Loumiet v. United States of America ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    CARLOS LOUMIET,
    Plaintiff
    v.                                                  Civil Action No. 12-1130 (CKK)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Defendant.
    APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM OPINION
    (June 16, 2023)
    The following numbered paragraphs are from Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed
    Material Facts, ECF No. 109. In order to determine whether materials facts are genuinely in
    dispute, the Court has noted which paragraphs are undisputed, which paragraphs are simply
    claimed to be disputed, and which paragraphs are claimed to be supported by argument and/or
    citation to the record. The Court’s notations and determinations are in bold below.
    DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
    I. OCC Procedures for Initiating Formal Investigations and Enforcement Actions
    1. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) supervises national banks to ensure
    that they comply with the law and operate in a safe and sound manner. Declaration of Ronald G.
    Schneck (“Schneck Decl.”), ¶ 1 (Exhibit 1); see also Declaration of C. Michael Rardin (“Rardin
    Decl.”), ¶ 2 (Exhibit 2).
    Plaintiff Carlos Loumiet (“Loumiet”) Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    2. When conducting bank examinations, examination staff occasionally discover information
    indicating that the bank may have engaged in a violation of law, a breach of
    fiduciary duty, or an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Schneck Decl. ¶ 5; Declaration of
    Gerard Sexton (“Sexton Decl.”), ¶ 5 (Exhibit 3); Declaration of Kristin Merritt (“Merritt Decl.”),
    ¶ 3 (Exhibit 4).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    1
    3. The examination staff refers any such information to the OCC’s Enforcement and Compliance
    Division (“E&C”), which reviews the information and may request a formal Order of
    Investigation (“OOI”). Id.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    4. E&C is a division of the OCC’s Chief Counsel’s Office and is responsible for conducting
    investigations and litigating enforcement actions. Sexton Decl. ¶ 2; Merritt Decl. ¶ 2.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    5. An OOI authorizes a formal investigation into whether a bank or institution affiliated party
    (“IAP”) — for example, a bank’s officer, director, employee, or independent contractor — has
    engaged in misconduct. Schneck Decl. ¶ 6.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    6. To obtain an OOI, E&C enforcement attorneys prepare a detailed memorandum outlining the
    facts and legal basis for the proposed investigation, and, after approval by the E&C Director and
    an Assistant Director, the memorandum is presented to the OCC’s Washington Supervision
    Review Committee (“WSRC”). Sexton Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Merritt Decl. ¶ 4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    7. The WSRC is an advisory committee of eight senior OCC officials from a cross- section of
    disciplines within the agency that is responsible for ensuring that bank supervision and
    enforcement policies are applied consistently. Merritt Decl. ¶ 4; Sexton Decl. ¶ 4; Schneck Decl.
    ¶ 15.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    8. E&C attorneys present the proposed investigation at a WSRC meeting, and the WSRC then
    determines whether to recommend that the appropriate Senior Deputy Comptroller authorize an
    OOI. Sexton Decl. ¶ 6; Merritt Decl. ¶ 4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    2
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    9. If approved, the Senior Deputy Comptroller signs a formal OOI, which memorializes the
    matter under investigation and authorizes E&C attorneys to subpoena documents and obtain
    sworn testimony from relevant sources. Id.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    10. To obtain authorization to commence an administrative enforcement action against a bank or
    IAP, E&C attorneys follow essentially the same process just described for obtaining an OOI.
    Specifically, E&C attorneys prepare a detailed memorandum setting forth the facts and legal
    basis for the proposed enforcement action; the memorandum is reviewed by the E&C Director or
    an Assistant Director; if approved by those individua ls, E&C attorneys formally present the
    proposed action at a WSRC meeting; the WSRC determines whether to recommend the
    enforcement action; and the Senior Deputy Comptroller ultimately decides whether to accept the
    WSRC’s recommendation and authorize the action. Sexton Decl. ¶ 17; Merritt Decl. ¶ 11.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    II. The Adjusted Price Trades
    11. Hamilton Bank, N.A. (“Hamilton”) was a national bank located in Miami, Florida before the
    OCC closed the bank in 2002 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
    (“FDIC”) as receiver. Schneck Decl. ¶ 7.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed; Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    A. The Reserve Requirement
    12. In 1998, the Russian economy was in a state of crisis, and Russian borrowers had a
    heightened chance of default on their debt obligations. Rardin Decl. ¶ 10; see also Ex. 3 (“FDIC
    Compl.”) to the Declaration of William Smith (“Smith Decl.”), ¶ 29 (Exhibit 5).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed; Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    3
    13. In 1998, the OCC directed Hamilton to establish a reserve equal to 25 percent of the value of
    its Russian loans (approximately $3,125,000) in order to reflect the risk of default. Rardin Decl.
    ¶ 10; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 29–30, 246–247.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed; Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    14. Instead of establishing the reserve, however, Hamilton’s management later told the OCC that
    it sold its Russian loans at par (full face value). Rardin Decl. ¶ 10; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 32, 37.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    B. The OCC’s Discovery of the Swap Transactions
    15. How Hamilton managed to sell its distressed Russian loans at par value when the Russian
    economy was in turmoil and the market value of Russian debt was substantially less than par was
    a key question for the OCC’s 1999 safety and soundness examination of Hamilton (“1999
    Examination”). Rardin Decl. ¶ 10.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    16. The examination team discovered documents and other information revealing that, at about
    the same time Hamilton sold its impaired Russian loans at par value, Hamilton purchased several
    debt securities at par value from the same counterparties, even though substantial market
    information showed that the securities were worth considerably less. Rardin Decl. ¶¶ 11-15;
    FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 42–45; Sexton Decl. ¶ 8; Merritt Decl. ¶ 6; Declaration of Lee Straus (“Straus
    Decl.”), ¶ 4 (Exhibit 6).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    17. In total, Hamilton overpaid by $22.2 million for the debt securities it purchased from WMB
    and Standard Bank. Rardin Decl. ¶ 16; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 34, 195.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    4
    18. Hamilton’s three most senior officers—Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Eduardo
    Masferrer, President Carlos Bernace, and Chief Financial Officer John Jacobs—denied the
    existence of any connection between the purchases and the sales. Rardin Decl. ¶ 17; FDIC
    Compl. ¶ 38; Schneck Decl. ¶ 9.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    19. The OCC suspected that Masferrer, Bernace, and Jacobs were not being truthful and that the
    transactions were related in what are known as “assets swaps” or “adjusted price trades.” Rardin
    Decl. ¶ 18; FDIC Compl. ¶ 46; Schneck Decl. ¶ 9.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    20. In an adjusted price trade, a party sells an asset with an embedded loss (i.e., an asset that is
    worth less than its face value) at an inflated price and compensates the counterparty by paying an
    inflated price for another asset with an embedded loss. If the “buy” and “sell” sides of the
    transaction are improperly accounted for as separate and independent transactions, then it
    appears that the party avoided taking a loss on an asset that had a severely depreciated value.
    Rardin Decl. ¶ 18; Schneck Decl. ¶ 9; Straus Decl. ¶ 5.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    21. The OCC deems the use of adjusted price trading to conceal a loss on the sale of an asset to
    be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Rardin Decl. ¶ 18.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    22. The use of adjusted price trading to hide losses and misrepresent an institution’s true
    financial condition can also be a form of securities and accounting fraud. Straus Decl. ¶ 5.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    23. Hamilton accounted for the purchases and sales as separate and independent transactions,
    showing no loss on the sale of the Russian loans and no loss on the purchase of the Latin
    American and Asian securities. Rardin Decl. ¶ 19; FDIC Compl. ¶ 35; Schneck Decl. ¶ 8.
    5
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    24. Had the transactions been properly accounted for as swaps, Hamilton would have had to
    report a $22.2 million loss on the transactions, representing the amount it overpaid for the Latin
    American and Asian securities. Rardin Decl. ¶ 19; FDIC Compl. ¶ 34.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    C. OCC Opens Formal Investigation into the Adjusted Price Trades
    25. Following standard procedure, the OCC’s examination team prepared a comprehensive
    report of the findings from the 1999 Examination (“Examination Report”), setting forth in detail
    the suspected swap transactions. Rardin Decl. ¶ 20; Schneck Decl. ¶ 8.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    26. The Examination Report identified Hamilton’s pattern of paying millions above market value
    and failing to record a loss on the transactions as an unsafe and unsound banking practice, a
    breach of the bank’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and a violation of Generally Accepted
    Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Ex. 1 to Rardin Decl., OCC’s 1999 Examination Report of
    Hamilton Bank (“Examination Report”), at US0017704, US0017711, US0017723– US0017731.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    27. The Examination Report notified Hamilton that the OCC would initiate an enforcement
    action against the bank and evaluate the need for civil money penalties and criminal referrals
    against each member of Hamilton’s board of directors, senior management, and the bank itself.
    Examination Report, at US0017706, US0017724, US0017733; Schneck Decl. ¶ 9.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    28. In June 2000, Senior Deputy Comptroller Leann G. Britton authorized E&C’s request to
    amend an existing OOI into Hamilton (regarding possible money laundering and Bank Secrecy
    Act violations) to include a formal investigation of Hamilton’s suspected adjusted price trades.
    Merritt Decl. ¶ 6; Sexton Decl. ¶ 9; Schneck Decl. ¶ 9.
    6
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    III. Greenberg Traurig’s “Independent Investigation”
    A. Hamilton’s Retention of Greenberg Traurig
    29. The OCC shared its concerns about the suspected swap transactions with Hamilton’s outside
    auditor Deloitte & Touche (“Deloitte”), which requested that Hamilton’s audit committee retain
    “independent counsel” to investigate the true nature of the Russian loan transactions and whether
    Masferrer, Bernace, and Jacobs had lied to Deloitte and the OCC about them. Schneck Decl. ¶
    10; Rardin Decl. ¶ 22; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 46–47.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    30. Hamilton’s audit committee retained Greenberg Traurig LLP (“Greenberg”) to conduct the
    independent investigation. Rardin Decl. ¶ 22; Schneck Decl. ¶ 10; Sexton Decl. ¶ 10; Merritt
    Decl. ¶ 7; Straus Decl. ¶ 6; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 6–9, 50.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    31. Greenberg attorneys Robert Grossman and Carlos Loumiet led the investigation and were the
    principle [sic] authors of two reports—one on November 15, 2000 (“November 2000 Report”)
    (Exhibit 7), and a follow-up report on March 14, 2001 (“March 2001 Report”) (Exhibit 8).
    Schneck Decl. ¶ 11; Sexton Decl. ¶ 11.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    7
    32. Grossman and Loumiet reported that there was “no clear evidence of an ‘agreement’ to swap
    or exchange financial assets” and “no convincing evidence that anyone at Hamilton intentionally
    misled [Deloitte] or the Audit Committee on those matters.” November 2000 Report, at
    US0181612, US0181616.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own report.
    B. The “Obvious” and “Clear” Conflict of Interest
    33. Despite ultimately ruling in Loumiet’s favor in the OCC’s enforcement action against him,
    the Comptroller of the Currency observed in his July 27, 2009, Final Decision and Order that
    Greenberg and Loumiet had an “obvious” and “clear” conflict of interest when the law firm was
    retained to investigate the Russian loan transactions. In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., No. OCC-AA-
    EC-06-102 (July 27, 2009), at 14–15 (“Comptroller’s Final Decision), available at
    https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2009-253. pdf.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    8
    34. In the summer and early fall of 2000, at roughly the same time Hamilton’s audit committee
    retained Greenberg to impartially investigate the Russian loan transactions and whether
    Masferrer, Bernace, and Jacobs lied about them, Loumiet was personally advising the Hamilton
    officers on limiting their legal exposure related to a Consent Order sought by the OCC, which
    concerned those very same transactions. See Letter from Carlos Loumiet to Hamilton General
    Counsel J. Reid Bingham (“Bingham Ltr.”) (Exhibit 9); Tr. of OCC Dep. of Carlos Loumiet
    (“Loumiet OCC Dep.”), 36:20–38:23 (Exhibit 10); Ex. 1 to Straus Decl., Sept. 11, 2006 E&C
    Mem. to WSRC (“2006 WSRC Mem.”), at US0277060–US0277061.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own letter.
    35. In a letter to Hamilton’s General Counsel, Loumiet likened the OCC’s regulatory actions to a
    “witch hunt.” Bingham Ltr., at US0207947.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own letter.
    36. Grossman was securities counsel for the bank’s holding company (Hamilton Bancorp), and
    he was principally responsible for advising Hamilton Bancorp on its securities filings, which had
    9
    failed to disclose the adjusted price trades. Tr. of OCC Dep. of Robert Grossman (“Grossman
    OCC Dep.”), 114:15–19; 116:8–19 (Exhibit 11); 2006 WSRC Mem., at US0277060–
    US0277061; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 62–63.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    37. In early 2001, Greenberg defended Hamilton’s senior officers in one of several class action
    lawsuits brought by shareholders over the adjusted price trades while simultaneously
    investigating the officers’ credibility concerning those same transactions. Loumiet OCC Dep.
    99:18–25; 2006 WSRC Mem., at US0277060–US0277061; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 82–83.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    C. Greenberg’s Whitewash “Investigation”
    38. Years later, on the subject of Greenberg’s investigation into the adjusted price trades, the
    federal judge presiding over Masferrer’s criminal trial asked in open court, “Do we know what
    they got paid for this whitewash?” Tr. of Jury Trial, United States v. Masferrer, No. 04-cr-20404
    (Dec. 2, 2005), at 122:24–25, (“Masferrer Trial Tr.) (Exhibit 12) (emphasis added).
    10
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped
    from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have been entered in
    the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact. See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    39. Similarly, the Assistant United States Attorney handling Masferrer’s criminal prosecution
    confirmed on the record that “quite frankly the Government’s position is [Greenberg’s
    investigation] was a whitewash.” 
    Id.
     123:9–10 (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped
    from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have been entered in
    the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact. See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    40. The FDIC and the OCC concluded that Greenberg displayed a lack of impartiality in the
    investigation. FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 12–21, 120–127; 2006 WSRC Mem. at US0277060–US0277063.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    41. Greenberg associates Jordan Clark and John Varney assisted Grossman and Loumiet during
    the investigation. Loumiet OCC Dep. 53:21–54:4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    11
    42. Varney’s notes from his initial meeting with Grossman and Loumiet to discuss the Hamilton
    investigation state, “did not want to show linkage.” Handwritten Notes of John Varney, Undated,
    at 1 (Exhibit 13); FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 120–27.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    43. Varney testified that, “It wasn’t intended that anybody did not want to [show linkage.] My
    recollection is linkage would show swap bad fact. I think it’s more accurate to say that we were
    hoping that we did not find bad facts . . . .” Tr. of FDIC Dep. of John Varney (“Varney FDIC
    Dep.”), 85:9–21 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 14).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    44. The FDIC and the OCC concluded that Greenberg suppressed key evidence material to the
    investigation. FDIC Compl., ¶¶ 98–151; Ex. 1 (“2004 WSRC Mem.”) to the Declaration of
    Gregory F. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”), at US0232541–US0232543 (Exhibit 15); 2006 WSRC
    Mem., at US0277057.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    12
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    45. Grossman’s notes of his interview with Hamilton President Carlos Bernace contain
    Bernace’s admission that Hamilton “had to buy LA to get out of Russia because of market.”
    Handwritten Notes of Robert Grossman, Sept. 17, 2000 (“Grossman Handwritten Notes”), at
    US0145621 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 16); Typed Notes of Robert Grossman, Sept. 17, 2000
    (“Grossman Typed Notes”), at US0145982 (emphasis added) (Exhibit 17).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    46. Loumiet acknowledged that Bernace’s statement could be evidence that Hamilton had to buy
    Latin American loans from the counterparties in order to sell Hamilton’s Russian loans to the
    counterparties—a classic quid pro quo. Tr. of FDIC Dep. of Carlos Loumiet (“Loumiet FDIC
    Dep.”), 194:6–14 (Exhibit 18).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    13
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s own testimony.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    47. Loumiet further acknowledged that Bernace’s statement could be evidence that Hamilton
    personnel knew of a connection between the sale of the Russian loans and the purchase of the
    Latin American loans. 
    Id.
     195:10–17.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    48. Loumiet had no explanation for why he and Grossman failed to disclose in their investigation
    reports Bernace’s admission that Hamilton had to buy “LA” (Latin American) loans “to get out
    of Russia because of market.” 
    Id.
     194:16–195:8.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    14
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    49. Loumiet’s notes of his interview with Bernace state, “‘Morally’ obligated to buy LA loans.
    Nothing in writing.” Handwritten Notes of Carlos Loumiet, Oct. 4, 2000 (“Loumiet Handwritten
    Notes”), at US0209164 (Exhibit 19) (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own notes.
    50. Loumiet acknowledged that by “LA loans,” he was referring to Latin American loans.
    Loumiet FDIC Dep., 137:15–20.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    51. When deposed by the FDIC in 2005, Loumiet did not deny that his notes reflect Bernace’s
    statement to him that Hamilton was “‘morally’ obligated to buy [Latin American] loans. Nothing
    in writing.” Loumiet FDIC Dep., 137:4–142:19.
    15
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    52. The word “morally” appears in Loumiet’s notes in quotation marks. Loumiet Handwritten
    Notes, at US0209164.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own notes.
    53. Greenberg’s reports did not disclose any information regarding whether Hamilton was
    morally obligated to purchase the Latin American loans. Loumiet FDIC Dep., 138:22– 139:6; Tr.
    of DOJ Dep. of Carlos Loumiet (“Loumiet DOJ Dep.”) 206:13–16 (Exhibit 20); 2006 WSRC
    Mem., at US0277062.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    16
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    54. Loumiet testified that he had no explanation for why Greenberg’s investigation reports did
    not disclose the statement “‘Morally’ obligated to buy LA loans. Nothing in writing.” Loumiet
    FDIC Dep. 139:7–10.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    55. Greenberg possessed a complete copy of a September 21, 1998 fax from
    Hamilton to counterparty WMB confirming the adjusted price trade with WMB for the City of
    Moscow loan. Fax from J. Reid Bingham to Peter Batrouni (“Complete Bingham Fax”) (Exhibit
    21); Loumiet OCC Dep., 206:21–207:8.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    17
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    56. Bingham’s fax was responding to WMB’s offer of September 15, 1998 to engage in the
    adjusted price trade. November 2000 Report, at US0181620.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own report.
    57. Bingham’s September 21 transmission to WMB included (1) a fax coversheet showing that
    Bingham sent a four-page fax; (2) a letter from Bernace to WMB stating that Hamilton would
    sell the City of Moscow loan to WMB, but would not purchase from WMB the Latin American
    and Asian debt securities; and (3) a letter from Jacobs to intermediary Morgan Grenfell
    confirming that Hamilton would buy the Latin American and Asian debt securities. See Complete
    Bingham Fax, at US0181699-US0181701.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    18
    58. By including both letters in his fax to WMB, Bingham confirmed that Hamilton accepted
    WMB’s offer, but would complete the adjusted price trade by purchasing the Latin American
    and Asian debt securities through a straw middleman, Morgan Grenfell. Id.; FDIC Compl. ¶¶
    103–109, 128–139.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    59. Grossman’s notes describe this evidence as a “huge smoking gun.” Grossman Handwritten
    Notes, at US0145633.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    60. Grossman and Loumiet did not disclose any concerns over “huge smoking gun” evidence in
    either of their investigation reports. FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 103–109, 128–139; November 2000
    Report; March 2001 Report.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    19
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own report.
    61. Instead, the coversheet from Bingham’s September 21 fax transmission was omitted and the
    remainder of the transmission was split into two separate annexes (“Annex III” and “Annex IV”)
    in Greenberg’s November 2000 investigation report. November 2000 Report at US0181622-
    US0181625; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 128–139.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    62. When Deloitte, in response to Greenberg’s November 2000 Report, observed that Annexes
    III and IV seemed to be part of the same fax transmission and inquired about the missing fax
    coversheet, Grossman and Loumiet claimed that Hamilton had an “informal policy of not
    retaining fax coversheets.” Joseph Echevarria Mem. to File (Dec. 21, 2000), at US0181704
    (Exhibit 22); Sexton Decl. ¶ 11.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    20
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    63. The FDIC and the OCC concluded that Greenberg accepted at face value the bank officers’
    false representations. FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 204–213, 237–248; 2004 WSRC Mem. at US0232545;
    2006 WSRC Mem. at US0277062–US0277064.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    64. Hamilton knowingly paid millions over market value for the Latin American and Asian debt
    securities it purchased. Rardin Decl. ¶ 16; FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 34, 195.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    65. To explain why Hamilton would pay face value for debt securities worth considerably less,
    Grossman and Loumiet repeated in their November 2000 report what Masferrer, Bernace, and
    Jacobs had told them—namely, that Hamilton had a “practice” of buying investments at par
    21
    when it intended to hold the investments to maturity, and that Hamilton accordingly did not
    consider “the current market pricing or valuation of those loans.” November 2000 Report, at
    US0181597.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    66. In fact, as reflected in Greenberg’s November 2000 Report, according to the Hamilton
    officers, Hamilton actually told the counterparties that the bank “only” wanted to buy at par and
    “insisted” on paying full face value for the Latin American and Asian debt securities. November
    2000 Report at US0181597, US0181600, US0181614 (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    67. Loumiet conceded that this purported practice of always buying and selling at par value
    despite opportunities to purchase assets at a cheaper price “was not a sensible business practice”
    because it is “[a]lways better to pay less for something than more.” Loumiet FDIC Dep.271:3–
    10; 276:25–277:1.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    22
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    68. Over the span of his long career as a banking attorney, Loumiet could not think of any bank
    other than Hamilton that supposedly had a practice of buying and selling investments only at par.
    Id. 277:2-9.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    69. Grossman conceded that it “generally doesn’t make sense” to buy an asset at par when the
    market value of the asset is less than par just because the buyer intends to hold the asset to
    maturity. Tr. of FDIC Dep. of Robert Grossman (“Grossman FDIC Dep.”), 75:25–76:16
    (Exhibit 23).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    23
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    70. On November 30, 2000, Benton Moyer, who was a Hamilton director and a member of the
    bank’s audit committee, wrote to other members of the board of directors:
    I was not in [Hamilton Bank] at the time of the Russian transactions and therefore I will abstain
    from public comment on the Greemberg [sic] report. Nevertheless, for you only, I believe there
    was linkage and the transactions were done to avoid losses in Russia. No one in their right mind
    could have had the policy of buying and selling at par value only – least of all Eduardo who is
    not stupid in any sense. Nov. 30, 2000 Email of Benton Moyer to Hamilton Directors (Exhibit
    24) (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    71. Hamilton Executive Vice President Adolfo Martinez, who, as head of International
    Marketing was responsible for business development and loan generation, was not aware of any
    policy under which Hamilton bought investments at par only where the bank intended to hold
    those investments to maturity. Tr. of FDIC Dep. of Adolfo Martinez (“Martinez FDIC Dep.”),
    8:20–25 (Exhibit 25).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    24
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    72. Martinez testified that such a policy would not make any sense, regardless of whether the
    investment is being held to maturity, because “[y]ou should negotiate the best possible price.”
    Id.9:1–14.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    73. According to Martinez, when Loumiet interviewed him during Greenberg’s “independent
    investigation,” Loumiet never asked him whether Hamilton had a policy of buying assets only at
    par when the bank planned to hold those assets to maturity. 
    Id.
     9:15–23.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    25
    74. Hamilton Assistant Treasurer Dwight McKey, who managed a $200 million portfolio of
    investments for Hamilton, was not aware of any policy requiring the bank to purchase
    investments at par where the bank intended to hold the investment to maturity. Tr. of FDIC Dep.
    of Dwight McKey (“McKey FDIC Dep.”), 25:25–27:8 (Exhibit 26).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    75. McKey did not follow any such policy when managing Hamilton’s $200 million investment
    portfolio, and he had never heard of any bank adopting such a practice in his twenty- year career
    in the securities industry. 
    Id.
     23:8–24:1; 28:7–29:1; 30:12–31:5.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    76. According to McKey, a policy of buying only at par would be “essentially the same” as
    deliberately paying sticker price for a car when it can be purchased for less. 
    Id.
     29:2– 20.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    26
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    77. Grossman and Loumiet identified McKey as one of the individuals Greenberg interviewed
    during the investigation. November 2000 Report, at US0181618.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own report.
    78. McKey testified under oath that he did not recall ever being interviewed by Greenberg.
    McKey FDIC Dep. 44:20–25.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    27
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    79. Loumiet could not recall anything he did to test the accuracy of the Hamilton officers’
    representation that the bank had a practice of buying and selling investments only at par without
    considering fair market value. Loumiet FDIC Dep. 278:12–17.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    80. Loumiet could not recall finding any documentation that supported the Hamilton officers’
    representation that the bank had a practice of buying and selling investments only at par without
    considering fair market value. 
    Id.
     278:19–25.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    81. Loumiet personally did not make any effort to document whether Hamilton purchased and
    sold debt securities at par value before September 1998; nor did he know whether anyone at
    Greenberg did. Loumiet OCC Dep. 108:22–109:1.
    28
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    82. Loumiet could not identify any investment that Hamilton purchased or sold at par value
    before September 1998. 
    Id.
     109:2–4.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    83. Loumiet personally did not make any effort to determine whether Hamilton purchased and
    sold debt securities at the best available market price before September 1998; nor did he know
    whether anyone at Greenberg did. 
    Id.
     109:5–12; 115:13–21.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    29
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    84. Loumiet could not recall asking anyone at Greenberg if they made such an inquiry. 
    Id.
    109:13–16.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    85. Loumiet never asked Hamilton for a copy of the bank’s written investment policy; nor did he
    know if anyone at Greenberg did. 
    Id.
     65:9–11.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    30
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    86. Hamilton’s Lending and Investment Policy at the time of the Russian loan transactions Bank
    will seek the highest yields possible from its investment activities, consistent with market
    conditions, desirable levels of risks and maturity profiles.” Hamilton Lending and Investment
    Policy, at US0001205 (Exhibit 27) (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    87. The FDIC and the OCC concluded that Greenberg downplayed contemporaneous documents
    that were strong evidence of an adjusted price trade. FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 158–177; 2004 WSRC
    Mem. US0232556; 2006 WSRC Mem. at US0277061 – US0277064.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    88. A September 28, 1998 internal memorandum written by Peter Kennedy (the “Kennedy
    Memorandum”), an officer for counterparty Standard Bank, is entitled “Hamilton Bank-Asset
    Swap.” November 2000 Report, at US0181684–US0181687 (emphasis added).
    31
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    89. The Kennedy Memorandum described in detail how the adjusted price trade between
    Hamilton and Standard Bank, would be structured. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    90. Evidencing the quid pro quo arrangement between Hamilton and Standard Bank, the
    Kennedy Memorandum explained, “Only when we have cleared funds for the package of Latin
    American assets we are selling will we proceed with the purchase of the Mezcohmbank
    US$7,500,000.” 
    Id.
     at US0181684.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    32
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    91. The Kennedy Memorandum detailed the benefits to both parties in proceeding with the
    adjusted price trade and summarized Standard Bank’s understanding of the benefits Hamilton
    sought:
    Benefits to Hamilton in proceeding with the asset swap
    •   • They want to proceed with an IPO in 1999. To have defaulted Russian bank debt on
    their balance sheet next year would be “embarrassing”.
    •   • Their main business is in Latin America. They will not have to mark-to-market the
    Latin American debt listed below but will simply hold the assets to maturity. No “loss”
    therefore needs to be accounted for.
    
    Id.
     at US0181685.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    92. Grossman and Loumiet downplayed the Kennedy Memorandum’s significance, stating
    “Hamilton’s officers have told us that they never discussed the matters addressed in the Standard
    Bank memorandum with Peter Kennedy or anyone else at Standard Bank.” 
    Id.
     at US0181607;
    see also FDIC Compl. ¶¶158–177.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    33
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    93. A September 17, 1998 internal memorandum from counterparty WMB (the “Bigelow
    Memorandum”), described the essence of the swap agreement between Hamilton and WMB.
    November 2000 Report, at US0181661.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    94. The memorandum states that Hamilton approached the New York agency of WMB to sell a
    “quantity of a City of Moscow Debt Instrument in exchange for Subordinated Debt Instruments
    issued by Standard Chartered and HSBC.” 
    Id.
     (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    34
    95. The Bigelow Memorandum described additional details of Hamilton’s adjusted price trade
    with WMB:
    The proposed structure of the deal was for Hamilton to sell us the Moscow paper at par, rather
    than at the market value for .15. In exchange, they were willing to purchase from us a
    corresponding amount of the Standard Chartered/HSBC paper, valued at .60-70, also at par.
    
    Id.
     (emphasis added).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    96. Grossman and Loumiet downplayed this document, stating “Hamilton’s officers all advised
    us that they approached WMB to sell WMB Russian loans, that no pricing or relative values
    were discussed other than face value, and that the sales by Hamilton were not linked to or
    contingent upon any particular purchase . . . .” 
    Id.
     at US0181604.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    97. Grossman and Loumiet also claimed that WMB’s outside counsel, James Warnot, “advised
    [them] that no discussions of pricing or market value were held with Hamilton” — a claim that
    35
    was subsequently discredited by the sworn testimony of Ian Tweedley, the officer who was the
    primary contact point for the Russian swaps. 
    Id.
     at US0181604.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    98. The FDIC and the OCC concluded that Greenberg employed a double standard for evaluating
    the evidence. FDIC Compl. ¶¶ 10, 18; 2004 WSRC Mem., at US0232556.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    99. The Greenberg attorneys employed a “convincing evidence” standard to evaluate whether the
    Hamilton officers misrepresented the nature of the Russian loan transactions to Deloitte or the
    OCC. November 2000 Report, at US0181616; Loumiet OCC Dep. 201:24–206:9.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    36
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    100. In terms of the evidence necessary to conclude that there was an agreement to engage in an
    adjusted price trade, Loumiet testified that he needed to see a written, legally- enforceable swap
    contract, complete with “reps and warranties,” “covenants,” “an incident of fault,” “recourse,”
    “jurisdiction,” “governing law provisions” and the like. Loumiet OCC Dep. 164:15–165:22;
    Loumiet FDIC Dep. 163:7–9; 206:23–24.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    101. Loumiet testified that he did not “specifically focus on” the fact that if the bank officers
    engaged in an adjusted price trade, they had an incentive to suppress any documentation of it in
    order to avoid civil or criminal liability. Loumiet OCC Dep. 166:20–168:11.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    37
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own testimony.
    IV. Re action to Greenberg’s November 2000 Report
    102.       Deloitte rejected Greenberg’s conclusion that there was no evidence of an
    adjusted price trade, finding that “there was clear evidence showing that swap
    transactions had occurred.” Ex. 5 (“OIG Mem. of Activity - Echevarria Interview”) to the
    Declaration of Richard K. Delmar (“Delmar Decl.”), at US0000477 (Exhibit 28).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    103.       Deloitte required Hamilton to correct and refile its financial statements. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompany Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s failure to respond, or provide a record citation, in violation of Local
    Civil Rule 7(h), the Court assumes this fact to be admitted.
    104.      In December 2000, in connection with the OCC’s formal investigation into the
    Russian loan transactions, E&C Attorneys Gerard Sexton and Kristin Merritt deposed Ian
    Tweedley, the WMB officer who was Jacobs’s primary contact point for the transactions
    with WMB. Merritt Decl. ¶ 9.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this
    paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent
    38
    final judgments on the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the
    Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA
    Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of
    Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying
    Memorandum Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule
    7(h), incorrectly contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral
    estoppel, and accordingly that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be
    given credence, and the Court accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    105.      On January 17, 2001, Ann F. Jaedicke, the OCC’s Deputy Comptroller for
    Supervision Support, notified Loumiet that the OCC had obtained sworn testimony from
    Tweedley that directly contradicted the conclusions in Greenberg’s November 2000
    Report. Letter of Ann F. Jaedicke to Carlos Loumiet (“Jaedicke Letter”), at US0183693-
    US0183696 (Exhibit 29).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph
    of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on
    the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation
    in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at
    17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802
    (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed
    Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    106. Deputy Comptroller Jaedicke’s letter notified Loumiet that WMB’s outside counsel, James
    Warnot, represented Tweedley at the deposition, and that Tweedley testified that (1) Jacobs
    contacted him to propose an asset swap; (2) Jacobs acknowledged that the assets they discussed
    were not worth par value; and (3) the two men discussed the assets’ pricing and market values.
    Id.; see also Ex.2toMerrittDecl.,Tr.ofOCCDep.ofIanTweedley(“Tweedley Dep.”), 14:14–15:17;
    20:7–21; 28:3–9; 30:16–31:15; 38:5–21; 40:16–41:7; 50:3–18; 61:12–62:2.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    39
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    107. The letter observed that Tweedley’s sworn testimony contradicted the statements Greenberg
    had attributed to Warnot in the November 2000 report and raised serious questions about the
    report’s conclusions. Jaedicke Letter, at US0183695–US0183696.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    108. Loumiet and Grossman met with OCC representatives on February 8, 2001, at which time
    E&C enforcement attorneys read the relevant portions of the Tweedley deposition to the
    Greenberg attorneys. 2004 WSRC Mem., at US0232543.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    40
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    109. The enforcement attorneys also highlighted what the OCC believed were additional “red
    flags” that would cause any reasonable investigator to question the deals. 
    Id.
     at US0232543–
    US0232544.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    110. In response to this information, Grossman and Loumiet issued their March 2001 Report,
    reaffirming the conclusions stated in November 2000 Report. March 2001 Report, at
    US0181583–US0181584.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted. Notably, this fact is derived from Loumiet’s
    own report.
    111. Greenberg billed Hamilton approximately $210,000 for the firm’s work (including work
    performed by ten different individuals) on the “independent investigation.” Greenberg
    Investigation Billing Timesheets, at US0248147 (Exhibit 30).
    41
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    V. Loumiet’s “Whistleblower” Letters to the Treasury Inspector General
    112. On March 26, 2001, Loumiet sent a letter (“March 2001 Complaint Letter”) to then-
    Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill and then-Treasury Inspector General Jeffrey Rush, Jr.,
    containing allegations about the OCC’s supervision of Hamilton and requesting that the United
    States Department of the Treasury, Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) open an
    investigation. Delmar Decl. ¶ 4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    113. Loumiet’s March 2001 Complaint Letter did not identify any particular OCC employee by
    name. Id. ¶ 4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    114. Loumiet’s March 2001 Complaint Letter was reviewed Richard K. Delmar, who was then
    Counsel to the Inspector General. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    115. On April 20, 2001, Loumiet sent a second letter addressed to Messrs. O’Neill and Rush,
    making additional allegations that unspecified OCC officials were behaving unprofessionally
    with respect to the examination of Hamilton. Id. ¶ 5.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    42
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    116. In response to Loumiet’s letters, the OIG conducted a preliminary inquiry in order to
    determine whether a formal investigation was warranted. Id. ¶ 6.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    117. OIG Counsel Richard Delmar was responsible for coordinating the preliminary inquiry into
    Loumiet’s allegations. Id.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    118. On May 15, 2001, Loumiet visited the OIG’s Washington, D.C. office and made a
    presentation to Delmar and other OIG officials, during which Loumiet reiterated the allegations
    that he made in his two letters. Id. ¶ 8.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    119. After the meeting with Loumiet on May 15, 2001, the OIG concluded that nothing raised in
    his presentation or letters warranted the exercise of the OIG’s oversight function with regard to
    the OCC’s supervision of Hamilton, and accordingly Loumiet was notified that the OIG would
    not conduct a further investigation. Id.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    120. Other than the two complaint letters Loumiet wrote in March and April 2001, the OIG has
    no record of any other matters raised by or involving Mr. Loumiet. Id. ¶ 10.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    121. Greenberg billed Hamilton for the time Loumiet spent researching and drafting his
    “whistleblower” letters to the OIG and meeting with OIG officials in Washington, D.C. See
    Hamilton-Greenberg Billing Correspondence (Exhibit 31), at US0166066.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    43
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    VI. FDIC’s Complaint against Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet
    122. On January 11, 2002, the OCC closed Hamilton and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Smith
    Decl. ¶ 3; Rardin Decl. ¶ 26.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    123. The OIG determined that Hamilton’s “unwillingness to recognize problems, patterns of
    resistance, and failure to comply with laws and regulations, or to take corrective action,
    contributed to Hamilton’s losses and were significant factors in OCC’s decision to place
    Hamilton in receivership.” Dep’t of Treasury Off. of Inspector Gen., MATERIAL LOSS REVIEW
    OF HAMILTON BANK, N.A.,at23 (Dec.17, 2002) (“OIG Material Loss Review”), available at
    https://permanent.fdlp.gov/ lps81616/ oig03032.pdf.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed; Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    124. The FDIC estimated Hamilton’s failure cost the Bank Insurance Fund an estimated $148
    million. FDIC Compl. ¶ 23.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed; Loumiet asserts this paragraph is not material.
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    125. The FDIC, acting as receiver for a federally insured depository institution, has the statutory
    authority to investigate and, where appropriate, bring professional liability claims against
    directors, officers, and outside professionals who fail to fulfill their responsibilities to a bank.
    Smith Decl. ¶ 2 (citing 
    12 U.S.C. § 1821
    ).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    126. The FDIC exercised its statutory authority to investigate potential professional liability
    claims against officers, directors, and outside professionals arising from Hamilton’s failure.
    Smith Decl. ¶ 3.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    44
    127. As a result of the FDIC’s investigation, on December 7, 2004, the FDIC’s Board of
    Directors authorized the filing of a civil lawsuit asserting professional liability claims against
    Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet, including claims for legal malpractice and negligent
    misrepresentation. 
    Id. ¶ 4
    .
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    128. On May 16, 2005, the FDIC’s Board of Directors authorized the addition of a fraudulent
    misrepresentation claim to the lawsuit previously authorized against Greenberg, Grossman, and
    Loumiet. 
    Id. ¶ 5
    .
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    129. The FDIC, with the express intention to commence a lawsuit against Greenberg, Grossman,
    and Loumiet, prepared a complaint asserting professional liability claims in connection with
    Grossman and Loumiet’s “independent investigation” into the Russian loan transactions. 
    Id. ¶ 6
    .
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    130. In addition to other relief, the FDIC sought disgorgement of the $210,000 in fees Hamilton
    paid Greenberg for the “independent investigation.” FDIC Compl. ¶ 307.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    131. Loumiet has “never claimed that the FDIC’s complaint or investigation of [him was]
    retaliatory.” Loumiet DOJ Dep., 113:12–15.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    VII. E&C Obtains Approval to Initiate a Debarment Against Grossman and Loumiet
    132. In 2002, attorney Gregory Taylor joined E&C as Counsel. In late 2003 or early 2004, E&C
    Assistant Director Robert Pasley assigned Taylor to review 11 boxes of documents that the OCC
    had obtained from the FDIC and determine whether any basis existed to take action against
    45
    Greenberg’s attorneys for apparently facilitating a cover-up of crimes by Hamilton’s senior
    officers. Taylor Decl. ¶ 3.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    133. Based on his analysis of the facts and applicable law, Taylor recommended a proceeding to
    censure Grossman and Loumiet under the agency’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, which
    authorized disbarment from practice before the OCC for attorneys who engaged in “disreputable
    conduct.” Taylor Decl. ¶ 7 (citing 
    12 C.F.R. § 19.196
    ).
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    134. Taylor prepared a detailed, 39-page legal memorandum for presentation to the WSRC,
    discussing the factual and legal basis for an action to debar Grossman and Loumiet from practice
    46
    before the OCC on account of engaging in a “whitewash” of criminal activity perpetrated by
    Hamilton’s senior officers. Id. ¶ 8.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    135. Assistant Director Pasley and then-E&C Director Brian McCormally approved the
    memorandum. Id. ¶ 9; Merritt Decl. ¶ 12.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    136. Under the OCC’s policies and procedures, to obtain authorization for an action to censure
    the Greenberg attorneys, E&C was required to formally present the proposed action to the
    WSRC, which would provide its recommendation to the Senior Deputy Comptroller, who held
    the ultimate authority on whether to authorize the proposed action. See supra, ¶ 10; Schneck
    Decl. ¶ 14–15; Taylor Decl. ¶ 8; Merritt Decl. ¶ 4.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    47
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    137. E&C cannot initiate an enforcement action unless the WSRC first concurs and the Senior
    Deputy Comptroller authorizes the action. Schneck Decl. ¶ 16; Taylor Decl. ¶ 8.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    138. On August 5, 2004, the WSRC recommended in favor of E&C’s proposed action to debar
    Loumiet and Grossman. Schneck Decl. ¶ 18; Taylor Decl. ¶ 10.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    48
    139. Senior Deputy Comptroller for Midsize & Community Bank Supervision Timothy W. Long
    then authorized the debarment action. Schneck Decl. ¶ 18; Taylor Decl. ¶ 11.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    VIII. Criminal Indictment and Conviction of Hamilton’s Senior Officers
    140. In 2004, a federal grand jury indicted Masferrer, Bernace, and Jacobs on felony charges
    relating to the 1998 adjusted price trades. Ex. 2 to Sexton Decl., Federal Criminal Indictment of
    Masferrer, Bernace, and Jacobs (“Criminal Indictment”).
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    141. Bernace pleaded guilty to two counts of securities fraud. See United States v. Bernace, No.
    04-cr-20404, at US0218333–US0218334 (Exhibit 32).
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    49
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    142.      Jacobs pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud and one count of obstructing
    the OCC’s proceedings related to the illegal adjusted price trades. See United States v.
    Jacobs, 04-cr-20404 (Plea Colloquy), at US0218361–US0218362 (Exhibit 33).
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    143.       The charges against Masferrer were tried to a jury. Sexton Decl. ¶ 19.
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    144.       On the subject of Greenberg’s “independent investigation” into the Russian loan
    transactions, United States District Judge Michael Moore inquired in open court, “Do we
    know what they got paid for this whitewash?” Masferrer Trial Tr., 122:24–25.
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    50
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    145.       Likewise, the Assistant United States Attorney handling the Masferrer
    prosecution confirmed on the record that “the Government’s position is [the Greenberg
    investigation] was a whitewash.” Id.at123:7–10.
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicates collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    146. Loumiet acknowledges that the characterization of Greenberg’s investigation as a
    “whitewash” is “consistent with what the OCC later said at [the] enforcement proceeding”
    brought against him. Loumiet DOJ Dep. 63:21–66:12.
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    51
    147. A jury found Masferrer guilty on all 18 counts of the indictment, and he was subsequently
    sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. United States v. Masferrer, No. 04-cr- 20404 (Verdict
    Form) (Exhibit 34).
    Loumiet Response: Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is collaterally estopped from
    relitigating the matters raised in the following numbered paragraphs of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered in the criminal cases of Hamilton Bank Officers; he does not dispute the fact.
    See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19],
    at 8.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    IX. E&C Obtains Authorization to Initiate Action for Civil Money Penalties and Personal
    Cease-and-Desist Orders against Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet
    148. The FDIC and the OCC pursued their enforcement actions related to Greenberg, Grossman,
    and Loumiet independently, but shared evidence and other information on an as- needed basis.
    Merritt Decl. ¶ 15; Smith Decl. ¶¶ 1–6.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    149. At the FDIC’s request, E&C deferred commencing any enforcement activity until the FDIC
    completed administrative discovery in its related case against Greenberg, Grossman, and
    Loumiet. Sexton Decl. ¶ 19; Merritt Decl. ¶ 15; 2006 WSRC Mem. at US0277058.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    52
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    150. Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet ultimately settled and executed releases in connection
    with the FDIC’s claims against them, with Greenberg agreeing to pay $7.6 million. Sexton Decl.
    ¶ 19; Merritt Decl. ¶ 15; 2006 WSRC Mem. at US0277058–US0277059.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    151. In May 2005, Lee Straus joined the OCC as an experienced trial attorney from the
    Department of Justice’s Civil Division. Straus Decl. ¶ 1.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    152. Straus was assigned as the lead attorney to the Grossman and Loumiet matter, and was
    supervised by then E&C Assistant Director Sexton. Straus Decl. ¶¶ 7–9; Merritt Decl. ¶ 16.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    53
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    153. E&C Director Brian McCormally asked Straus to review the evidence and evaluate
    whether, in light of the higher standard of proof for debarment, E&C should consider
    withdrawing its recommendation that the OCC initiate a debarment action and proposing instead
    an action for civil money penalties and personal cease-and-desist orders against Greenberg,
    Grossman, and Loumiet pursuant to 
    12 U.S.C. § 1818
    . Straus Decl. ¶ 8.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    154. Debarment required proof that the Greenberg attorneys “knowingly” gave false or
    misleading information to the OCC, whereas an enforcement action under 
    12 U.S.C. § 1818
    required only proof that the attorneys “knowingly or recklessly” engaged in misconduct. Straus
    Decl. ¶ 8; Merritt Decl. ¶ 18.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    54
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    155. Meanwhile, Straus and E&C attorney Kristin Merritt drafted “15-day letters” to Loumiet
    and Grossman, providing formal notice that the OCC was considering an enforcement action
    against them. Straus Decl. ¶ 17; Merritt Decl. ¶ 17.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    156.      The 15-day letters detailed the factual and legal basis for an enforcement action
    and notified Grossman and Loumiet of their right to submit a written response. Id. ¶ 19.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this
    paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent
    final judgments on the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the
    Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA
    Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of
    Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying
    Memorandum Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule
    7(h), incorrectly contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral
    estoppel, and accordingly that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be
    given credence, and the Court accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    157.       E&C Assistant Director Gerard Sexton approved the letters. Sexton Decl. ¶ 18.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    55
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this
    paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent
    final judgments on the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the
    Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA
    Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of
    Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    158.      Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Comptroller, Director of Special
    Supervision Ronald Schneck signed the 15-day letters. Schneck Decl. ¶ 19.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this
    paragraph of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent
    final judgments on the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the
    Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA
    Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of
    Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s
    Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    159.       Straus and Merritt reviewed the evidence and concluded that an action for civil
    money penalties and personal cease-and-desist orders was preferable not only because of
    the lower burden of proof, but also because such an action would have a greater deterrent
    effect on Greenberg, Grossman, Loumiet, and any individual who might attempt a similar
    “whitewash” investigation in the future. Straus Decl. ¶ 9; Merritt Decl. ¶ 18.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the
    Defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph
    of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on
    the merits have been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation
    in In re: Carlos Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at
    17 (July 27, 2009) and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802
    56
    (D.C. Cir. 2011). See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed
    Material Facts [111-19], at 9-10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying
    Memorandum Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule
    7(h), incorrectly contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel,
    and accordingly that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence,
    and the Court accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    160. In contrast to a debarment action, which would only prevent Grossman and Loumiet from
    representing any financial institution before the OCC, an action for a civil money penalty would
    impose a financial sanction on Greenberg and its attorneys and provide deterrence to the
    repetition of other banking attorneys who might attempt a similar “whitewash” investigation in
    the future. Merritt Decl. ¶ 18; Straus Decl. ¶ 9.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    161. In accordance with the OCC’s policies and procedures, Straus and Merritt prepared a
    detailed memorandum to the WSRC, withdrawing E&C’s recommendation that the OCC initiate
    a debarment action and proposing instead an action for civil money penalties and personal cease-
    and-desist orders against Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet pursuant to 
    12 U.S.C. § 1818
    .
    Straus Decl. ¶ 10; Merritt Decl. ¶ 18; 2006 WSRC Mem.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    57
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    162. Assistant Director Sexton and then-E&C Director Richard Stearns approved the
    memorandum. Straus Decl. ¶ 11; Sexton Decl. ¶¶ 20–21; Schneck Decl. ¶ 21.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    163. On September 14, 2006, Straus formally presented the E&C’s recommendation to the
    WSRC. Straus Decl. ¶ 12; Schneck Decl. ¶ 21.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    164. Establishing that Greenberg’s failure to perform an honest investigation caused or was
    likely to cause “harm” to the bank was always the most difficult aspect of the case. Straus Decl. ¶
    12. E&C’s memorandum discussed this issue in great detail and identified “institution- affiliated-
    party” (IAP) status, including the harm element, as “the greatest litigation risk associated with
    58
    the OCC’s case against Greenberg, Loumiet, and Grossman[.]” Straus Decl. ¶ 12; Schneck Decl.
    ¶ 21; 2006 WSRC Mem., at US0277066.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    165. The WSRC unanimously recommended in favor of approving the enforcement action.
    Schneck Decl.¶21–22; Straus Decl. ¶15.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    166. On September 14, 2006, Senior Deputy Comptroller Long accepted the WSRC’s
    recommendation and authorized E&C to initiate an action for civil money penalties and cease-
    and-desist orders against Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet. Ex. 4 to Schneck Decl., 2006
    WSRC Meeting Minutes, at US0000009.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    59
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    167. Straus and Merritt prepared identical notices of charges against Greenberg, Grossman, and
    Loumiet. Straus Decl. ¶ 16; Merritt Decl. ¶ 21.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    168. E&C Assistant Director Sexton and E&C Director Stearns approved the notices. Sexton
    Decl. ¶ 23.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    60
    169. Deputy Chief Counsel Daniel Stipano also reviewed the notices, and, on October 27, 2006,
    he sent an email message to E&C Assistant Director Sexton and E&C Director Stearns
    expressing approval. Ex. 3 to Sexton Decl., Oct. 27, 2006, Email from Stipano, at US0277534.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    170. Greenberg and Grossman settled with the OCC, with Greenberg agreeing to pay a civil
    money penalty of $750,000 and Grossman paying a civil money penalty of $175,000.
    Straus Decl. ¶ 17.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    171. When efforts to settle with Loumiet proved unsuccessful, the OCC filed a Notice of
    Charges against him on November 6, 2006. Id. ¶ 18.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    X. Proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge
    61
    172. E&C closely monitored a significant case, In the Matter of: Grant Thornton LLP, which had
    major implications for the action against Loumiet as an “institution-affiliated-party” (“IAP”)
    under 
    12 U.S.C. §§ 1818
    , 1821. Straus Decl. ¶ 20; Merritt Decl. ¶ 17.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    173. The issue in In re Grant Thornton was whether a professional services company (an
    accounting firm, in that case) could be held liable as an IAP for conducting a reckless audit and
    failing to discover fraud by a national bank. Straus Decl. ¶ 20.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    174. ALJ Ann Z. Cook—the same ALJ presiding over the action against Loumiet—
    recommended dismissal of the charges in Grant Thornton on the basis that the accounting firm’s
    audit, while erroneous, was not reckless. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    62
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    175. In December 2006, the Comptroller rejected the ALJ’s recommendation in Grant Thornton
    and held the accounting firm liable as an IAP , providing further support for the OCC’s action
    against Loumiet. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    176. The enforcement action against Loumiet proceeded through discovery and motion practice,
    with E&C Assistant Director Sexton or E&C Director Stearns approving all significant filings
    and litigation decisions. Sexton Decl. ¶ 24; Straus Decl. ¶ 19; Merritt Decl. ¶ 22.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    63
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    177. On January 17, 2007, ALJ Cook denied Loumiet’s motion to strike and dismiss the OCC’s
    charges. Sexton Decl. ¶ 24.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    178. Assistant Director Sexton praised the “[g]reat result” and the trial team’s “[g]reat work.”
    Ex. 4 to Sexton Decl., Jan. 17, 2007 Sexton Email, at US0277545.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    179. The ALJ subsequently denied Loumiet’s summary judgment motion, and the case
    proceeded to trial in October 2007. Sexton Decl. ¶ 24; Straus Decl. ¶ 19–20; Merritt Decl. ¶ 22.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    64
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    180. The OCC issued a press release shortly before the trial. Press Release, OCC Will Hold
    Hearing on Charges Against Carlos Loumiet, Esq. (Oct. 3, 2007), available at
    https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2007/ nr-occ-2007-107.html.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    181. The press release linked to the OCC’s Notice of Charges and, as in the Notice of Charges,
    the press release stated that Greenberg collected “$1.16 million in fees from the bank and the
    holding company during 2001-02, and Mr. Loumiet received a share of these fees.” Id.; see also
    Ex. 3 (“Notice of Charges”) to Straus Decl., ¶ 66.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    182. Loumiet claims the press release “falsely” suggested that he earned part of the fees because
    he “left Greenberg [on May 1, 2001,] before most of that money was paid and [he] never saw a
    nickel of it[.]” Loumiet DOJ Dep., 93:1–10.
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    183. Grossman testified in this matter that a Greenberg partner’s billing rate is openly shared
    with clients, is “not a secret,” and “definitely [is] not equivalent to salary” because Greenberg
    attorneys “work on a draw.” Grossman DOJ Dep., 26:4–27:15 (Exhibit 35).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    65
    184. In February 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Comptroller’s decision in Grant Thornton
    and held that the accounting firm could not be held liable as an IAP. Grant Thornton, LLP v.
    OCC, 
    514 F.3d 1328
     (D.C. Cir. 2008); Straus Decl. ¶ 21
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    185. ALJ Cook received post-trial briefing and heard oral argument on the impact of the D.C.
    Circuit’s Grant Thornton decision on the OCC’s enforcement action against Loumiet. Merritt
    Decl. ¶ 22.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    186. In the interim, Straus was instructed by senior OCC management to no longer cite the
    Comptroller’s 2006 decision in Grant Thornton as support for the OCC’s enforcement action
    against Loumiet. Straus Decl. ¶ 21.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    66
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    187. E&C Director Stearns emailed the “first-rate trial team,” acknowledging that they “worked
    very hard, put in long hours, and d[id] a terrific job in this case, pre-trial, during trial, and in
    post-trial briefing.” Ex. 5 to Sexton Decl., Mar. 7, 2008 Stearns Email, at US0277536.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation. Loumiet asserts that the Defendant is
    collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters raised in this paragraph of Defendant’s
    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to the extent final judgments on the merits have
    been entered regarding Loumiet’s actions in the Hamilton Investigation in In re: Carlos
    Loumiet, Esq., Final Order FIRREA Decision, OCC–AA–EC– 06–102 at 17 (July 27, 2009)
    and Loumiet v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 
    650 F.3d 796
    , 800, 802 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See
    Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 9-
    10.
    The Court’s Determination: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
    Opinion, Loumiet’s blanket assertion, in violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), incorrectly
    contending that the recitation of the facts implicate collateral estoppel, and accordingly
    that he disputes the facts in this paragraph, cannot be given credence, and the Court
    accordingly assumes this fact to be admitted.
    188. On June 17, 2008, ALJ Cook issued a decision recommending dismissal of the charges
    against Loumiet. In the Matter of: Carlos Loumiet, Esq, No. OCC-AA-EC-06-102, 
    2008 WL 11398993
     (June 17, 2008).
    Loumiet Response: Undisputed
    The Court’s Determination: The Court accepts this as admitted.
    XI. No Evidence of Retaliation or Conspiracy
    189. Rardin denies retaliating against Loumiet or conspiring with anyone to do so. Rardin Decl.
    ¶ 29.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    67
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence. The
    only response by Loumiet that can be characterized as addressing this fact is paragraph 10
    of his Statement, which cites to paragraphs in the declarations of Rardin, Schneck, Sexton,
    and Loumiet himself. The first three merely relate that they were involved in the matter in
    one form or another, with no reference to any proof supporting Loumiet’s denial;
    Loumiet’s declaration restates the gist of his Complaint, i.e., his supposition that there
    must have been retaliation because there is no other credible explanation. This is
    insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the Court concludes that this paragraph is
    therefore admitted.
    190. Rardin denies Loumiet’s allegation that he was angered or embarrassed by Loumiet’s letters
    to the OIG. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his Statement that can be
    characterized as responsive to this fact. His general denial and blanket reference to his
    Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the Court concludes that
    this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    191. Taylor, who joined the OCC in 2002, maintains that the letters Loumiet wrote to the OIG
    “did not influence, in any way, [his] recommendation to [his] supervisors, and ultimately to the
    WSRC, that the OCC bring an enforcement action against the Greenberg attorneys.” Taylor
    Decl. ¶¶ 2, 12.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    68
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Taylor’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    192. Straus affirms that “[n]o one ever suggested to [him] that we should go through the
    elaborate process of presenting a revised proposed action to the WSRC and obtaining
    authorization from the Senior Deputy Comptroller to retaliate against Mr. Loumiet for (a) writing
    two letters five years ago, or (b) a lawsuit filed by Hamilton.” Straus Decl. ¶ 14.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Straus’ declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    193. Straus declares that Loumiet’s “OIG letters and Hamilton’s lawsuit were complete non-
    factors with regard to my recommendation for a revised proposed enforcement action.” 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Straus’ declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    69
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    194. Straus does “not recall anyone mentioning Mr. Loumiet’s letters or Hamilton’s lawsuit at
    any point during the WSRC meeting.” 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Straus’ declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    195. Sexton declares that “the action against Greenberg, Mr. Grossman, and Mr. Loumiet was
    vetted and approved by senior E&C and OCC management before it was initiated, and it abided
    by the OCC’s policies and procedures.” Sexton Decl. ¶ 26.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Sexton’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    196. The action against Loumiet “was no different from any of the hundreds of other cases
    [Sexton] was involved in or supervised during my more than 25 years with E&C” and was
    “predicated on the facts, legal analysis, and conclusions in E&C’s September 2006 memo to the
    WSRC.” 
    Id. ¶ 27
    .
    70
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Sexton’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact, other than Loumiet’s own. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record
    evidence by Loumiet in his Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact
    other than his speculation and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his
    Complaint. His general denial and blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to
    raise an issue of material fact and the Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore
    admitted.
    197. “At no time in the consideration of the action against Greenberg or its attorneys did
    [Sexton] ever hear any reference to or discussion about Mr. Loumiet’s 2001 OIG letters or a
    2001 civil rights case filed on behalf of Hamilton.” 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Sexton’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    198. Schneck denies retaliating or conspiring against Loumiet. Schneck Decl. ¶ 24.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    71
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence. The
    only response by Loumiet that can be characterized as addressing this fact is paragraph 10
    of his Statement, which cites to paragraphs in the declarations of Rardin, Schneck, Sexton,
    and Loumiet himself. The first three merely relate that they were involved in the matter in
    one form or another, with no reference to any proof supporting Loumiet’s denial;
    Loumiet’s declaration restates the gist of his Complaint, i.e., his supposition that there
    must have been retaliation because there is no other credible explanation. This is
    insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the Court concludes that this paragraph is
    therefore admitted.
    199. Schneck denies Loumiet’s allegations that he was angered or embarrassed by his letters to
    the OIG. 
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence. The
    only response by Loumiet that can be characterized as addressing this fact is paragraph 10
    of his Statement, which cites to paragraphs in the declarations of Rardin, Schneck, Sexton,
    and Loumiet himself. The first three merely relate that they were involved in the matter in
    one form or another, with no reference to any proof supporting Loumiet’s denial;
    Loumiet’s declaration restates the gist of his Complaint, i.e., his supposition that there
    must have been retaliation because there is no other credible explanation. This is
    insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the Court concludes that this paragraph is
    therefore admitted.
    200. Schneck does not recall being aware of any letters Loumiet wrote to the OIG when he, as
    one of several WSRC members, recommended in favor of E&C’s proposed action for civil
    money penalties and cease-and-desist orders against Greenberg, Grossman, and Loumiet. 
    Id. ¶ 23
    .
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    72
    There is no citation to Schneck’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    201. Schneck first learned of Loumiet’s OIG letters around the time Loumiet filed this lawsuit.
    
    Id.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Schneck’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    202. Schneck recommended in favor of the enforcement action because he believed Grossman
    and Loumiet “ignored the evidence directly in front of them and instead conducted a
    whitewashed investigation of Hamilton’s officers’ illegal activity—the same activity that
    resulted in multiple criminal indictments and convictions.” 
    Id. ¶ 24
    .
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Schneck’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    73
    203. Merritt maintains that the enforcement action against Loumiet “followed all applicable
    policies and procedures, was based solely on E&C’s analysis of the facts and legal basis for the
    proposed action, and was not at all influenced by” Loumiet’s letters to the OIG or Hamilton’s
    civil rights lawsuit against the OCC. Merritt Decl. ¶ 23.
    Loumiet Response: Disputed without record citation; Loumiet asserts that this paragraph
    is disputed in his Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition to Defendant’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment [111]. See Loumiet’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of
    Undisputed Material Facts [111-19], at 23.
    The Court’s Determination: Despite Loumiet’s violation of Local Civil Rule 7(h), see
    Memorandum Opinion, the Court nonetheless sought to determine from his 12-page
    Statement of Genuine Issues, included in his Opposition Memorandum [111], whether he
    fairly asserted a cognizable response to dispute this fact supported by record evidence.
    There is no citation to Merritt’s declaration or any other declaration that takes issue with
    this fact. Moreover, there is no response or citation to record evidence by Loumiet in his
    Statement that can be characterized as responsive to this fact other than his speculation
    and the repetition of the unsupported assertions of his Complaint. His general denial and
    blanket reference to his Statement are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and the
    Court concludes that this paragraph is therefore admitted.
    74
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012-1130

Judges: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Filed Date: 6/16/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/16/2023