Gazette Ceases Publication: Donates Archives to LHS

In 2010, the Larchmont Gazette ceased publication. In 2011 the publishers donated all contents to the Larchmont Historical Society, which will continue to make the Gazette archives available online.

All inquiries should be addressed to the Larchmont Historical Society.

18 comments - (Comments closed)

Larchmonter Arrested As Part of Huge Insider Trading Case

Michael A. Kimelman,  38, was arrested on Thursday, November 5 at his Iselin Terrace home in Larchmont in connection with a massive insider trading case being pursued by both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The arrest was one of eight  on Thursday, seven in the New York area. It follows six arrests made in recent weeks, all linked to the huge investigation of insider trading at the Galleon Group hedge fund.

A release from the SEC accused Mr. Kimelman of being part of a “Wall Street Ring” that made more than $20 million using tips from an attorney at the international law firm of Ropes and Gray LLP to trade ahead of corporate acquisition announcements.

Mr. Kimelman (at right) was described as a trader at Lighthouse Financial Group LLC, an investment bank and a registered broker-dealer. The SEC alleges that he “illegally traded on material, nonpublic information concerning the proposed acquisition of 3Com” in 2007 to make $273,255 in illegal profits. (See the SEC complaint.)

The SEC is seeking financial penalties that include “disgorgement of illicit profits” as well as fines. The U.S. Attorney’s office has filed criminal charges.

Among those arrested on Thursday was trader Craig C. Drimal, 53, of Weston,  Connecticut. According to the court filing, Mr. Drimal was working out of offices at Galleon Management, LP during the time he is alleged to have participated in the insider trading. Also arrested was another former Galleon employee, Zvi Goffer, 32, of New York City, who is alleged to have been at the center of the illegal ring.

Two attorneys were among those picked up: Arthur J. Cutillo, 33, of Ridgewood, N.J., the Ropes and Gray lawyer alleged to have supplied the insider information in return for kickbacks; and Jason C. Goldfarb, 31, in private practice in Brooklyn;

The other traders arrested were: Gautham Shankar, 35 of New Canaan, CT and David Plate, 34 of New York City, who were both with Schottenfeld Group; and Emanuel Goffer, 31, of NYC, who was with Spectrum Trading.

Currently Mr. Kimelman is a registered representative at Echotrade and is listed as a founder and partner at Incremental Capital, LLC. Emanuel Goffer, Craig Drimal and Zvi Goffer are also employed at Echotrade and are associated with Incremental Capital.

According to his profile at ,  Mr. Kimelman has a degree from the University of Southern California Law School and was formerly an associate at the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, where he handled mergers and acquisitions.

Mr. Kimelman moved to Iselin Terrace in 2003. His wife, Lisa Moskow Kimelman, is in the catering business and at one time worked for Martha Stewart. The couple has three young children.

PrintFriendlyTwitterGoogle GmailYahoo MailShare

Related Articles:

  • No Related Articles Found

18 comments to Larchmonter Arrested As Part of Huge Insider Trading Case

  • Neighbor

    Was it really necessary to report his address and that he has three young children? It seems an “exploitive” turn from your usually excellent reporting.

  • Townie

    The names and addresses of registered sex-offenders and those convicted of DUI are published in local newspapers…why should white-collar criminals be treated any differently? What is your concern here…that property values in your neighborhood (or Larchmont in general) may be affected adversely? In defense of the Gazette, I submit that Judy and Paula have always been very even-handed in their reporting–regardless of whether the story is flattering to our community or not.

  • Gotcha

    Townie – the concern is that as Americans we have lost all control of our privacy rights. If you don’t understand this today, than stick around for a few more years and watch how much information will soon be readily available on you and yours. Nothing will be sacred – everything will soon be public information. There is a ‘little’ company based in Arkansas called Axxiom, ever hear of them? Today, they are busy compiling, slicing and dicing data on you and everyone else out there today that is so granular, so invasive, so intrusive that will give a whole new definition to living behind closed doors – because soon there will be no such thing available to the general public. Regardless of how squeaky clean you may think you are today.

    As for this article, registered sex offenders and DUI perpetrators pose a MUCH greater threat to the general public, specifically to children, than White collar criminals. Publishing names, ages etc. is one thing, but addresses is another. How does it benefit the public to know that a guy arrested for insider trading resides in your neighborhood?? However, I can definitely understand why sex offenders residing in your neighborhood would be of interest to you.

    One is for protection purposes the other is for the purpose of pure salacious gossip.

  • greatjob

    At least releases from prosecutors, replete with lurid personal details, always include a boilerplate mention to the effect that those are merely accusations and that courts establish guilts. But we know since the days of reporting on the drunk driver who hit a kid behind a school bus and ended up not being a drunk driver that the media establish guilt well before the courts when the case warrants it from their perspective (fat cats, privileged backgrounds). I look forward to personal details about blue collar criminals in our community, especially if they are not of the color of their crime.

  • It may be momentarily fascinating to read of a neighbor/fellow town resident as being arrested…However publishing his address, picture and family details is questionable at best. P.S. – I doubt that picture is property of the gazette. It would seem you have stolen it from somewhere? Maybe you should provide a credit for where it came from.

  • Pseud Onym

    Don’t accuse the “Larchmont Gazette stealing property” which “is not CommonSense,” unless you have knowledgeable facts.

    The only one that allegedly is cheating is Michael Kimelman. Only the street address was published. That’s not Mr. Kimelman’s full address. It could have been easily obtained I am sure if people wanted to. Who cares anyway?

    As far as White-Color crimes not posing public risk of harm, all we have to do is remember Bernie Madoff who hurt his neighbors, and wrecked havoc on innocent people in his community, house of worship, charities and more with his White-Color crimes.

    My reaction was “sympathy and compassion” for Mr. Kimelman’s children. CommonSense, why aren’t you more concerned about the alleged scam that Mr. Kimelman is involved in than posting a street name where he lives?

    • Mumbo Jumbo

      Uh….the term is White COLLAR crimes.

      Hmmmmmm…this poses an interesting question for me: I’m wondering if their will be an uptick in the Green Collar crimes….since Green Collar is the new Blue Collar worker in America.

  • Mumbo Jumbo

    CommonSense: If a photo is already published, it is not “stolen” property by re-publishing it somewhere else as in the case of the Larchmont Gazette. If it ran thru AP or another wire service, for example, it’s fare game and does not have to credited. It can also be lifted from a company website, as that is public domain. Actually, it’s ironic that you bring this up considering that the allegations against this individual are Insider Trading tactics for a publicly held company. In otherwords, he allegedly participated in a trading scandal that stole from public funds. So publishing his photo, whereas it’s already posted all over the newswires and media outlets, is very much after the fact. The Larchmont Gazette did nothing journalisticall wrong here.

    Sure crediting photos is a good practice but it’s not mandatory and certainly not a crime.

    FYI: To other posters out there who keep referring to The Larchmont Gazette as a newspaper. It is a community focused online newsletter. Not sure why many posters of late keep referring to it as a “paper” – it is paperless, if nothing else…and it’s incorrect to call it a paper.

    • Tom Murphy

      Maybe this is why people keep it as a newspaperGazette
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Look up gazette in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
      The term gazette normally refers to a newspaper.
      The word comes from gazzetta, a Venetian coin used to buy early Italian newspapers; the coin became a name for the papers themselves. The word was loaned into English to describe a newspaper.
      “Gazette” came to be used for an official government paper with the creation of the London Gazette, first published in 1665 under the title of The Oxford Gazette. This was one of the first publications in the world that could be termed a “newspaper”. The Edinburgh Gazette came into existence in 1699, the Dublin Gazette in 1705, and the Belfast Gazette first appeared in 1921, the Iris Oifigiúil of the Irish Free State in 1922.
      “Gazette”, by extension, has come to be used as the name of mainstream newspapers in the print media, such as the Montreal Gazette (for others in this genre, see The Gazette). In some languages, like Russian, “gazette” has formed the basis for the standard term “newspaper” (e.g. gazeta).

      • Marley & Me

        It is the as in Dot Com!

        LOL – give me a break – you don’t need to give us the dictionary or wiktionary definition of what an online publication is all about it. We get it, we read it. It’s not a paper. It is though, Paper-LESS :)

        I can’t believe someone would take the time to describe an Irish or Scottish Gazette definition, extension or otherwise.

        Time to admit a mistake ans move on. It can be a Gazette, a Journal, Times, Portfolio, Courier, etc. etc. but at the end of the day, to the point of Mumbo Jumbo, it’s NOT a Newspaper and it’s incorrect to refer to it as a paper on any level when it’s an online publication. I always believe people should pick only the battles they know they will win.

        Overloading on cut and paste jobs from Wikipedia, is unsolicited advice that is most often irrelevant. As in this case.

        Sorry……nothing spiteful but I do exercise my 1st admendmant rights here especially when they need to correct misguided information presented to my friends and neighbors.

  • Stephen Kling

    Why should a man who robs a bank with a gun be treated differently than a man who robs a bank with a monitor and a modem? If the guy who lived on the next block knocked over a liquor store, you’d want to know. It’s not the news media that’s bringing shame onto the guy, after all. He did it to himself (if the alleged charges stick.)

    Just like every other alleged perp. Don’t matter that his white collar shirt cost $150.

    • Marley & Me

      Stephen King: I hope you write another scary mystery story about this theme, as it’s a good one!! You bring up a good point in that a bank hold up usually cannot carry away as much cash nor do as much damage as an online trading scandal/robbery can do. Look at Bernie Madoff for example, there is no way he could have robbed banks for 30 years and made off with $50 Billion in cash undetected. However, w/ a modem and a monitor, and a few other tricks up his sleeve, he certainly got away with a lot more than any bank robber w/ a gun ever could do.

      But to answer your question, here’s the difference: As weaponry, a gun can kill but a monitor or a modem or a mouse for that matter, have not been able to do so as far as I am aware. Unless you count those who jump out the window or are found floating face down in their Palm Beach swimming pools after discovering they’ve been wiped out…both go out with a bang, that’s for sure, but there is a resounding, pun intended, difference there :)

      • Pseud Onym

        Silly, you are writing to Stephen KLING (not King). :-)

        • Marley & Me 4 Eyes

          LOL – Ah….SO I am!!! What a willy wabbit, why I am??!!

          Woops, it’s the blurry eyed screen monster striking back again. Mea culpa Stephen Kling – but please, let me know if you begin a new found career in mystery writing. Pet Cemetary was the scariest I ever read so please, no more involving our furry friends ;-)

  • Pseud Onym

    OMG, I am sorry for the typo. I asked Judy to have an edit ability. Sorry for the error. :-) I hope it wasn’t my unconscious subliminal profiling. :-)

  • Pseud Onym

    Marley & Me…Let Tom-m-m-y speak his mind!! It’s good to vent. :-) Tom, you can say or copy/paste anything you want. Don’t let anyone boss you around. LOL :-)

  • InnocentUntilProvenGuilty

    Innocent until proven guilty is how it works in America.

    Notice Kimelman was only alleged to have been involved in one of the many deals this crew was involved in (3Com).

    This is not a pattern, but a one time thing. Making it more plausible that this he was unaware of any inside information on this acquisition.

  • DR

    On November 8th, 2009, “Mumbo Jumbo” wrote:
    “If a photo is already published, it is not “stolen” property by re-publishing it somewhere else as in the case of the Larchmont Gazette. If it ran thru AP or another wire service, for example, it’s fare game and does not have to credited. It can also be lifted from a company website, as that is public domain.”

    This is so incredibly factually incorrect, I don’t know where to begin.

    Let’s start with the idea that a picture “can also be lifted from a company website, as that is public domain”.

    That is absolutely, 100% incorrect. Company websites are NOT public property. By viewing any website, you are bound by the terms of that website, as well as any copyright or trademark notices. Just because something is “on the web” does not mean that the author, photographer, or creator forfeits all (or even ANY) intellectual property rights.

    Take a look at the bottom of this page. It says “Copyright © 2009 Larchmont Gazette – All Rights Reserved”. That means that the contents are copyrighted and all rights to the use of those contents are reserved by the owner of the website.

    A simple websearch on “Michael A Kimelman” shows that the picture in this article was taken from a website called

    In the terms of that website it is stated:
    “This site and its contents are the property of MoneyShow and or its partners/contributors. Content is provided for noncommercial use only. All content/material presented on this website is protected under US and international copyright laws. By viewing this material, you agree not to copy, reproduce, record, video, photograph, upload, post, transmit, publish or distribute any material in any form other than for personal use, without the express written permission of”

    These terms govern the use of all photographs on that site, so according to intellectual property law, that image should not be used on this page.

    This is so simple, its incredible that it needs to be explained. The web is NOT “public domain” if the author or creator specifically restrict the rights of usage in their site terms.

    As for the comment that something that is published by AP is “fare game” and therefore does not need to be credited, I can’t even begin to take that comment seriously. Researching the concepts of copyrights, trademarks and “fair use” of these materials would be a good starting point for someone believes this to be the case.