Martha Stewart Found Guilty

[Rowan]

I'm surprised I thought somehow it wouldn't happen

[braxiss]

wow, i would never have thought she would be found guilty.

goes to show that you never know what will happen in the world.

[Antelope]

They probably need to move this thread to the Cafe.

If she would have told the truth to the investigators she probably could have plea bargained the insider trading charge on the grounds she didn't know she did anything wrong. After all her broker called her. I would have said if I was her that she thought the news was public knowledge since her broker called. The attempt to hide what she did however killed her. Now they want to make an example of her.

Personally I think she is a threat to noone and learned her lesson. I hope they give her a sentence of just a year. That is punishment enough and the point will be out to everyone else on Wall Street. In addition with her in jail for a year it will destroy her company financially. She will recover some what once she is out however her stockholders, people like me and you will lose their money in her company. I always thought her company was a bad investment since everything was based on one person. If she got hit by a car or had a stroke you were screwed. I guess you can add going to jail on that list also.

[BST]

Thanks, antelope. :)

(I'll leave the re-direct in place for a few days so that folks can find it.)

*****

I'm surprised too. I honestly thought that she'd be acquitted. Part of that comes from the fact that I truly believe that she could have had a "sell at $60" order with her broker. On the other hand, that could have been a cover-up.

The "other part" is that, very often, celebrities usually ARE acquitted or just given a "slap on the wrist" penalty.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the sentencing hearing.


My hope is that justice is served and that this wasn't done "just to make an example" of her. I can think of far worse people that do not belong on the streets.

[Antelope]

She got convicted I think because she lied and said she had a limit sell order when she didn't. If she put in such an order there would be a computer record at the firm and she would have been mailed a hard copy. She was a broker herself in her younger days so she knowingly lied to the government investigators. Once she went down that path she was totally going on the I am a famous person and I donate a lot of money to politicians so you can't touch me mode. That is a dangerous game, especially when her donations are to democrats and the republicans are in power.

She definately thought she was above the law and knew what she was doing. I figured all along she would be convicted. I just wondered what all they would get her for. It looks even worse for her than I thought since they found her guilty of conspiracy also.

At this point I think she will get more than the one year I recommend. They are making an example of her and her lying to the investigators makes this more than a simple "You caught me and I'm sorry".

[shiningstar]

wow, i would never have thought she would be found guilty.

goes to show that you never know what will happen in the world.

Neither did I ........I thought the Government would lose this case too .........
especially AFTER they dropped the MAJOR charge against her.

I guess they knew something that the rest of us didn't :wtf:

[BST]

She got convicted I think because she lied and said she had a limit sell order when she didn't. If she put in such an order there would be a computer record at the firm and she would have been mailed a hard copy. She was a broker herself in her younger days so she knowingly lied to the government investigators. Once she went down that path she was totally going on the I am a famous person and I donate a lot of money to politicians so you can't touch me mode. That is a dangerous game, especially when her donations are to democrats and the republicans are in power.

She definately thought she was above the law and knew what she was doing. I figured all along she would be convicted. I just wondered what all they would get her for. It looks even worse for her than I thought since they found her guilty of conspiracy also.

At this point I think she will get more than the one year I recommend. They are making an example of her and her lying to the investigators makes this more than a simple "You caught me and I'm sorry".

Sorry antelope, I didn't know her quite that well. :(

[Rowan]

Sorry I didn't think when I posted this as to where it should be located, oops..

she was conviceted of : conspiracy, making false statements, and obstructon of justice .Martha faces up to 20 years in jail, and 1 million dollars in penalties not counting any fines the securities and excahange commision might apply.
as well the SCC has a civil suit against her and if they win that then she will never be able to head up a publically run company ever again.

All for a lousy 51 thousand dollar savings , something just doesn't add up for me.
Shes a billionaire why worry about such an infetesimally small amount?
I used to work for a company many years ago that had numerous companies trading on the vancouver stock exchange and I saw daily evidence of insider trading it was accepted and practice by all the "suits" in the company. All the games they played drove me crazy I remember numerous times running to the stock exchange with last minute news releases that would not be "released" till the next day because we had left it too late ooopsy...ACK!

[Antelope]

She cooked her goose when she lied to the investigators and the main broker tried to get an assistant to cover for them. I think she could have got over with a slap on the wrist for the actual insider trading but once she refused to take responsibility for that when caught she forced the government to make an example out of her. The head of Imclone is going to prison and he committed less crimes then her even though the dollar value involved was greater. It always amazes me when the rich still try to cheat over something that is of no value on the big scheme of things compared to what they have.

My wife and I watch her show. I will be sad to see her go away. My wife is a stock broker today and I was a stock broker for a little over a year when I first left the active duty Army. Since Martha herself was a former stock broker before she opened her catering business we can tell she knew what she was doing.

[nccdee]

What helped her get convicted was her own assistant (changing the computer record) and her friend (a conversion she had with her on the plane after after she sold the stock.

Why did she do it? It a natural instinct to take care of your business investment. I don't think it had much to do with money itself.

Will she go to jail? Even her friends think will go to jail unless the conviction can be overturned (which is doubtful). I saw on several news programs and each said pretty much the same thing, the prosecutor will ask for no less than six months in jail. The idea is to ensure the judge will impose some jail time.

nccdee

[thomas7g]

I think its her arrogance that got her convicted. I think she exudes a meanness that make people refuse to give her an inch.

[braxiss]

I think its her arrogance that got her convicted. I think she exudes a meanness that make people refuse to give her an inch.



your not the first person i've heard say something along these lines,
there must be alot of truth in these words

[bsg1fan1975]

Its about time that white collar crimes gets acted on!

[Gemini1999]

I'm really surprised at the insensitivity and lack of compassion that is being displayed by some in this topic. I really think it shows as a society how far we have fallen in the last few decades. Instead of offering sympathy, we spew barbs of hate at someone that has done nothing directly to anyone here. Ms. Stewart may have profited by a few thousand by making a bad decision, but she has lost so much more since then because of this. She didn't take money away from anyone - that money would have been lost if she hadn't acted on what her broker advised her to do. She lied about it? Maybe... I don't know many people that don't lie occasionally if it is to their benefit and they think that nobody will find them out. Do I think that she was wrong? Yes - it was a course that she should have avoided by just letting the stock go.

The thing that bothers me most is when I hear how disliked that Martha is - so what? Does that mean that she should go to prison, because some don't like her? She may not be well liked by everyone, but there are a large number of people that feel quite differently about Ms. Stewart. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean that she deserves your hate. She has done more for quite a few people and she did it doing something that she loves doing and is quite good at. I really think that a lot of her detractors are jealous of what she accomplished and want to see her fall just because she is so well known and is quite talented and wealthy. I think that for the most part, she is someone to be prideful of - she came from a poor family and built what she has today from a catering business. How many people do that?

I hope that if I ever make a life-changing mistake in my life down the road, that my friends don't walk away from me when I need their support the most....
________
DANISH COOKING (http://www.cooking-chef.com/danish/)

[braxiss]

why should we feel sorry for someone who breaks the the law????

if i break the law i deserve punishment end of subject.
and just because someone is a celebrity does not put them above the law period.
i really hope that this is the start of things to come and that celebrity's and the rich will start to be held accountable for their actions, just like the rest of us.

[amberstar]

I don't hate Martha and think it would be a wast of taxpayers money to see her go to jail for this. Like I said before people have done what she did for years, she just happened to get caught. This just might make people think twice before breaking the law.

Amber

[braxiss]

I don't hate Martha and think it would be a wast of taxpayers money to see her go to jail for this. Like I said before people have done what she did for years, she just happened to get caught. This just might make people think twice before breaking the law.

Amber


:thumbsup: :salute:

[amberstar]

Thanks Braxiss ;)


Amber

[BST]

I hope that if I ever make a life-changing mistake in my life down the road, that my friends don't walk away from me when I need their support the most....

Good words, Bryan. I would hope for the same. You are a compassionate man and that's something of which to be proud!

:thumbsup:

[thomas7g]

I'm sorry Gem.

I don't hate martha. I actually like her. But i do acknowledge she has a very mean arrogant streak.

I don't think she did anything really wrong. or even worth a trial. Just some small fine should have been levied. Buuuut she is still acting kinda arrogant about this. And If she is refusing to accept responsibility, its hard to be sympathetic. She is going to get a much harsher treatment from everyone.

If she would have just said "I'm horribly sorry. I panicked. I take responsiblity for my errors. I humbly ask for forgiveness" then nothing would have happened. She could have walked away.

But to this date she still is refusing to admit to any wrong-doing. :/:

:)

[nccdee]

Sorry Gemini1999, Martha did not come from a poor family. Her mother was school teacher and her father a successful parmacautical saleman. They were lowermiddle class, but by no means poor.

She is very well education right from the being, graduation from an Ivy League school (Barnard College) in History and Artitectual History. When she graduated she became a very successful stockbroker (this gives her nearly 30 years of business eperience).

What the public opinion about Martha should not matter in a court of law. 12 men and women made their decision on what the heard in the court room. I think the Defense did their jobs to keep people with bias against Martha out of the jury selection. The one juror who spoke, said their decision came down to Martha's own assistant and the changing of the computer records. Even the Defense did not deny this happen and did very little to challenge the testimony.

The punishment should fit the crime. Should she go to jail? Yes. For a long time? No. I think it should be between 8 to 18 months. What the effect were on her personal wealth or her company (these are the result of her decisions not the process of law), should not play in the decision on how long she goes to jail.

I repect and admire people who are able to create new idea and make them succesful. But this has nothing to do with that. It's not her company on trial. Its one person, Martha. She made a bad decision at at time were many American are reeling from Corporate fraud and the down turn of the stockmarket. It only sensationalized the whole affair. If this happened 5 years ago, I believed Martha would have settled out of court with a fine and no jail time. I think Martha took this to court to try save her image.

nccdee

[Darth Marley]

Well, we've got a thread at CA about this, so I'll ask over here: where is the victim of her crime?

(hehehe...all part of my plan to weed out the liberals...hehehe)

[nccdee]

...those Imclone stockholder who did not get the same opportunity to sell their stock before it tanked. You know the one, the 70 year old grandmother who ended up losing 70 percent of her investment and now has to get welfare because she pays a small fortune for her medical for arthritics which flare up on those cold winters night in a small room at the second rate retirement home and only a black & whtie TV as her only company because her family live on the other side of the United States. :/:

nccdee

[thomas7g]

well... technically the initial crime may not be a crime. Its the subsequent actions that were her undoing.

She lied in a criminal investigation, so its the legal system itself which is abused anytime someone tries to subvert it. But the legal system's integrity is important to maintaining the peace so everyone can have a hopefully safe fair life.

At least that's the theory.

[Darth Marley]

...those Imclone stockholder who did not get the same opportunity to sell their stock before it tanked. You know the one, the 70 year old grandmother who ended up losing 70 percent of her investment and now has to get welfare because she pays a small fortune for her medical for arthritics which flare up on those cold winters night in a small room at the second rate retirement home and only a black & whtie TV as her only company because her family live on the other side of the United States. :/:

nccdee

Ah, but weren't the ones that didn't sell at all get the better deal?

I mean, the drug in question was approved for used in Europe. And it was approved for use in the US for a different condition after that. So...the best move for all would have been to keep the stock.

And if the stock was going to tank on bad news, how does Martha getting shafted help out grandma?

[nccdee]

Remember, Imclone CEO (owner) himself believed his stock were going to tank. He sold his stock while they were high. After they tanks, he would then buy back his own stock at rock bottom prices. This is insider trading, taking information that you know will effect a stock and using it for your personal advantage. This is why he is now in jail.

The CEO told Martha (very close friend) that the stock will go down. She acted on it and then tried to cover it up. She was never charged with insider trading, just trying to cover it up.

As for Grandma, lucky for her the company is rebounding. But what if the company went bankrupt because of the bad news. SEC (Security Exchange Commission) monitor thing like that, to prevent CEO from misleading the stockholder (...Hey stockholders, we're all getting rich and everything is fine...Hey, Martha, sell your stock quick we'll be bankrupt by the end of the week). This is why Enron is in such trouble.

nccdee

[bsg1fan1975]

very insightful post nccdee. Ms. Stewart is blinded by her own arrogance that she cannot see what her actions caused to happen. she knew what selling her stock on insider information would do.

[Darth Marley]

While both Martha, her broker, and the Imclone CEO keep from losing their money by selling on insider information, I am still looking for the broader harm.

As panicing investors head for the exits after news about FDA rejection hits the public, the stock price goes down. If you stop Martha & others with inside info from selling, you still have the price on the stock falling. So I do not see it as being something that is actually caused by insider dumping. For that argument to hold up, the public would have to be aware that insiders were selling to hop on the bandwagon and drive the price down.

I understand how many have a moral issue against such insider trading, but I do not see a proven economic effect. More like a jealousy reaction.

[BST]

While both Martha, her broker, and the Imclone CEO keep from losing their money by selling on insider information, I am still looking for the broader harm.

With Imclone, I'm looking too.

However, with Enron, you don't have to look beyond the company walls, for broader harm. Prior to Enron tanking due to the scandal, their employees were forbidden / locked-out from making any changes to their company-sponsored retirement plans (401K, etc). When the bottom dropped out on Enron, many of these folks lost the majority, if not all, of their retirement savings.

Overall, when it comes to investing in the stock market, if you are going to have any substantial amount of assets invested, you NEED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!
That means hiring a trustworthy stock-broker who will look out for your interests, which generally will require paying a "load" or fee, for the service. You'll need a broker anyway, in order to buy or sell stock. Let them do the work for you. It's money well-spent.

Also, spread your investments around and keep some in ultra-conservative mechanisms like bonds, certificaites, and traditional savings accounts. Don't lump ALL of your savings into 1 basket. That way, should one investment go sour, you have at least some cushion to land on.

(No, I'm NOT a stockbroker trying to drum up business!) ;)

[Darth Marley]

Yea, Enron is a different story. It was all allowed by half-assed deregulation.

Any Aussies with an opinion about energy deregulation here?

[nccdee]

Whats the harm?

Ok, Darth. I want to start a company. I sell 49% of my company in stock for $10. You buy my stock and I am able to make a successful business. But I really want to own all of my company. So I start the rumor on Wall Street that I am a about bankrupt. So everyone panic, including you and you end up selling your stock for $2 (remenber the assest of the company alone is worth $10). I buy up all the stock and it quickly returns to $10.

Then I release the annual report which showed I make a huge profit in selling my product, so business was good (oh, lets also add that I was going to be offered a huge government contract but decided to keep it a secret until after I bought back my stock). Since I now own all the stock, I get all the profits. The original stockholder lost $8 in their investment and also lost their share of the profits (dividents). Because of the success in sale combine with my assest, the next time I sell my stock on Wall Street, I will value new issue stock at $20.

What's the harm? Can you imagine companies being run not on selling a product but souly on manipulating the stock on rumors and lies (or even withholding information)?

The idea of stockholders is that everyone shares the profits and losses together. Martha and the CEO are not exempted from that. Thats the risk in being investor. Once again, all information is to be share equally to all shareholders. The CEO is the boss to employee of the company, but his boss is the stockholders. For him to use information for his own use is not just unethical but illegal (he sold his stock based on information that was meant for the company, which, yes, would effect the stock).

BTW. To prevent a stock from tanking from bad new (especially when it will be dramatic), a company can contact the SEC and tell them to suspend all trading of their stock (no one can buy or sell). This is exactly what Marth's OmniMedia did on the day the vertict was given.

Enron is the same principle but on a larger scare. They were manipulating information about the company's finance to get the stock to go up, then the Executives would sell their stock at a high price but tell everyone else to buy. Imclone CEO wanted to keep the stock high so he could sell, and was telling everyone to buy or keep their stock.

nccdee

[Darth Marley]

I am not saying that stock manipulation is moral, or that it should be legal.

The gist of the Martha case is that she sold shares she had inside info would tank.
The cover story was that there was a "stop loss" order to sell at $60/share.
Whether this is a lie or not, nothing she did had a significant effect on Imclone share prices.

The FDA announcment that the new drug was not going to be approved did have an effect on the share price.

Did she lie to investigators (upon whom the burden of proof was bestowed) is certainly possible, but with the dismissal of the insider trading charges, the rest of the case should have been tossed in my opinion.

The notion that little old ladies lost money because of her actions is certainly not proven to my satisfaction.

Enron, Global Crossing, and Worldcom do meet that test, and I would love to see the responsible parties do some hard time.

So my question stands, what was the harm in Martha not losing money in this deal? Who out there lost money just because she didn't?

[nccdee]

It was not her action that effected the stock. It was the fact she benefited from the information.

The CEO was not going to testify that he told Martha to sell the stock because of the information he had. But the fact she attempted to cover it up, showed she knew that what she did was wrong. It hard to prove insider trading. The CEO admitted it (now serving 6 years) but wasn't going to testify against Martha that she knew. He could have simply said to her, "Hey Martha, now is a good time to sell your stock" and left it at that.

The juror said that it was proven by a reasonable dought that Martha knew she did something wrong because she attempted to take action to cover it up. Just because you could not prove insider trading (which was thrown out because there was no other evidence to prove it, unless the CEO was willing to testify to that, which he refuse to do) you don't throughout the entire case.

Just because it a smaller crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.

nccdee

[shiningstar]

I am not saying that stock manipulation is moral, or that it should be legal.

The gist of the Martha case is that she sold shares she had inside info would tank.
The cover story was that there was a "stop loss" order to sell at $60/share.
Whether this is a lie or not, nothing she did had a significant effect on Imclone share prices.

The FDA announcment that the new drug was not going to be approved did have an effect on the share price.

Did she lie to investigators (upon whom the burden of proof was bestowed) is certainly possible, but with the dismissal of the insider trading charges, the rest of the case should have been tossed in my opinion.

The notion that little old ladies lost money because of her actions is certainly not proven to my satisfaction.

Enron, Global Crossing, and Worldcom do meet that test, and I would love to see the responsible parties do some hard time.

So my question stands, what was the harm in Martha not losing money in this deal? Who out there lost money just because she didn't?

I'm with YOU on this one Darth ...................well said :star:

[thomas7g]

It is possible to criminally impede the investigation of an innocent act.

A similiar example, Clinton have sex with Monica is disgraceful to the office of the President, but not illegal. His lying to the Grand Jury to cover it though is a crime.

And in court you can commit purjury even though you aren't the one charged with a crime. Lie when giving testimony And then go to Jail for it.

[nccdee]

Cases are decided on based on evidence and truth of someone's testimony. Jury's decision much determine if what they heard is the truth. There must be consequences for not telling the truth in court.

Thomas7g, when someone lies and the person get off. Then they find out you lie to help him get off. Then, yes, you are just as guilty for aiding and abedding in that the crime and should go to jail (although you would only be charge with perjury). The person who committed the crime can't be charged again because of Double Jeorardy law, so he walk free. As for Clinton, exactly right, he lied and yes, they could have charged him. If they had, Clinton would have pleaded it out and would have just received a fine and probation.

Remember, Martha did a willful act to deceive and cover up, after the facts come out. Martha's assistant broke down and cried on the witness stand. Her belief in telling the truth out weighed her loyalities to Martha.

Martha did have an opportunity to plead it out about a year ago (it would have been a misdemeanor and a fine, no jail time). It would allow her to continue with her company and only a light tarnish image, which she could have easily bounce back from.

nccdee

[cobrastrikelead]

For such a small amount of money, Martha's actions were fool-hardy. But I would guess that she is a rather competitive person, and she hates to take a loss. And given that she is something of a celebrity, that puts a bulls-eye on her back, too. Courts are very reluctant to reverse Jury-decisions. If it is her first-offense, I would think probation would be sufficent. But who knows?

[Antelope]

I like Martha's show and have nothing against her. I hear the bad things about her but I don't care either way.

That being said the news says the government offered here a plea deal last April that would have given her no jail time if she simply admited what she obviously did. She refused to take it. She obviously knew she was guilty. She figured she could beat the system. Now that its time for her to be sentenced they say the smartest thing she should do is come clean and ask for mercy. She continues to lie and proclaim her innocence. At this point she either still thinks she can beat the system on appeal or is to proud to admit the truth. Either way she is still digging herself a deeper hole.