Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (17665)	7/17/2002 9:18:09 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

I haven't given much thought to whether the SEC violated any laws. What statute did they violate, if this statement in the article is true? In the ordinary course of business, members of the audit committee know more about a company's financial drift than do other directors, and they know it earlier. Which is to say they really do have insider information. The vagaries of the law permit directors to buy and sell during designated windows of opportunity even though they may be in possession of information--as Bush was--that other shareholders don't have. Or if this is true: Nonetheless, what makes this kind of selling legally acceptable (if not exactly morally correct) is the obligation to report in a timely fashion the sale (or purchase) so outsiders know what insiders are doing. But Bush didn't do that. Or if this is true: An Associated Press dispatch reported that "[Bush] received memos in spring 1990 that referred in stark terms to the company's cash-strapped condition.... One document said that the company was in the midst of a `liquidity crisis' and another told Bush the company was `in a state of non-compliance' with its lenders." When the loss was made public, Harken stock fell to a shade above $2 and, by year's end, was down to $1. (As we go to press twelve years later, one share of Harken Energy is worth 45 cents.) Or if this is true: When one of these latenesses became an issue in Bush's 1994 run for governor of Texas, he simply asserted that the SEC had lost Form 4, as the relevant document is called. But that claim was sheer invention. Or if this is true: As the SEC has found, he failed to notify the authorities (and, through that notification, other stockholders and the public) on a timely basis that he had, in fact, sold stock. The SEC nevertheless declined to press charges, a decision that becomes more interesting when you realize, as The Baltimore Sun has noted, that the Commission's then-general counsel, James R. Doty--the man who supervised the legal inquiry into Bush's behavior--was also the lawyer who had facilitated the sale of the Texas Rangers baseball team to George W.'s partnership. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What "felony" statute are you proposing the Bush cronies on the SEC must have violated if the above statements are accurate and when they failed to interview either Bush or any officer of the firm or either of the two other members of the audit committee? Is there any statement in the New Republic article you feel is inaccurate? Message 17750949