PS- The below is simply wrong and I would like an apology!!!! and would like the seeking alpha references put back in place -  thank you

The source used by the article was a press release from Pasternak‎'s lawyers. If we have the comment carried by reliable sources third party sources, then perhaps. But WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately " (emph added).  The Red Pen of Doom 
I was agreeing with your removal, so you don't have to justify it to me, but you're still wrong about who the source was from. It wasn't from his lawyers. It was from seeking alpha, and you summarized the edit as "After Knight Trading: a press release from Pasternak's lawyers is not valid source for WP:PEACOCK language". I think you just didn't notice the reference with the seeking alpha site before the reference with the law firm site. 
Also, it is not an explicit policy to remove all sources that come from a client's law firm, particularly when they state facts about the disposition of a case. WP:RS does not indicate party-affiliated sources cannot be moved. In fact, it provides explicit guidelines for when its inclusion is appropriate (WP:SELFPUB). Also, the WP:BLP policy has two parts for removal of facts from a BLP: 1) the fact has to be unsourced or poorly sourced, and 2) the source must not be "written by the subject of the BLP". In this case, it was written by [presumably] his lawyers. Either his lawyers stand in his shoes, and so it fails #1 (because it's poorly sourced by virtue of not being sufficiently second-party, a contention which isn't cut and dried) but meets #2 (because it's written by his represenatatives), or it doesn't fail #1 but does fail #2 (a strange place to be). Shadowjams (talk)  
  Ms. S. 74.76.155.82