Gupta’s Suit Against Ex-New Silk Route Partner Dismissed

Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) director Rajat Gupta’s breach of contract suit against the chief executive officer of private equity firm New Silk Route Partners was dismissed as moot by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels in Manhattan said in an order Dec. 3 that the claims made by Gupta, who was convicted in 2012 of passing illegal information to fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, are no longer relevant.

Rishi Bhandari, a lawyer for Gupta, said that New Silk Route CEO Parag Saxena had agreed Gupta could have a designee on the board, as Gupta had demanded. He declined to comment further on the suit.

Saxena said in a memorandum filed in the case on July 15 that the litigation was “nothing more than a crude attempt by convicted felon Rajat Gupta to burden an investment partnership with a frivolous lawsuit” while trying to “extract a buyout to defray tens of millions of dollars in liabilities that he has incurred from his criminal proceedings.”

Gupta had alleged that Saxena breached an agreement by improperly removing his designee to the investment firm’s board and refusing to permit the firm to acquire directors and officers’ insurance.

New Silk Route, a $1.4 billion private equity firm that focuses on South Asia and the Middle East, said in a statement in March when the lawsuit was filed that the case was without merit.

Gupta was convicted in June 2012 of passing insider tips to Rajaratnam in a conspiracy that ran from 2007 to January 2009. He was sentenced to two years in prison and is free pending an appeal.

The case is Gupta v. Saxena, 13-cv-01891, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Christie Smythe in Brooklyn at csmythe1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.