The long-awaited resentencing hearing in the sad case of Jamie Olis that was scheduled to take place today has been postponed indefinitely to give U.S. District Judge Sim Lake time to review recently-filed materials in the case relating to the key issue of market loss causation and to conduct another hearing on the market loss issue. You can download a copy of Olis’ lengthy memorandum on the market loss and related sentencing issues — which includes copies of letters from Olis and his wife to Judge Lake — here.
Although the delay in the resentencing is unfortunate, it is understandable. There is no harder working judge in the country right now than Judge Lake, who is literally snowed under with both the prodigious materials relating to the Olis resentencing and dozens of pre-trial motions in the run-up to the complex trial of former key Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling that is scheduled to begin on January 30 in Houston. Given Judge Lake’s nature, I suspect that he will attempt to schedule the market loss hearing in the Olis case before the commencement of the Lay-Skilling trial.
Meanwhile, Doug Berman — who has provided the flat-out best analysis in the blogosphere of the Olis case from a sentencing perspective — added this informative post earlier in the week and this post today on the key issues to be addressed in the Olis resentencing hearing. As this earlier post notes, the prosecution misled Judge Lake in the previous sentencing hearing on the key market-loss issue, and I’m optimistic that Judge Lake will come to understand this time around the folly of attributing any meaningful market loss to Olis’ participation in the ill-fated Project Alpha, a point that is amply buttressed in Olis’ memorandum on resentencing by the expert reports of Rice University business professor Bala Dharan, former SEC economist Craig McCann, and well-known Houston energy securities analyst John Olson. In contrast, the Justice Department’s strikingly superficial response to the Olis memorandum and expert reports comes across as mean-spirited and baseless. If Judge Lake properly concludes that the reasons for market loss are simply too diffuse to attribute to Olis’ actions, then my sense is that he will reduce Olis’ sentence to considerably less than the 5-7 years that Professor Berman is predicting.
Update: Professor Berman comments on the postponement, as well as the resentencing hearing of Olis’ co-defendants (both copped pleas), which will proceed as scheduled today.
It appears from news accounts that Judge Lake is giving the prosecution another opportunity to beef up their claims for market loss. Why would the judge set aside his evidence deadlines and instruct prosecutors to take another stab at this unless he was determined to find a loss? It also appears from news reports that the judge is hinting that Olis will get a minimum of 6 years and believes that the loss is at least $1 million- how can he have his mind made up on that if the evidence isn’t in the record? I recognize that news reports are not always right but I wonder if maybe this judge is a little too overworked and has already decided the result without objectively considering the evidence before him. Also, how does he sentence two other conspirators including Olis’ boss to well below the maximum guideline sentence without determining a loss and the loss only seems to apply to Olis who claimed his innocence and risked a trial? He even expresses apology to the accountant who got 30 days while Olis got no apology for the 24+ years that was his first sentence. It seems that the disparity in this process never stops for the person who claims innocence- a huge lesson for anyone watching and a very sad one.