SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/28/2005 2:05:59 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
According to the Order, the $3 million in perquisites included:

$689,016 in personal expenses for him and two of his friends, including a $20,000 purchase for oriental rugs, an $18,000 purchase for antiques, a $15,000 vacation in London, an $8,000 horse and other substantial purchases of clothing, jewelry, artwork, vacations and theater tickets, which were paid through cash advances from the company's accounts, directly billed to the company or charged to three company credit cards that had been issued in the mid 1990s to Don Tyson and two of his friends;

$464,132 in personal use by Don Tyson and his family and friends of company-owned homes in the English countryside and in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, including use of the company-paid chauffeur, cook and housekeeper at the English home and the company's crewed boat in Cabo San Lucas;

$426,086 of personal use of company-owned aircraft by him and his family and friends, including regular use by his family and friends with and without him on board;

$203,675 in housekeeping provided at five different homes where Don Tyson and his family and friends lived and/or vacationed;

$84,000 in lawn maintenance at five different homes where he and his family and friends lived;

$46,110 to maintain nine automobiles owned and used by Don Tyson and his family and friends;

$36,554 in telephone services for him and his family and friends;

$15,000 in Christmas gift certificates that were provided to Don Tyson's family and friends; and

$1,072,699 to cover Don Tyson's personal income tax liability associated with his receipt of these benefits.

The Order further finds that in its proxy statements filed for 1997 to 2001, the company:

failed to disclose over $1 million of these perquisites, including $424,121 in housekeeping, lawn maintenance, automobile maintenance and telephone service that were not disclosed due to the company's internal control failures, and an additional $595,656 of perquisites (including gross-up payments for taxes thereon) that were mischaracterized in the company's 1998, 1999 and 2000 proxy statements as "performance-based bonuses," instead of as perquisites, due to a strategy to preserve the company's tax deduction for Don Tyson's compensation;

used the misleading expression "travel and entertainment costs" to describe perquisites that could not be considered "travel" or "entertainment," such as over $372,539 in personal expenses received by Don Tyson and his friends;

failed to separately identify by type and amount perquisites that exceeded 25 percent of Don Tyson's total perquisites, such as personal expenses, use of company homes, personal use of company aircraft and/or residential services.

In addition, according the Order, the company's 2002 and 2003 proxy statements used the same misleading terms "travel and entertainment" to describe the continuation of Don Tyson's perquisites pursuant to an October 2001 retirement agreement with the company and failed to disclose fully the nature and scope of those benefits.

The SEC also finds and alleges that due to internal control failures at Tyson Foods throughout most of 1997 to 2003, many of the perquisites described above (totaling approximately $1.5 million) were neither raised with nor authorized by the company's compensation committee or its board of directors. Thus, for example, the board members were unaware until the SEC's investigation that the company was paying for substantial personal expenses incurred by Don Tyson and two of his friends or that Don Tyson's family and friends regularly used the company aircraft while he was not on board. Nor was the board aware until November 2002, as a result of an internal company review of perquisites, of the housekeeping, lawn maintenance, telephone services and automobile maintenance provided to Don Tyson and his family and friends.

Finally, the SEC finds and alleges that Don Tyson, who signed the company's annual reports that incorporated the proxy statements for each fiscal year from 1997 to 2003, caused and aided and abetted the company's disclosure failures. In each year from 1997 to 2003, he signed director and officer questionnaires used to prepare the company's proxy statements that failed to identify or quantify various perquisites. Before signing them, he failed to read the questionnaires or take action to ensure the accuracy of the company's disclosure of his perquisites even though he was the only individual who possessed certain information necessary to accurately complete the questionnaires. In addition, he provided the company an incomplete list of perquisites that he had received for 2002, which omitted the fact that the company had paid for personal expenses for him and two of his friends and had provided housekeeping, lawn maintenance, automobile maintenance and telephone services to him and his family and friends.

As a result of these and other findings, the SEC's Order finds that Tyson Foods violated Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(B) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 13a-1, 14a-3 and 14a-9 thereunder, and orders the company to cease and desist from committing any violations and any future violations of these statutory provisions and rules. The SEC's Order also finds that Don Tyson caused the company's violations of Sections 13(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1, 14a-3 and 14a-9 thereunder, and orders Don Tyson to cease and desist from causing any violations and any future violations of the foregoing statutory provisions and rules. The SEC's federal court complaint alleges the same violations as the SEC's administrative Order.

Administrative Proceeding Release No. 3-11917

SEC Complaint in this matter

sec.gov



To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/28/2005 2:30:42 PM
From: olivier asser  Respond to of 12465
 
Unbelievable. From the SEC site it looks like he's paying back only $700,000 while the company is paying $1.5 million. Now THAT is just too funny: Tyson gets slapped with a suit by SEC for filching corporate assets and then when the time comes for consequences who pays 2/3 of the fines? The COMPANY! SEC has an excellent sense of humor.

And you remember when they just did about nothing, Eliot Spitzer polished off that 100+-year-old Martin Act to do in quite a few wrongdoers, and then what happens next? Wall Street banks try to have Congress pass a law stripping the New York Attorney General's Office of the powers he has wielded so effectively the past few years, like Rudy Guiliani did in the 80's when he put away Boesky and Milken. Anyone read that editorial published in (but not by) WSJ the other day accusing Eliot Spitzer of going too far putting AIG and Greenberg in his sights? And then, just yesterday, we hear this remarkable news published by WSJ:

In 1992, American International Group Inc.'s top lawyer said in a memo to then-Chief Executive Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg that the insurer's reporting of workers' compensation premiums "is permeated with illegality" that was "so serious it could threaten the existence of senior management if disclosed," people who have seen the document said.

That legal conclusion was backed by AIG's outside attorneys a few months later, yet regulators believe the reporting practice continued for years after that, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Greenberg, ousted last month as regulatory scrutiny increased, has become a focus of authorities investigating whether AIG officials duped investors and regulators with misleading financial information.


Permeated with illegality. OK, I guess Eliot Spitzer's investigation into AIG is "overreaching."

Now this kind of droll SEC "enforcement" is maybe what Gretchen Morgenson meant when she wrote last year about who's side SEC is really on. Hint: take a look at where most SEC staff attorneys go take employment after a few years at the Commission. That's right: as in-house counsel to Wall Street investment banks. No conflict there of course. Naturally every SEC staff attorney is going to go to extremes to punish corporate fraud and still think they're going to get hired by those companies after that. In my opinion, this is kind of like that "Chinese Wall" the investment banks said existed between the market research and investment banking/trading departments. Looks refined and polished in theory while cracking up in reality.

A few years ago I met up on the Hill with a lead Congressional investigator, head of the staff for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I spoke with him about what I knew then about Berber et al. I said look at SEC what is this they're doing nothing (Eliot Spitzer got it right when he said SEC was "asleep at the switch" - which is a charitable description.) The PMI investigator and attorney told me look what happened to my office, I had a staff of a dozen attorneys investigating a company for the past three years and then just a few weeks ago nine of them, the bulk of my staff, abruptly left and took jobs as in-house counsel to......the company they were investigating! So I got upset when he couldn't do anything but you know he had THREE staff, that's IT. He said, "Our name sounds pretty dramatic but the reality is we're on a shoestring considering our responsibilities." I was pretty appalled he had only three staff, what is this, how about just one less Raptor and maybe the law gets enforced.

How are parents supposed to teach their children crime doesn't pay, when it obviously does



To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/28/2005 2:52:52 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
Chicken Feed



To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/28/2005 2:58:59 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 12465
 
Speaking of greed... Enron the Smartest Guys in the Room is now a movie! Seriously.

It's a cool web site as well. Don't miss playing "Millionaire's Jackpot".

enronmovie.com

- Jeff



To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/28/2005 4:04:04 PM
From: olivier asser  Respond to of 12465
 
I ran into someone the other day and we exchanged some views on what happens when you sue someone for racketeering, pretty serious crimes. He said well you know the damage that's going to do not just the person you sued but it will spread a lot further than that, have you thought about that? I said yes I did. (And I should know because my going after racketeers has not just affected me alone - far from it.) Then I said I do have empathy for anyone innocent who is affected when all is said and done. For example I feel for Mary Faith Elgindy, and also for the wives of many Wall Street figures who have gone down, one picture in particular of a wife in tears after a guilty verdict, that was incredibly sad. But then there is something else:

That photo was published on many news websites. Now, how about some photos of the people with their lives ruined, thousands of them, their pensions wiped out just like that, 40 years of work bye-bye, so CEO can live like Louis XIV and call himself a philanthropist, a great benefactor? We don't see too many of those and I wonder why not. How about the effects on THEIR children and other loved ones, lives destroyed? I said that to this person and he got real quiet real fast. Good. Then he nevertheless tried again, said but the children, and then I said look, maybe their father should not have committed the crimes that he did, the consequences are HIS responsibility, not mine, AND, just by the way (similar to what you said below), if he gets away with it, how do you think those children will be raised? That's right, would go kind of like this: there are no laws when you're clever and your schemes are sufficiently complex, junior, just look at my amazing success, a beacon for you, calling you to even greater exploits than my own.

So in some important respects, no punishment of the father is the worst thing that can happen to that child, because they're likely to head down the same road that led to no punishment for the father - and why not? It worked wonders for him, why not for me, the child will almost certainly reason.

For example, Philip Berber has been giving lectures to students at the Universities of Texas at Austin, Wisconsin and quite a few others, spreading his methods far and wide. He had the incredible nerve to give one lecture at Austin about business ethics. I wrote the professor and asked for a copy of the lecture, which she claimed was not recorded (maybe I'll get some notes from the students in due course). So if he's going to commit the crime wave he did and think he's somehow qualified to lead the next generation, it's not likely he'd not teach his own children to conduct their professional affairs exactly as he has. That professor wrote me and said Berber's lectures were "highly valuable" and he was a "great benefit" to her students. I wrote her back and said he's a criminal racketeer and I can prove it, I'm sorry to tell you, but the absolute last person who should be in any position of influence over impressionable young minds regarding business ethics. Even Berber's industry competitors loathe him. One said, and I quote, "It's a dirty business, but even then Berber was special." For example how Berber used Rea to gain his ill-gotten c. $330 million and then when he did completely reneged on his promise to give Rea 10%. Maybe that's why Rea told me in writing he has "48 million reasons to hate" Berber, why he called him a "very devious man," a "lying scumbag" and an "echelon of filth." This, mind you, now filed in Court, Rea writes me during pending federal RICO litigation in which he is himself a co-defendant. Maybe that's why Judge Sparks ordered that Trading Places better get an attorney or else. (Also because a corporation can only be represented by counsel.)

I agree with MM: when these white-collar criminals are not properly punished, you might as well pave the way for the next generation crime spree, because you better believe their children are going to be raised to greatly respect doing if not actually do the exact same thing, seeing how successful their role models have been. So any argument, any plea for sympathy about collateral damage in my book, while I am sad for that to be sure, does not hold water on a large number of levels.

How are parents supposed to teach their children crime doesn't pay, when it obviously does



To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (8229)4/29/2005 9:45:18 AM
From: scion  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12465
 
How to walk away with pockets still bulging...

give some of it to the SEC

And what does the SEC do with their windfall?