Bagged for four federal felonies. As an officer of a public company she deserves to go down hard.
It's bad taste to delight in the misfortune of others I know, but I'm inclined to indulge myself. I haven't enjoyed myself so much in years.
Posted on 03/06/2004 6:40:26 AM PST by yankeedame
Legal
How Martha Ended Up In Court
Forbes.com staff
03.04.04, 12:00 PM ET
Dec. 27, 2001: Martha Stewart sells 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems (nasdaq: IMCL - news - people ). Stewart had bought these shares in 1999, but had been an investor in the company run by her friend Samuel Waksal since the early 1990s. Dec. 27 is the same day Waksal and his daughters tried to sell some of their shares. Both use Merrill Lynch (nyse: MER - news - people ) broker Douglas Bacanovic. Both Stewart and Bacanovic are on vacation.
Dec. 28, 2001: ImClone announces that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected its application for the approval of its one viable product, the highly touted cancer drug Erbitux. ImClone shares drop sharply the next day. (See "Drug Giants Show Their Achilles' Heels.")
Dec. 31, 2001: A Merrill Lynch administrator asks Bacanovic's assistant Douglas Faneuil about sales of ImClone shares by the Waksals and Stewart.
Jan. 3, 2002: Faneuil questioned over the telephone by investigators for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jan. 7, 2002: Bacanovic is back in New York, and he is also questioned over the telephone by the SEC. Bacanovic says he and Stewart had an arrangement that Stewart would sell her ImClone shares if the price fell below $60 per share.
Jan. 28, 2002: SEC demands documents from Bacanovic. He later produces a worksheet with notes that the government alleges were altered after the fact to suggest the existence of the $60 agreement.
Jan. 31, 2002: Stewart alters the text of a phone message recording a call by Bacanovic on Dec. 27, 2001, then orders her assistant to change it back. This is part of the basis for one of the allegations that Stewart told little lies as well as one big one. (See "Martha's Little Lies.")
Feb. 4, 2002: Stewart is questioned by the SEC, the FBI and a U.S. attorney's office. She also says she and Bacanovic had an arrangement to sell the ImClone shares at $60. The conversation is neither tape recorded nor transcribed, leading to some disputes at trial about exactly what was said.
Feb. 13, 2002: Bacanovic testifies before the SEC under oath. He repeats his assertion of the $60 agreement as the reason for the ImClone sale.
Feb. 14, 2002: Merrill Lynch produces a worksheet of Stewart's holdings with an "@60" notation next to ImClone. The government later alleges the document was "false and fraudulent" because the "@60" was added after the fact.
April 10, 2002: Stewart interviewed over the telephone by the SEC, FBI and a U.S. attorney's office. She denies she was tipped off on the selling by the Waksals.
June 2002: Press reports state that Stewart is under investigation by federal agencies for her ImClone sale and her ties to Waksal.
June 7, 2002: Stewart's lawyer tells The Wall Street Journal she was not tipped by Waksal but sold her stock because of a "determination, made more than a month before that trade...to sell if the stock ever went less than $60."
June 12, 2002: Sam Waksal arrested on insider trading-related charges. (See "Is There Hope For Biotech After ImClone?")
June 12, 2002: Stewart issues a press release saying the $60 agreement was made "several weeks" after a tender offer by Bristol-Myers Squibb (nyse: BMY - news - people ), which ended in late October 2001.
June 18, 2002: Stewart tells an investment conference that she was not tipped by Waksal but sold her ImClone shares because of an agreement with her broker.
June 18, 2002: Faneuil tells Merrill Lynch he has hired his own lawyer to represent him in the ImClone trading probe. Three days later, Merrill suspends Faneuil.
June 25, 2002: Stewart ducks questions on regular "Martha Stewart Entertaining" segment on the CBS morning program The Early Show, saying, "I'm focusing on my salad."
Aug. 7, 2002: Waksal indicted on insider trading-related charges. (See "Waksaling Past The Cemetery.")
Oct. 16, 2002: Waksal pleads guilty without plea bargaining and throws himself on the mercy of the court. (See "Mercy Me! Waksal To Seek His Own Deal.")
Late October 2002: Stewart's lawyers submit a Wells Notice to the SEC, giving their reasons why she should not be charged with insider trading. (See "Well, Well, Wells: The Case Against Martha.")
June 4, 2003: Stewart indicted. (See "Martha's Goose On Slow Burn.")
Jan 27, 2004: Trial begins with opening statements. (See "Martha's Defense Gets Weird.")
Jan. 29, 2004: U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum delays Faneuil's testimony when it appears that prosecutors failed to comply with pre-trial disclosure obligations. The judge would later relax her ruling, limiting the delay. (See "Stewart Judge Delays Faneuil Testimony One Week.")
Feb. 2, 2004: Emily Perret, Waksal's assistant, testifies that on Dec. 27, 2001, a harried Stewart called Waksal, asking what was wrong with ImClone. The two never speak. (See "Martha Trial: 'I Need You To Go Find Sam.")
Feb. 3, 2004: Faneuil testifies that on Dec, 27, 2001, Bacanovic told him to tell Stewart that the Waksals were selling their ImClone shares. (See "Martha Trial: Big Chow And The Big Cheese.")
Feb. 4, 2004: Faneuil testifies that Bacanovic pressured him not to tell the whole truth about Stewart's sale. (See "Martha Trial: 'Everyone Is Telling The Same Story.")
Feb. 5, 2004: Faneuil admits he had had some run-ins with Stewart and had complained to his friends about her. (See "Martha Trial: 'Change The Hold Music--Or Else.' ")
Feb. 9, 2004: Faneuil admits he was juggling numerous tasks on the day he says he tipped Stewart. (See "Martha Trial: 'Lots And Lots Of Calls.' ")
Feb. 10, 2004: Ann Armstrong, Stewart's assistant, testifies that Stewart altered a phone log for Dec. 27, 2001, containing a message from Bacanovic and then ordered Armstrong to change it back. (See "Martha Trial: Recovered Trash.")
Feb. 11, 2004: Defense lawyers elicit testimony that there was some confusion about Stewart's precise statements to investigators, which were not recorded or transcribed. (See "Martha Trial: Transcripts And Lies.")
Feb. 18, 2004: Trial focuses on Stewart's statements to investors in her own company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (nyse: MSO - news - people ), which are the basis for the securities fraud charge and whether the charge is legally valid. (See "Martha Trial: Tales From Beyond The Court.")
Feb 19, 2004: Mariana Pasternak, Stewart's friend and travel companion of 20 years, testifies that Stewart spoke about the Waksals' selling their shares in late December 2001. (See "Martha Trial: Russian Assassin.")
Feb. 23, 2004: A defense expert challenges the government's expert testimony that suggested Bacanovic altered his worksheet with the "@60" notation. Also, Faneuil's former lawyer, Jeremiah Gutman, supports his testimony. Gutman dies two days later. (See "Martha Trial: Inkblot Test.")
Feb. 24, 2004: Defense lawyers indicate that neither defendant will take the stand in their own defense. (See "Martha Trial: She Won't Testify.")
Feb. 25, 2004: Defense rests its case after a former Stewart lawyer fails to back her version of what happened when she was interviewed in February 2002. Judge Cedarbaum sets closing arguments for March 1 and 2. (See "Martha Trial: 'No Specific Recollection.' ")
Feb. 27, 2004: Cedarbaum dismisses the most serious charge against Stewart, securities fraud, leaving the jury to decide on the remaining charges. (See "Martha Trial: Count 9 Stuck In Judge's Craw.")
March 5, 2004: Stewart is found guilty on all counts, including one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings. Her sentencing is set for June 17 at 10 a.m. EST. Bacanovic is found guilty of conspiracy, making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. He is found not guilty of making and using false documents.
I ain't seen Hitlery prosecuted yet. If the law was applied evenhandedly there wouldn't be more than two US Senators who would avoid jail.
Where is the eyewitness testimony to Hillary's cattle futures windfall?
And what was the crime, pray tell?
I bet you don't even know.
Probably became Arkancides.
The Feds have made cases on less evidence than exists about Hitlery.
Betcha I do!
LOOK, and LISTEN, CHILDREN...
When the FEDGOV questions ANYONE, they are looking for a SCAPEGOAT or a BUDGET INCREASE!!!!!!!
Ask David Koresh and about 100 followers in prison or the Cemetary...Richard Jewell...Hatfill over the FEDGOV anthrax screwup, etc., etc., etc.
There are Software Packages out there which will trade for you based on such "Inside Trading" "knowledge" as Volume, Volume Trend, First derivative [rate of change]; Second Derivative [Inflexion Point]; Price Action, etc., etc., etc.
Hedged.com...BestChoiceSoftware.com are two packages that come to mind...there are others, I suspect.
Moral...DON'T TALK TO THE GOVERNMENT!!!
After watching the Forensic Files series on Court TV, it never ceases to amaze me that even with Forensics...most cases require some form of admission, if not a full confession.
Bill Clinton had it right...COMPARTMENTALIZE!!!
And make the B*STARDS PROVE IT!!!
For the record, Tony Galan of Hedged.com was recommending that listeners "Dump ENRON on Monday at the Market" a full SIX MONTHS before it went Belly Up! He didn't know about "CHEWCO" and other "special purpose entities" cooked up by Arthur Anderson, Fastow, Skilling, etc., but SOMEONE did...and the Software did the rest!!!
No you don't, or you would have said it.
Who are you jealous of today?
Bagged for four federal felonies. As an officer of a public company she deserves to go down hard.
It's bad taste to delight in the misfortune of others I know, but I'm inclined to indulge myself. I haven't enjoyed myself so much in years.
Nothing about insider-trading, was there?
I am going to save your ID for when Martha wins on appeal. :^)
Two charges of lying to Federal investigators, a count of conspiracy and a obstruction of justice charge. I'm not making it up. She's been convicted of four Federal felony charges.
Rub my nose in it when she wins her appeal.
Until then she stands as a convicted felon.
That would only be under the worst of Judges.
She does not have a prayer.
"You talkin' to me?"
Has an appeal been filed? What were the grounds?
There are always appeals. Even someone of your limited intellectual capacity should know that.
The reason Martha was not charged with insider trading was because her broker told her Sam Waskell was selling.
That's not insider trading.
The prosecutor manufactured unrelated crimes to make a name for himself.
But you don't care if Martha committed an actual crime.
You just want to see her punished because she makes you feel inferior, which you are.
Yeah, well, I guess you've run rings around me logically.
I withdraw from the battlefield appropriately chastened.
Yeah, you're great. Ad hominum on your opening post to me.
I suppose you couldn't understand that I asked two simple questions: (1)whether an appeal had been filed, not whether there would be one, and (2) what the grounds were if one had been filed.
Perhaps you should take a course in reading comprehension before launching into personal insults. No matter how limited my intellectual capacity might be, you post is obvious proof that your's is lesser.
Bye.
Every article about Martha's conviction so far has quoted her saying she will appeal.
Perhaps it is you who should take a course in reading comprehension.
I have no problem with comprehension. You are simply refusing to give an answer to a question I posed to you and in the process trying to insult my intelligence. I posed my two questions to you since you were making statements that indicated you were aware of information I did not have, that Martha would win her appeal, and your statement was written in a manner that you might have knowlege about this appeal. I was interested in possibly discussing the grounds such an appeal had if it had been filed. Since it is apparent now that no appeal has been filed, you could have simply said that one had not been filed and delayed the discussion till such a time as one had been so that there would be something factual to be discussed. Your responses have convinced me that there is no use to attempt any serious discussion with you in the future about this (or any other) matter should an appeal be filed. I assume that you just like trying to pick fights and insulting people who haven't made a provocative statement to you. Forget trying to be considered seriosly.
It is called "a mental stop", and some people use it to avoid the extra charges that go along with a formal "stop order", particularly at such "hold and hope" brokerages as Merril Lynch [Pierce, Fenner & Smith].
"SWING TRADERS" often use them since they move "stops" up and down often, and would incur enormous commission charges otherwise!
In any situation where you become a "person of interest" to the govt, whether that be a stock trade or a self-defense shooting, the first rule is "Shut Up!". The least statement gives them something to build on, as they then ask you about contradictions between your statement and others
Just Say Nothing. Do not even reveal that you understand english. Just stand mute.
Insider trading
Trading by officers, directors, major stockholders, or others who hold private inside information allowing them to benefit from buying or selling stock.
Insider information
Relevant information about a company that has not yet been made public. It is illegal for holders of this information to make trades based on it, however received.
If Martha was guilty of insider trading, pleae explain why the prosecutors did not charge her with it?
I don't know. Why don't you email them and ask them about it?
Because they can't prove it. The only way she could be guilty of it is if they could prove their key witness, the associate broker, gave her inside info. Even though he admitted to it, and signed a plea saying he did, they still couldn't prove it. I think that says a lot about the way they treated him.
Here's the plea: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/imclone/usfaneuil100202inf.pdf. Basically it's trumped up B.S. Maybe since the guy was allegedly a druggy, they threatened to get him for dealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.