throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`2 -----------------------------------------X
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.,
`3 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC,
`4
`Plaintiff, Case No.
`5 CGC-14-54077
`vs.
`6
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
`7
`Defendants.
`8 -----------------------------------------X
`9
`10 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`11 PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
`13 OF
`14 BRADLEY WENDT
`15 Wednesday, April 30, 2025
`16 Vol. I
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 REPORTED BY:
`24 LINDA J. GREENSTEIN
`25 NO. 7326156
`Page 1
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`1 message?
`2 A. Never.
`3 Q. Did you communicate with that
`4 person by phone?
`5 A. No, I'd just go upstairs and
`6 flop down next to him.
`7 Q. Do you remember Jeff Roald from
`8 your time at Goldman Sachs?
`9 A. Yes, I do.
`10 Q. What was his role during the
`11 time you supervised the short-term desk?
`12 A. He had transitioned from the
`13 firm at that point.
`14 Q. Do you remember John Bartolomeo
`15 from your time at Goldman Sachs?
`16 A. I certainly remember the name.
`17 I can't tell you any specific role.
`18 Q. Do you remember Cynthia Klein
`19 from your time at Goldman Sachs?
`20 A. Yeah.
`21 Q. And what do you remember about
`22 Ms. Klein?
`23 A. I remember she was in the
`24 short-term area and I'd say a majority of
`25 her time, at least by my memory, was more
`Page 60
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`1 in sales or customer outreach. But I -- I
`2 don't want to say that's a yes but I give
`3 that 50 percent confidence in terms of the
`4 role she played day in/day out.
`5 Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Wendt,
`6 that Cynthia Klein was the primary
`7 rate-setter from 1996 onwards?
`8 MR. CHERNOV: Objection.
`9 A. No.
`10 Q. Are you aware that Ms. Klein
`11 testified under oath in the federal VRDO
`12 case?
`13 A. I am unaware of that.
`14 Q. Would it surprise you to know
`15 that she testified that she was the
`16 primary rate-setter during the period you
`17 claim you were supervising the short-term
`18 desk?
`19 MR. CHERNOV: Objection.
`20 A. I would have to ask her how
`21 she's using the term "primary," yes, I
`22 would ask her that, but she might have
`23 been the backup, and I think you might
`24 have a definitional issue there.
`25 Q. During the period you
`Page 61
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`1 supervised the short-term desk, did your
`2 responsibilities include compliance?
`3 A. Of course compliance is
`4 everyone's responsibility. I was not a
`5 compliance officer, but I was certainly a
`6 -- in charge of compliance for every
`7 derivative product that was executed on
`8 the municipal side.
`9 Q. How much time did you spend on
`10 compliance matters?
`11 A. Probably 20 percent of my time,
`12 it would be a factor that was
`13 compliance-related, I'd say, and that's
`14 across VRDOs and all products, they're
`15 very compliance-oriented, yes.
`16 Q. Did Goldman Sachs comply with
`17 its rate-setting and remarketing
`18 obligations during the period you
`19 supervised the short-term desk?
`20 A. In my opinion, yes.
`21 Q. During the period you
`22 supervised the short-term desk, Goldman
`23 Sachs sold most of its VRDOs to tax-free
`24 money market funds; correct?
`25 MR. CHERNOV: Objection.
`Page 62
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`2 -----------------------------------------X
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.,
`3 EDELWEISS FUND, LLC,
`4
` Plaintiff, Case No.
`5 CGC-14-54077
`vs.
`6
`JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
`7
` Defendants.
`8
`-----------------------------------------X
`9
`10 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
`11 PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
`13 OF
`14 BRADLEY WENDT
`15 VOLUME II
`16 Thursday, May 1, 2025
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 REPORTED BY:
`24 SHARON PEARCE, RDR, CRR, CRC, NYRCR
`25 NO. 7326208
`Page 354
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 LIBOR because of LIBOR is not a security,
`2 and the scandals. I dismissed tax-exempt
`3 commercial paper because it was priced off
`4 the same desk. I only know which other
`5 one I could cite.
`6 Q. Okay. Okay. So you agree that
`7 municipal commercial paper may be an
`8 exemption to the statement that you made
`9 at the end of your paragraph 22?
`10 MR. CHERNOV: Objection.
`11 A. I don't agree with that at all,
`12 because I think it has the same systematic
`13 inflation that VRDOs do, because the
`14 depositions show that the same people
`15 priced them were the same desk pricing.
`16 Q. You haven't done any work to
`17 show that rates on municipal commercial
`18 paper were inflated; correct?
`19 A. I -- I said earlier in my
`20 deposition that I have criticisms of the
`21 tenor he used, but I'm assuming his
`22 numbers are correct, and that was the
`23 basis of every statement I just said. I
`24 said that earlier.
`25 Q. And that wasn't a statement
`Page 484
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 about the relationship between VRDOs and
`2 municipal commercial paper. It was not a
`3 statement about whether municipal
`4 commercial paper rates were inflated;
`5 correct?
`6 A. No.
`7 MR. CHERNOV: Objection.
`8 A. There's -- but there's the
`9 extrapolation of the three, because all
`10 three of them have been compared to each
`11 other -- A to B, B to C.
`12 Q. So let me have you look at your
`13 Exhibit 101, page -- and this time, I'm
`14 going to be clear. I'm saying page 15.
`15 Okay. On page 15, Figure 9,
`16 you're comparing nominal interest rates on
`17 VRDOs to nominal interest rates on
`18 AA-rated commercial paper; right?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. And you found that the
`21 defendants' VRDO rates were sometimes
`22 higher -- the nominal rates were sometimes
`23 higher than those on taxable commercial
`24 paper; right?
`25 A. Yes.
`Page 485
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 10:05 PMINDEX NO. 100559/2014
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket