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.

Non-Tech : Martha Stewart -- Scourge or Scapegoat -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (67)	2/19/2004 8:39:04 PM
From: Labrador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 165

An awful lot of time and money is going into this trial - and it is not even about acting on insider information. And, even if she knew Waksal was selling, so what? Win or lose, Martha and her shareholders have lost a lot, and what has the gov't really gained?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (67)	2/19/2004 10:02:23 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 165

Although it certainly does appear obvious that Martha sold because she was told Waksal was dumping his shares, it doesn't preclude the possibility Martha planned to sell at $60 anyhow. So, if true, I suppose Martha could say, technically, she wasn't lying. Remember, she's not up for insider trading but for lying. However, I think all this is meaningless. Sam Waksal didn't tell Martha he was dumping nor did he say she should sell. Martha's broker did. That's probably why they didn't try to get her on insider trading. Martha, being an ex-broker, likely knew that. So why not sell? For the sake of argument, let's assume Martha had no intention to sell at 60 and one day the stock dipped below that. She'd likely have at least called her broker and asked what he knew. If he knew Waksal was selling, which he'd have to assume (if he didn't already know) was for good reason, what was he supposed to tell Martha to do? Hold? My guess is that Martha probably rationalized in her mind that she would have sold anyhow had the stock dropped below 60. Although she might have been confident she hadn't committed any crime, she still might have feared (for good reason as we now know) that what she knew might raise some serious questions of impropriety. So, she kind of told, at best, a white lie. It's not that I'm defending Martha, it's that I'm saying if it wasn't Martha this whole story wouldn't even be a footnote, let alone command headlines. Worse, as I keep saying, all this time and money and attention is best served on the Enrons, Tycos, and Worldcoms of the world which are frauds on a massive scale that affect tens of thousands of people. - Jeff