Monday, 29 August 2016
Last updated 2 days ago
Jan 28 2014 | 1:14am ET
There will be no treble damages for Steven Cohen's ex-wife.
A federal judge has dismissed Patricia Cohen's racketeering claims against the hedge fund founder, ruling that there is no evidence that Steven Cohen used SAC to cover up a settlement she alleges he hid from her. But U.S. District Judge William Pauley allowed Patricia Cohen to move forward with her other claims against the hedge fund founder.
Pauley, who joked that the now four-year-old lawsuit over a marriage that ended 24 years ago proves that "divorce is something that lasts forever," also found that Patricia Cohen's claims had nothing to do with the insider-trading charges against SAC. The hedge fund pleaded guilty to fraud charges last year and is becoming a family office.
"Factoring in Patricia's 1991 motion, the Cohens' legal battles have covered a span over twice the length of their marriage," Pauley wrote. "But though treble damages are a tempting way to spice things up, civil RICO and marriage do not go together like a horse and carriage."
"Patricia Cohen cannot take on the mantel of a private attorney general just because her ex-husband is a public figure and SAC is in the prosecutors' cross hairs," Pauley ruled. "Having alleged no relation between the scheme against Patricia and SAC, Patricia fails to plead a pattern of racketeering activity."
Pauley's decision is the second time Patricia Cohen's racketeering claims have been dismissed; Pauley's former colleague Richard Holwell threw out her entire case in 2011. A federal appeals court last year reinstated the case, which Patricia Cohen has amended three times with four different lawyers.
Patricia Cohen alleges that her ex-husband hid a $5.5 million real-estate settlement during their 1990 divorce. She was seeking $8.5 million in damages.
"We are pleased that the court threw out Mrs. Cohen's RICO claims," SAC spokesman Jonathan Gasthalter said. "We will continue to defend against her equally specious fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims."