. The SEC made the determination there was no opportunity for abuse in part because “neither the grantor nor the trustee had any discretion.” Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (discussing the Kight Letter). Here, however, “the ‘opportunity' existed for [Defendant] to abuse inside information by substituting property of equal value to get the GRAT shares back just before the shares appreciated drastically,” see id., because there is a reasonable inference that Defendant could exercise his discretion by substituting the stock in the GRATs with other property of equal value.
Generally, the sum total of those annuity payments will equal the present value of the assets transferred into the GRAT at the time of its creation. Id.; see also Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 371 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Quintiles”) (describing GRATs designed to “zero[] out” over the annuity period). After the annuity period expires, any assets remaining in the GRAT (representing any appreciation in value of the contributed assets over the life of the GRAT) are then distributed to the residual beneficiary or beneficiaries.
; new arguments and issues are not to be considered.” Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Reconsideration of an order is therefore an "extraordinary remedy," Montanile v. Nat'l Broadcasting Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), to be granted only when we have overlooked controlling law or material facts, when new controlling law or evidence is available, or when we must correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. See, e.g., Local Civ. R. 6.3; Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 369, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Sutton v. Strack, No. 98-cv-6391(KMW)(THK), 2008 WL 2971464 at *3, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58043 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2008). Conversely, a motion for reconsideration is no occasion for a losing party to raise new arguments or to repeat arguments that the Court previously considered and rejected.
On a motion for reconsideration, the movant "must demonstrate `an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Morales v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (quoting Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). This standard "is strict in order to dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court."
A motion for reconsideration "is not a substitute for appeal and may be granted only where the Court has overlooked matters or controlling decisions which might have materially influenced the earlier decision." Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F. Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). In determining whether a motion for reconsideration should be granted, Local Civil Rule 6.3 "should be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court."
A Rule 59(e) motion is not a substitute for an appeal. See Morales v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F. Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Since plaintiff does not contend that the Court overlooked any controlling law that was presented to it, the Court will not disturb its conclusions that the challenged provisions survive the exacting scrutiny standard established in Buckley for campaign disclosure rules that potentially infringe on the First Amendment freedom of association, and that they do not implicate either the First Amendment's privilege of free speech or any Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
See CSX Transportation. Inc., 70 F.3d at 257. Reconsideration may be granted only where the court has made such errors as overlooking matters or controlling decisions “which might have materially influenced the earlier decision.” Morales v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citations omitted).
Kus, new arguments or issues “are not to be considered” on a motion for reconsideration. Id. at *4 (quoting Morales v. Quintiles Transnat'l Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Petrojam, Ltd., 72 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). Because a motion for reconsideration "is not a substitute for appeal," Morales v. QuintilesTransnat'l Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), the legal standard "must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court," Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok, 296 F. Supp. 2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendants point to two instances where they believe the Court committed clear error.