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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Take the Money and Run -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15755)	8/21/2002 7:47:23 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 17639

>>Thats going to be hard to prove though... because the whole mkt was in freefall at the time and it was prudent to sell. << but doesn't she have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to come forward with any materially adverse information as it becomes known? i think the key here is the entire underpinning of the corporate profitability is inextricably linked to her public persona.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15755)	8/21/2002 7:49:47 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17639

I expect Martha will try to claim that she sold because the market was in free fall and she was doing the prudent thing. The government would argue to the contrary. That's why we have juries. Let me see, who would the jury find more credible, the government witness saying Martha knew of the investigation and unloaded a s**tpot of shares or Martha (who is already under a cloud regarding her IMCL trade) saying, "oh, my, the market was in such bad shape, I just decided to sell..." (Aside - does anyone know how many shares of MSO Ms. Stewart may have unloaded? Wouldn't she have to file a report with the SEC before selling?)