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.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (14460)	9/25/2005 4:22:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Much ado about Frist Power Line Senate Majority Leader Frist sold all of the stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell dramatically. This news has given rise to a great outcry, mostly by leftist bloggers. But before reaching any conclusions as to misconduct or guilt, it's always useful to know something about the area of law in question, not to mention the facts. Professor Bainbridge is an expert in this area. He notes that unless Senator Frist had "material nonpublic information" about the hospital corporation at the time he ordered the sale, there is no legal problem. He further observes that unless Frist lacks "the common sense God gave gravel" he would not have allowed himself to possess such information. In this regard, TigerHawk points out that what Frist undoubtedly did know at the time of the sale is what everyone else paying attention knew -- company management was selling off the stock is large quantities. Indeed, TigerHawk finds that Frist did not sell his stock during the big sell-off, and that the average investor had the opportunity to sell shares based on knowledge of the sell-off before Frist ordered his sale. Bainbridge goes on to argue that, even if Frist had material nonpublic information about his corporation at the time he ordered the sale, the legal issue would hardly be open-and-shut. Frist could still argue that he did not make the trade based on the information, but rather because he wanted to divest himself of the stock in order to clear the decks for his presidential run. According to Bainbridge, the issue of whether that defense is available to First is unsettled. I doubt that Frist wants to be the test case. Absent evidence that Frist had material non-public knowledge about his corporation, I see no reason why Frist should resign or even step aside temporarily. powerlineblog.com washingtonpost.com professorbainbridge.com tigerhawk.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (14460)	9/29/2005 9:18:47 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Frist - Timing Is Everything (But Not To The AP) Message 21745463 About Those "Ethics Woes" Power Line Much of the news coverage of Ronnie Earle's indictment of Tom DeLay--about which more later--has linked the indictment to the SEC investigation of Bill Frist's sale of HCA stock, with the theme being "the GOP's ethics problems." It's hard to say which issue is more trivial, although the SEC investigation is at least being carried out in good faith, unlike Earle's partisan hit-job. For those who haven't seen Frist's side of the story--like, if you've been reading the newspapers--here is his account of the HCA stock sale and related events; the real moral of the story is, no good deed goes unpunished: When deciding how to handle my family's personal investments, I always sought expert advice and Senate Ethics Committee review and approval. Despite not being required to do so, I sought and obtained two Ethics Committee opinions acknowledging that my ownership of HCA stock complied with Senate rules and did not present a conflict of interest with my Senate duties. Despite not being required to do so, I later chose to place many of my investments in blind trusts, including my HCA stock. With these efforts, I have sought to guarantee that no conflict of interest existed. Review after review has found nothing wrong. Nevertheless, the complaints and questions have persisted. Because of these continuing questions, and looking ahead at my final years in the Senate and what might come next, I have for some time wanted to eliminate even the possibility of an appearance of a conflict by totally divesting of any HCA stock in my family's trusts. In April, I asked my staff to determine if Senate rules and relevant laws would allow me to direct the trustees to sell any remaining HCA stock. After my staff reviewed relevant statutes and Senate rules and consulted with outside counsel and Senate Ethics Committee staff, I learned that the rules allowed me to direct the trustees to sell any remaining HCA stock in my blind trusts. In May, my staff worked with outside counsel and the Senate Ethics Committee staff to draft a written communication to the trustees. After obtaining pre- approval by mid-June from the Senate Ethics Committee, I issued a letter directing my trustees to sell any remaining HCA stock in my family's trusts. Now I am being asked to explain this decision. I understand that. And I welcome it. An examination of the facts will demonstrate that I acted properly. I will cooperate with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to provide the information they need as quickly as possible. My only objective in selling the stock was to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest. I had no information about HCA or its performance that was not publicly available when I directed the trustees to sell the stock. How unethical can you get? powerlineblog.com frist.senate.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (14460)	10/1/2005 3:43:36 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

GOOD NEWS FOR SEN. FRIST Andy McCarthy The Corner The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) indicates that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appears to have a very good defense to suspicions about whether he traded on inside information in selling his HCA stock. Specifically, there is a paper trail showing he set his stock sales in motion long before there was a public warning about earnings expectations. Further, Frist had an incentive to shed his stock that had nothing to do with its value. It turns out that Frist’s financial disclosure form was due to be filed on May 16. Frist is obviously considering a run for president, and has in the past been criticized for holding assets in health care companies while having a major role in health care policy. It would make sense that he would want to eliminate the source of this criticism. On April 29 – over two months before the July 13 earnings warning that caused the stock to decline 9 percent in value – he told his accountant he wanted “"to dispose of all hospital stocks in all the accounts that I have control of.” He then asked the Senate Ethics Committee for permission to do so on May 20. He got approval around June 9 and, four days later on June 13, instructed the trustees overseeing his assets to sell the stock. That was done in transactions on July 1 and July 8. Relying on the fact that some insiders unloaded their stock in the June run-up to the July 13 earnings warning, investigators, according to the Journal, are curious about whether Sen. Frist may have been tipped off by his brother, Thomas Frist Jr., a director and the company’s former chief executive. But if Thomas Frist was worried about HCA, he didn’t show it since he held on to his own shares. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (14460)	10/3/2005 4:13:17 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Clear-Cut Case of Nothing By The Prowler The American Spectator Published 10/3/2005 By all rights, the left- and media-created controversy over Sen. Bill Frist's sale of stock from his blind trust should be dead on Monday morning. This is because, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, documents leaked to the media confirm Frist's detailed explanation: that he began the sale process in April, long before HCA stock was dipping or profit warnings were issued. In fact, had Frist been able to sell his shares promptly back in April, he stood to make about 40% more from the sale. But due to his adherence to ethics -- a problem Democrats can't seem to appreciate -- Frist actually did lose quite a bit. But the problems probably won't go away. This is, in part, because various Republicans, not the least of whom is Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox, are recusing themselves from the process due to their ties to Frist or the party. Republicans are concerned. "This is such a clear-cut case of nothing, yet we're all backing off. The Democrats are going to keep this thing alive as long as they can," says a Republican political consultant. But timing may be going Frist's way. The leaking of additional documents confirming his story is expected to help move the ball rolling toward expediting the SEC investigation. That said, an SEC source says at least two career staff there -- both former political appointees in the Clinton Administration -- continue to go full speed ahead for a formal investigation. "They have already drawn up a subpoena list. They want to get into this thing and go beyond HCA and look at other stuff. Someone has to pull the plug," says the SEC staffer. spectator.org

To: Sully- who wrote (14460)	10/4/2005 10:28:19 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Frist: A Man of Character Playing by the Rules by Bill Wichterman townhall.com Oct 4, 2005 Senator Bill Frist has been accused of using insider information to make a profit on the sale of stock in the Healthcare Corporation of America (HCA), a company founded by his father and brother, just before a bad earnings report caused the stock’s value to plummet. To the casual observer, the case may look cut-and-dry: another politician acting like he’s above the law. But I have my own insider information that says the story is wrong. I know Bill Frist. I worked for him for the last 2 ½ years as one of his policy advisors. And this story doesn’t comport with how he runs his office or his life. Nor does it comport with the facts – facts that have been in short supply in many of the media reports. Bill Frist is a man of tremendous integrity. I have always found him to be honest, straightforward, sincere, and genuine. I know some politicians who act one way in public and another way behind closed doors. That’s not Bill Frist. I’ve never heard him say a bad word about anyone, even when he had ample cause. He is charitable with others, and tough on himself. His annual medical missions to treat AIDS victims in Africa are authentic and without fanfare. In fact, he does much more than that for which he seeks and receives no publicity. He’s unfailingly kind to his staff, and inspires deep loyalty and dedicated work through his constant affirmation. That’s the Bill Frist I know. So when he says that the sole reason he sold the stock was to eliminate even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I believe him. Now for the facts, which make the allegations even less plausible. Senator Frist sought the advice of the Senate Ethics Committee time and again, even though he wasn’t required to. When he was first elected, he asked whether he should dispose of the stock , or whether he had to put it in a blind trust. No, he was told. But to go the extra mile, he set up a blind trust anyway. In April, he asked his chief counsel to explore how he could legally and ethically divest himself of any shares of HCA he might still have in his blind trust. He did not know if he still held any stock, but in case he did, he decided to sell it off to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In April, he couldn’t have known anything about the next quarter’s earnings report, because not even HCA could have known that yet. Once he received the final go-ahead from the Senate Ethics Committee on June 13, he acted in a matter of days, asking the trustees to sell whatever HCA stock might remain in his blind trust. For nearly two months, he waited for a written opinion from the Ethics Committee. Once he had it, he directed the stock be sold. His timing was related not to insider information, but to the completion of an Ethics Committee process he had initiated many weeks earlier. But why sell at all? And why claim the need to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest when that was the purpose of the blind trust in the first place? Since Bill Frist came to the Senate, there have been more than a hundred press stories about him and the HCA stock, with political opponents continuing to allege a conflict of interest. It was apparent to Senator Frist that the blind trust, although legally and ethically sound, would not stem these ongoing allegations. So he did what his opponents would have had him do - he divested himself of the HCA stock entirely. But why now? Why not 10 years ago? Well, it’s no secret that a presidential campaign might lay ahead of him. Heaven knows how every corner of the candidate’s life is examined during a presidential race. Better to eliminate the possibility of questions early. I think it’s worth noting that Dr. Frist never worked in an HCA hospital, has never been employed by HCA, and even went so far as to open up a competing hospital at Vanderbilt in Nashville. In an effort to malign Senator Frist and tar the Republicans as the party of corruption, political opponents rely on anonymous staff sources and political innuendo to connect dots that cannot be connected. I predict that upon investigation by independent regulators, Senator Frist will be exonerated. His opponents can hope that by that time their innuendo campaign will so undermine him that even if he is legally cleared he will be politically dead. But their agenda is too clever by half as well as far too obvious, and they will fail. Senator Frist has nothing to hide, and he is fully cooperating with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney. He expects fair treatment, but not special treatment, throughout the investigatory process. Until Senator Frist is fully exonerated by the legal process, he is being tried in the court of public opinion. I am here to testify that Senator Frist is innocent of any wrong-doing, that he is a man of his word, and that he deserves praise, not opprobrium, for his just dealings. Bill Wichterman is a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. townhall.com