Slate's Bizbox
dispatches from the martha stewart trial:

dispatches from the martha stewart trial
entries
12345678910111213
from: Henry Blodget

Some Preliminary Conclusions

Posted Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003, at 10:52 AM ET

Henry Blodget, a former securities analyst, lives in New York City. Read his full-disclosure statement about his potential conflicts of interest in covering the Martha Stewart trial here. For a complete listing of Blodget's dispatches, see Slate's Guide to the Martha Stewart Trial, which also has links to related Slate articles.

The pre-trial forecast

Having now reviewed the allegations and available evidence in "mind-numbing" detail (as one reader put it), we are in a position to draw some preliminary conclusions. Again, only a fraction of the evidence has been released, so these conclusions may change radically during the trial.

First, it seems safe to say that no one will ever know why Martha Stewart sold her ImClone stock on Dec. 27, 2001; even Stewart herself is probably not certain what mix of factors triggered the decision. Stewart probably had many bits of information—sharp price decline, extreme volume, negative rumors, impending announcement, prior intention, etc.—and one of these might have been that Sam Waksal was trying to sell some stock. Depending on how the Waksal information was related and what weight Stewart gave it, this might have been anywhere from the sole reason for the sale to a minor data point. If the U.S. attorney had charged Stewart with insider trading, it wouldn't matter whether the information contributed to the decision: The questions would be whether it was "material nonpublic information" and whether Stewart knew it had been "misappropriated," and if the answers were determined to be "yes," she would have broken the law merely by trading while in possession of it (unless she had previously instructed her broker to sell, in which case the trade would be legal no matter what she knew). But the U.S. attorney didn't charge Stewart with insider trading.

What the U.S. attorney did charge Stewart with was obstructing an insider-trading investigation that determined, ironically, that she shouldn't be charged with insider trading (not necessarily that she didn't commit this offense, just that she shouldn't be charged with it). Just as ironic, even though the trade's legality or illegality will not be formally determined at the trial, it may still be one of the jury's most important considerations. From a moral perspective, if not a legal one, if the jury believes that Stewart's trade was, in fact, "entirely lawful," this will likely appeal to its sense of fairness: It may be illegal to escape from jail, but the crime feels more justifiable if the escapee was wrongly imprisoned in the first place. On the other hand, if the jury believes the trade was illegal, or even shady—an instance of an arrogant, rich person taking advantage of privilege—then the jury may feel Stewart deserves to be punished, even if what she's punished for isn't insider trading (it is no accident that the indictment often implies that Stewart committed this crime). Even if the jury believes Stewart should be found guilty of something, however, its members may still grapple with whether charges of "conspiracy," "obstruction of justice," and "criminal securities fraud" are appropriate. These crimes are serious felonies; people convicted of them usually should go to jail. In this case, however, one can imagine that a reasonable person, having reviewed the circumstances and evidence, might feel that incarceration is neither appropriate nor deserved.

Next, with regard to the obstruction charges, unless Peter Bacanovic suddenly pleads guilty and testifies against Stewart (which seems highly unlikely—he presumably has already resisted intense pressure to do so), the case will likely boil down to the explanations for a couple of phone calls and a handful of oral statements that were neither recorded nor made under oath. Most of these statements concerned either the $60 understanding or the claim that Stewart gave her sell order to Bacanovic instead of Douglas Faneuil. In the first instance, unless Bacanovic or Stewart told someone (Faneuil? Ann Armstrong?) that the agreement was a lie, it is hard to imagine how the prosecution will prove that it didn't exist. In the second, it seems clear that Stewart made inaccurate statements to investigators; whether the prosecution can prove she made them with the intention of obstructing justice, however, is another question. One observer, Judge John E. Sprizzo, who is handling some of the civil cases against Stewart, recently remarked, "This is not the strongest obstruction case I've ever seen."

And then there is the most serious charge: securities fraud. Unlike some observers, I don't think this charge is preposterous. If a key executive intentionally makes false statements about a subject relevant to his or her company's stock price, this can be fairly viewed as a fraud on the shareholders, and Martha Stewart is not only Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia's key executive, but also its brand and primary product, so her reputation is clearly relevant to the stock price. Because the alleged false statements were issued primarily to deny serious (and, in this case, false) allegations, however, I do think the charge is unfair. I also think it sets a dangerous precedent, one that places too much power in the hands of prosecutors, a group whose individual motives and incentives are often no better aligned with the "common good" than those of business executives (and, for that matter, most professionals).

The securities fraud charge was based not on Stewart's public denial of guilt but her alternative (and allegedly false) explanation. The reason this is still problematic, in my opinion, is that it puts Stewart—and any other executive accused of wrongdoing—in a no-win situation: guilty or innocent, the accused cannot risk explaining his or her actions, even for the benefit of investors, for fear of getting slapped with the potentially more serious charge of securities fraud. As the following scenarios demonstrate, moreover, this precedent hurts not only falsely accused executives, but also investors—the people who the securities laws are supposed to protect.

  • If the accused executive is guilty and admits guilt, this is fair. The stock will justifiably get hammered.
  • If the accused executive is guilty, denies guilt, but doesn't explain for fear of getting charged with securities fraud, this is also fair. With no explanation, investors will be skeptical of the denial, and the stock will justifiably get hammered (although, if one is going to consider false explanations a crime, it seems logically inconsistent that false denials are not considered a crime).
  • If the accused executive is innocent, denies guilt, and doesn't explain for fear of getting charged with securities fraud, this is unfair. The lack of an explanation will be construed as guilt, and the stock will get hammered unjustifiably.
  • If the accused executive is innocent, denies guilt, explains, and then gets charged with securities fraud, this is awful, for both the executive and investors—the stock will get hammered even though no one committed a crime.

The last scenario is the closest to the Stewart case. The prosecution obviously believes that Stewart gave a false explanation instead of a true one, but given the extraordinary price that Stewart, Bacanovic, and the shareholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia have already paid as a result of this belief, one hopes that the prosecution's confidence is extremely high (and based on evidence more convincing than "we think she's full of it"). Otherwise, the implication is that we live in a society in which a handful of us can legally declare what is or isn't true and charge anyone who dares disagree with a felony—a situation that seems, if nothing else, distinctly un-American.

The final question is a broader one: whether the alleged actions (these specific actions, not the broader crimes) warrant the destruction of half-a-billion dollars of shareholder value, the expenditure of tens of millions of tax dollars, the dedication of months of effort by some of the most potent, talented investigators and prosecutors in the country, and the cost and wasted time that will accompany any jail sentences—or whether there wasn't some other, more reasonable way the situation could have been resolved. If the only settlement offer from the prosecution was a felony guilty plea, one can understand why Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic would have refused it. Similarly, if the only offer from the defense was complete vindication, one can understand why the U.S. attorney's office, if convinced Stewart and Bacanovic broke the law, would have walked. But if ever a case cried out for a mutually acceptable compromise, this is it.

dispatches from the martha stewart trial
entries
12345678910111213
from: Henry Blodget

Some Preliminary Conclusions

Posted Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003, at 10:52 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Henry Blodget is CEO of Silicon Alley Media, which publishes a network of business news and analysis sites including Silicon Alley Insider, Clusterstock, and The Business Sheet.
Photograph of Martha Stewart (Nov. 20) by Peter Morgan/Reuters. Photographs of: Stewart and Sam Waksal by Chip East/Reuters; Douglas Faneuil by Doug Kanter/Agence France-Presse; and Peter Bacanovic by Stan Honda/Agence France-Presse (Dec. 3). Photograph of Martha Stewart by Anthony Bolante/Reuters (Dec. 19).
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Prosecution could have brought attention to insider trading without a full blown witch hunt attitude. Martha may have had sweet deals whispered in her ears and responded but isn't that more common than we would like to admit? Since she is not being charged with the insider trading the decision to charge her for an obscure related crime is probably not a good idea.

Martha should have spilled the beans immediately as the amount we are talking about is minuscule to her wealth but there was more at stake in poor publicity so she made a serious mistake in judgment. Charge her for being stupid so everyone can move on.

That mistake empowered the government and the SEC who were under staggering pressure from the Enron situations to go for the throat of someone, or anyone but should they have picked Martha? I think the answer is no simply because instead of exonerating the SEC and government, it only spotlights the weakness of the enforcements and laws. The Ken Lay's of the CEO world walking around after cheating people of millions if not billions simply because no provable law has been broken becomes highlighted by the pack attack of one woman being destroyed with something akin to joy...

--Meta4

(To reply, click here)


While I agree that there are parts of the case against Martha that are hard to understand, Blodget's theorizing on her behalf seems quite implausible. Sure, it was possible that Stewart and her brokers discussed the sale without transmitting any material nonpublic information. But think about it: Why would she buy shares in Waksal's company using Waksal's own broker, and call that very broker about selling decisions, if she didn't hope to get inside information?

For Stewart to be innocent, the call would have to go something like this: "Douglas, this is Martha. Before you say anything, shut up and listen. You know I'm calling about ImClone. I know that you are Sam's personal broker. This means that you must be very careful not to divulge any material information you have learned from Sam, not even in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way, because then I might be guilty of insider trading. Instead, I want you to pretend you are not Sam's broker, and please give me only publicly available information. Oh, and please don't think it's strange that I'm calling you about selling at 59 after having previously instructed you to sell at 60." Not very likely.

--Scythe

(To reply, click here)

(12/4)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
The Great Debate
Marcus | Forget Biden. I'd like to see McCain face off against Palin.
Toles: Another McCain SurpriseStumped: Where's Palin's Baby?