, with extensive motion practice, they said. The record in this case is accordingly voluminous, and it has taken substantial time to properly brief the underlying legal issues for appeal.
In addition, counsel for Appellants are working to coordinate their submissions, so as to avoid duplication across briefs. This, too, has been a time-consuming process, and is not yet complete.
The Court has agreed to extend the submission deadline, as requested.