Skip to comments.
Martha Stewart Changed Key Message, Assistant Says
Reuters ^
| 2-10-04
| By Paul Thomasch and Gail Appleson
Posted on 02/10/2004 12:03:45 PM PST by antivenom
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Lea Fastow will soon have company...
1
posted on
02/10/2004 12:03:48 PM PST
by
antivenom
To: antivenom
"I'm so screwed."
2
posted on
02/10/2004 12:07:44 PM PST
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: antivenom
What I don't understand is the Broker provides insider information to its client and it is the client who is charged with a crime. The Broker is the guilty party. The Broker is the one with a license and is the one who instigated the crime.
To: antivenom
"Recipes From The Slammer"
4
posted on
02/10/2004 12:08:23 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: Always Right
It gets even more interesting when you remember that the client is a former stockbroker, herself.
5
posted on
02/10/2004 12:09:42 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'--- Kahlil Gibran)
To: Always Right
Tippers and Tippees can be liable, as I understand it...
6
posted on
02/10/2004 12:15:29 PM PST
by
eureka!
(My hope of hopes is the total demise of the Rat party....)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
It gets even more interesting when you remember that the client is a former stockbroker, herself. That still doesn't change the basic facts that the Broker is releasing inside information to his client. In a way this is like an entrapment. Martha did not request the information or seek to break the law, but was acting on information given to her by a licence Broker. To me it is the Broker who should be up on charges, but the broker is not the Billion dollar celebrity.
To: antivenom
When asked about the telephone message during an interview in February 2002 with investigators, Stewart said she did not know whether the phone message from Bacanovic had been recorded in the computerized log.They put this at the end as if it were an afterthought. But I thought the most serious charges against her had to do with lying to investigators, not the trade itself. This is clear evidence that she lied to investigators.
To: Always Right
The billion dollar celebrity did not need to act on the tip from the broker. She should have done NOTHING until the info was made public. She knew that. She knows that. She made the decision.
9
posted on
02/10/2004 12:19:25 PM PST
by
petitfour
To: Always Right
Martha was a broker and she has PERSONAL friendships in the business. She would have filed a complaint (against her friend?) who just saved her a few bucks. No, she took full advantage of the opportunity.
The next house she decorates will be BIG with lotsa little rooms.
10
posted on
02/10/2004 12:19:50 PM PST
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
It's called "complicit in a fraudulent act," the law includes all who acted. Kind of like the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery.
To: Always Right
I agree with you. This incident actually makes me think better of Martha. She was obviously scared by the feds and was tempted to try to change the evidence. But for whatever reason she thought better of it and said "put it back the way it was." This to me shows some character that I didn't expect to see from Martha.
Yes, she was tempted to go down a wrong path, but in the end she did not. I have to give her credit for that.
12
posted on
02/10/2004 12:23:25 PM PST
by
Iwo Jima
To: antivenom
To: Iwo Jima
It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist back then to see that ImClone was starting to trend downwards. Meanwhile murders go uninvestigated in New York.
14
posted on
02/10/2004 12:26:37 PM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Always Right
The Broker is the guilty party.
Is there a criminal case pending against Peter Bacanovic? If not, why not?
15
posted on
02/10/2004 12:26:37 PM PST
by
lelio
To: antivenom
16
posted on
02/10/2004 12:29:43 PM PST
by
engrpat
To: lelio
Is there a criminal case pending against Peter Bacanovic? If not, why not? I assume he was given immunity to testify against Martha, but I haven't paid that close of attention to know.
To: petitfour
The billion dollar celebrity did not need to act on the tip from the broker. She should have done NOTHING until the info was made public. She knew that. She knows that. She made the decision.The post sounds as if this was the sole information upon which she made the decision to trade, and if that's the case, this is a tempest in a teapot, IMHO. How the hell, before the stock takes a plunge, is she supposed to interpret "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward" as an insider tip as opposed to a broker's honest judgment?? After the price dropped, it would be obvious, or at least suspicious, but if she traded on information she reasonably believed to be legitimate, there should be no criminal charges (though she should probably disgorge the gains, since they were in fact illegitimate).
To: Always Right
What I don't understand is the Broker provides insider information....... Martha Stewart has not been charged with "insider trading". I think the biggest charges are "lying to investigators" and " and "misleading investors in her own company about why she sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems (IMCL) stock in 2001".
My bet? She is found innocent.
I know people that have been involved in stock "pump-and-dump" schemes that fleeced people out of 10's of million of dollars. None have ever been touched by the SEC or anyone else. What Martha Stewart did (whatever that is) ain't spit compared to a lot of stuff that went on during the "dot.com" boom. And still goes on today. Stewart is small potatoes (with a lovely garnish to make the serving more attractive).
To: Always Right
What I don't understand is the Broker provides insider information to its client and it is the client who is charged with a crime. Deep pockets and career advancement for the prosecutor.
Follow the money, always follow the money.
20
posted on
02/10/2004 12:41:09 PM PST
by
Protagoras
(When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson