The overnight webbed media reports on the Conrad Black trial evince, for the first time, diverging opinions about the performance of Edward Genson's cross-examination yesterday, with some neutral on it:
1. The Chicago Tribune's report, written by Rudolph Bush, concentrates upon Edward Genson pressing the defense's case that Conrad Black and David Radler were far more independent of each other than they seemed in meetings.
2. From the Sydney Morning Herald, a report that focuses upon the attempts by defense counsels Gus Newman and Benito Romano to undo the earlier testimony of Mr. Burt.
3. Romina Maurino's latest report, webbed by the Hamilton Spectator, also focuses upon Csr. Genson's cross-examination.
4. From Canoe Money, a note that says that Marie-Josée Kravis is expected to testify today, and James R. Thompson will do so once she's done with.
5. Jennifer Wells of the Toronto Star also focuses on Edward Genson's cross-examination yesterday, but begins with an evaluation of it: "[V]aunted defence counsel Eddie Genson showed judge, jury and weary spectators what it looks like when a famous lawyer is not at the top of his game.... [T]here were few [points] to be [scored] through an examination that took up an entire afternoon and included an early rest stop when Genson appeared unwell and asked Judge Amy St. Eve for a break." She notes, perhaps wryly, that everyone outside the courtroom who knows of Mr. Black and Mr. Radler also knows that the two were quite independent of each other, but that fact seemed quite difficult to get across in the courtroom yesterday.
6. The Chicago Sun-Times has a report, by Mary Wisniewski, that sums up yesterday's cross-examination of Mr. Burt, starting with: "A former member of Hollinger International's audit committee admitted he received tens of thousands of dollars a year for his service, but failed to catch a crucial error in financial statements."
7. From the Sun-Times' Post-Tribune, a brief report on the settlement of the Hollinger Inc. tax case; it resulted in a $40 million payment, not the $600 million the Canada Revenue Agency had been hoping for.
8. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail has only a single report out overnight, which concurred with Ms. Wells' evaluation of Csr. Genson's cross-examination yesterday in which he failed to get Mr. Burt to admit that Mr. Black and Mr. Radler were not a team when outside meetings.
9. From the Edmonton Journal, Peter Brieger also reports on Csr. Genson's cross-examination, but takes a more favorable perspective, highlighting Richard Burt's admission that he missed those individual non-compete payments: "'As I said several times, I missed it... It was incumbent on management to bring those (payments) to the audit committee -- not put it in a footnote in financial statements 12 or 18 months later.'"
----------
Mark Steyn's latest post for his trial blog includes a point about the Horizon transaction that has not been mentioned very often by other writers about Conrad Black's business career: the sale to Horizon was less like picking the jewels from the Hollinger Int'l crown and more like packaging Hollinger Int'l's scraps into a doggie bag. He also brings up the point that Mr. Burt knew of the related-party nature of the transaction, or should have known by the reasonable-person standard: "It’s further laid out in the 'fairness statement' Hollinger sought from Dirks, Van Essen and Associates, which concluded that 'the Horizon transaction is fair and equitable to the shareholders of Hollinger'. Richard Burt knew that, too. Yet he told the US government he’d had no idea Black and Radler were part-owners of Horizon."
Also, Douglas Bell of Toronto Life's Conrad Black Trial blog draws a comparison between the"travails of Conrad Black and the travails of Paul Wolfowitz," as informed by an entry in David Frum's blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Steyn is unique in his commments about the Horizon transaction because he "Blackspins" the information to fit his needs. From the Special Committee report we can read that Management (Radler and Black) made the decision to sell off the community newspapers and presented it to the board for approval. Far from being altruistic passive investors in Horizon merely helping out underfunded managers to complete a buyout, Radler and Black designed the proposal and ownership structure of Horizon. One of the patsy executives, Vogt indicated he was unaware of the proposal until after the board meeting in which Radler presented the deal. In addition he preferred not to leave Hollinger but did so, joining Horizon at Radler's insistence.
Radler misrepresented the Horizon deal to the board and obtained a quick "Fairness" letter from DEV by misrepresenting the deal terms to DEV. The special committee also found no evidence the fairness letter had ever been presented to the board.
So management misrepresentation was successful in obtaining board approval and the fairness letter. Hardly stellar support for the defense but Steyn appears not to be interested in even trying to offer balanced coverage.
Actually, the prosecution's reliance upon the Special Committee Report may have hindered the presentation of their case in this way: from my recollection, it came down hard on all three Audit Committee members for failing in their fiduciary duty. If any of the defendants are convicted, the entire report will gain added credence...including the part that impugns the soundness of Mr. Burt, Mrs. Kravis and former Gov. Thompson. As sophisticated people, they surely know it.
Given this disincentive, all three have a corresponding incentive to follow a "testify-to-rule" regimen, which would tend to make the prosecution's case weaker than it otherwise would have been. I know you don't think much of Mr. Steyn, but he seems to have picked up on this, and it is consistent with how Mr. Burt's and Mrs. Kravis' testimony have proceeded.
Post a Comment