Who thinks Martha should get busted for insider trading?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

crispos

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Messages
547
Reaction score
1
Location
Toronto, Canada
Is she guilty of selling her Imclone stock based on private knowledge that the founder of the company was himself bailing out of his stock? Imagine the poor sobs who, not knowing this privileged info, bought it and lost their money.

Or, is she being made into a scapegoat, because she is an incredibly talented and successful business woman. There is a witch hunt going on, and they need some victims to pump up their political careers. Martha didn't do anything that any of them wouldn't have done, in a heartbeat.
 
crispos:
Martha didn't do anything that any of them wouldn't have done, in a heartbeat.

Likely true. The question though is not what they would have done, it's what she did or didn't do. I think she did it, and if they manage to find her guilty (in what I suspect will be another farcical, drawn-out excuse for a trial) she will likely get a big fine and a billion hours of 'community service'.
 
It seems likely that MS is guilty of insider trading. For that she should suffer some kind of financial penalty, and she can obviously afford a hefty fine. She isn't going to do any time for what transpired.

But, it seems a gross perversion of justice to pursue her piddly $40K case while scumbuckets like Fastow/Lay (Enron), Gary Winnick/John Legere (Global Crossing) and others of their kind bilked investors of hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars and ruined the retirement plans of thousands. When are they going to be charged?

MS is just a fall-guy so the admin can say they are doing something about SEC violations...it's a farce.
 
I personally don't care much for Martha, but when the government went after her for proclaiming her innocence (they said it was just to manipulate her company stock price), the government lost credibility. As police have been known to repeat, "you may beat the rap, but you will not beat the ride."

There are so many federal laws governing our behavior, we may have broken a few of them just discussing our ideas. To refine the question, it's what did she do and was it against the law?

dnhill
 
Is she guilty of selling her Imclone stock based on private knowledge that the founder of the company was himself bailing out of his stock? Imagine the poor sobs who, not knowing this privileged info, bought it and lost their money.
Martha is NOT guilty of insider trading and has not been charged with such - an important point. The key point is that the information that the Waksal family was selling stock and that the drug Erbitux was being denied approval by the FDA was obtained directly from her broker - by definition not an insider source. Had she received the information from Sam Waksal, the trade may well have been categorized as an insider trade, but if your information source is your stockbroker, it's hard to argue that you can't use the information.


Or, is she being made into a scapegoat, because she is an incredibly talented and successful business woman. There is a witch hunt going on, and they need some victims to pump up their political careers. Martha didn't do anything that any of them wouldn't have done, in a heartbeat.
Maybe on the scapegoat thing, maybe on the ambitious-DA-seeks-publicity thing. Definitely, Martha didn't do anything that most of us wouldn't have done. Assuming that the whole $60/share story is a fabrication, what would anyone do if their broker called them up and said, "The stock is cratering and it's time to bail." Unless you're a fool, you'd sell.

Martha's mistake, if it was one, was to not tell the DA to take a hike when he started asking questions. She's been charged with lying and conspiring to lie to the authorities in the course of their investigation - not with the crime they were investigating. Remember this the next time you tell the cop that you didn't see the stop sign.

Some argue that Martha should be held to a higher standard than you or I because of her background in the securities industry. She is a former trader on the floor of the NYSE and at the time of Imclone sale held a seat on the Board of the NYSE. The argument goes that she had to know she was skating on thin ice and should have, like Caeser's wife, taken steps to insure that she remain above reproach. Personally, I disagree, I don't think double standards are a good thing and expecting her to hamstring herself is unfair.
 
Not that I overly care. There's certainly dirtier people in high finance than her, and you don't see many of them go to the slammer.

She's a pitance, the small cherry on top, when they should really be worried about the decay of the cake underneath.


White collar crime is, has been, and always will be tolerated and left for the most part un-punished. (Well, the odd one to ensure "we" are still snowballed into thinking that the world of finance and investing is "a fair and level playing field".)

hehehhe

I laugh........

Like I said, not that I care. I long ago ceased to have any faith in stock exchanges and brokers (Nice name for them, cause that's what they make YOU).
 
As bizzarre as it seems, Martha was NEVER charged with Insider trading regarding the Implone sale. Whereas the Enron, Tyco and WorldCom cases involved looting festivals involving billions by bona fide bad guys (I believe), this all stemmed from a $40,000 trade in someone else's stock say that did not result in charges.

What she was charged with was securities fraud and obstuction of justice for saying she didn't break the law that she was never charged with breaking. Enter the looking glass . . .

The Government claimed that by saying she was innocent of insider trading, she must have actually been motivate to prop up the stock of her own company. The "crime" was protesting her innocence. This nonsense is what the judge tossed on Friday.

Four lesser charges remain. One obstruction charge is based on the following: (i) she asked her secretary how to change a computer note to cloud the purpose of a call, (ii) she changed it, (iii) she immediately had second thoughts and asked her secretary to put it back the way it was and (iv) they both disclosed this to the goverment this. If she wasn't rich, famous and reviled, they wouldn't be spending millions on this.

This is a strange use of scarce prosecutorial resources.

So why bother? My theory is that government employees promote their careers by pusuing high profile prosecutions, not showing judgment. High profile defendants suggest they're being 'bold' while they're really playing on prejudice against an unpopular defendant. In a high visibility case lawyers have faith in juries to vote on their prejudices and put emotion before reason. It happens every day.
 
crispos:
Is she guilty of selling her Imclone stock based on private knowledge that the founder of the company was himself bailing out of his stock? Imagine the poor sobs who, not knowing this privileged info, bought it and lost their money.

Or, is she being made into a scapegoat, because she is an incredibly talented and successful business woman. There is a witch hunt going on, and they need some victims to pump up their political careers. Martha didn't do anything that any of them wouldn't have done, in a heartbeat.
Yes to both.

All the best, James
 
Any of you folks sat in on the trial and listened to the testimony?

If not, your opinions are based on what the media is telling you. Not always an accurate source of information.
 
So far I have it

2 - Martha will look great in a striped apron
3 - It takes more than one to bake a good story
3 - The kitchen stinks so who cares what's for dinner

In Ontario, we have a tippee rule whereby those receiving and acting on material nonpublic information are as guilty as the original tipper.
 

Back
Top Bottom