Who thinks Martha should get busted for insider trading?

[DivePartner1]

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.

Nonsense. The facts and charges, and the courts orders, are well known and easily verified. I've read media reports that an election is coming up, but I don't doubt it.

 

[hantzu701]

If I remember correctly, Martha was a broker for ML at one point. If this is true, then she had to pass several tests that are designed to protect finanical clients - eg. Is XYZ illegal? etc. While her licenses have long expired, she would KNOW what behavior is illegal and what is not.

At best, Martha knew her actions would be questionable. At worse, Martha deliberately broke several laws and then sought to cover it up. As a financial professional, I am astonished and disgusted at her arrogance. There may be some question of what she knew and when she knew it, but she would know to document something like this AS IT WAS HAPPENING.

Regardless of the court decision, I think Martha has paid the appropriate price for her indiscretion. She has lost her legacy. No longer will her adoring fans look at her and believe that she embodies perfection. This is a good thing.

 

[Bob3]

Small fish, they should be focusing on the REAL thieves, like Halliburton/Cheney.

 

[DivePartner1]

If I remember correctly, Martha was a broker for ML at one point. If this is true, then she had to pass several tests that are designed to protect finanical clients - eg. Is XYZ illegal?

As a CEO of a publicly traded company, Martha SURELY knows what insider trading is--she knows she is usually on her own company's blackout list and can rarely trade her own company's stock. As a ML broker and CEO she should also know that the SEC always goes back and bird dogs trades made on the eve of a material event of any stock. The exchanges provide their daily data to the SEC to faciliate this.

The SEC charged her with the lessor, included offenses typical of an insider trading complaint, but not with the predicate offense itself. They--or a grand jury--did not believe they could make that charge so they thought up something creative. Last Friday, the jugde nixed the most 'creative' part.

 

[Charlie99]

If I remember correctly, Martha was a broker for ML at one point. If this is true, then she had to pass several tests that are designed to protect finanical clients - eg. Is XYZ illegal? etc. While her licenses have long expired, she would KNOW what behavior is illegal and what is not.

That's one of the stranger things in this case. She should have known that what she did WAS legal, told the SEC to buzz off, and then there wouldn't have been any problem.

Most people seem to miss the fact that she was never charged with insider trading of ImClone stock. Not because of lack of evidence, but because she didn't commit the crime.

She is charged with the making false statements to the SEC during the investigation of her sale, obstruction of justice and conspiracy with the broker to obstruct.

Never has the SEC charged that she had inside knowledge of about the drug that failed trials. ImClone's CEO did have knowledge, did illegally trade on that knowledge, and has pled guilty. Big difference.

Martha Stewart's initial offense, at worst, was selling because she found out that ImClone's CEO was selling. While perhaps morally questionable, this is not illegal.

------

The most serious charge was the very novel legal theory that Martha committed securities fraud of the shareholders of her company when she lied about why she sold ImClone.

Nobody has ever been charged on that theory before.

The judge has already thrown that charge out.

-------

It's selective prosecution.

The SEC made lots of noise as they started the investigation --- they probably are prosecuting (persecuting??) her because they are afraid it would look like favoritism if they dropped the charges.

 

[AmyJ]

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.[/QUOTE

Amen to that!!!! Let's get somebody that REALLY deserves it.

 

[Charlie99]

The SEC charged her with the lessor, included offenses typical of an insider trading complaint, but not with the predicate offense itself.

If you look a bit more closely, you will see that, although the SEC initially thought she had committed insider trading, the facts of the case show that she did NOT. The charges left are definitely NOT lesser-included-charges.

It's kind of like the police stop you because your car looks like that of a bank robbery getaway vehicle. You get cleared of any involvement in the bank robbery, but still get charged because you lied to the police about where you were coming from or going to, and therefore obstructed their investigation.

In normal circumstances, although you committed a crime by fibbing out your movements, it's not likely to be charged as a crime.

The Martha Stewart case isn't normal.

 

[hantzu701]

If you believe the sales assistant, then this trial is over. As I have worked on a trading floor before, I can very easily see how this guy didn't think he had a choice at the time.

The sad thing about someone like him is that his world as he knows it is probably over. Whether he 1) came forward or 2) cracked under the questioning, he's a marked man in the securities industry.

Hantzu

 

[DivePartner1]

If you look a bit more closely, you will see that, although the SEC initially thought she had committed insider trading, the facts of the case show that she did NOT.

Sorry, I've looked at this plently close and I just don't buy it. In their heart of hearts the feds believe she is a "bad guy." They didn't have confidence in going foward and meeting the burden of proof on the insider trading case or they would have.

 

[Charlie99]

In their heart of hearts the feds believe she is a "bad guy." They didn't have confidence in going foward and meeting the burden of proof on the insider trading case or they would have.

Heh, I'm not fan of Martha Stewart. But there is a difference between bad, sleazy, not-very-nice, and "illegal".

If your broker tells you that the CEO of a public company is dumping his stock, and you sell for that reason, have you committed a crime? ----- this isn't a rhetorical question. Is there somebody here that really knows the answer?

Charlie