Tuesday Disclosures

The Edmonton Sun has a report on today's testimony so far, starting off with a fact unearthed during cross-examination of William Rogers by Peter Atkinson's lawyer, Michael Schachter: Csr. Rogers was asked in by Mr Atkinson, to deliver a second opinion on the disclosure advice given earlier by Torys LLP. (This report has also been webbed by 1130 News.)

[An updated version of the same report, also written by Romina Maurino, has more details on the day's events; it includes a humourous anecdote about Ron Safer's trouble with a recalcitrant easel. It also mentions that non-compete agreements are being challenged in court as of now, although she doesn't mention whether or not these challenges are civil lawsuits.

[The latest updated version of that same report relays the first thirty minutes of Beth DeMerchant's testimony. Ms. DeMerchant testified that both Mr. Atkinson and Jack Boultbee were '"sophisticated clients' and 'savvy people' who quickly understood corporate deals." In particular, Mr. Atkinson struck her as a quick learner of complex points; she assessed Mr. Boultbee as a master negotiator. The report also includes the fact that she agreed to testify as part of a settlement agreement between Torys and Hollinger Int'l, so the direct examination may be a little less chummy than the others were, with the possible exception of Darren Sukonick's.]

Paul Waldie's report starts off with an anecdote about defense counsel Patrick Tuite' errant cell phone. On a later BNN interview, aired at approx. 1:55 PM ET, he mentioned that Csr. Rogers is "key" to the prosecution's case, because he objected to the non-disclosure of the individual non-compete agreements. He's also an important cross-examination witness for the defense, because Torys was Hollinger Int'l counsel, not the firm that Csr. Rogers is with. This part of the trial may seem like a byway, because none of the defendants are charged with any securities violations.

Bloomberg's Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris include, in their own report, that Mr. Atkinson had written Csr. Rogers a thank-you letter for "'agreeing to advise on 10Q and related items,'... in an e-mail May 11, 2001, four days before the company's quarterly financial statement, or 10Q, had to be submitted to the U.S. regulators."

Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, centres on what seems an off-the-cuff speech by Eric Sussman, spoken while the jury had been sent out of the courtroom, which sounds like a warm-up for his closing argument. (The context of the "exchange" with Peter Atkinson's lawyers, though not explicitly identified as such, seems to have been prompted by a motion to dismiss the charges against Mr. Atkinson, or something akin to it.)

WQAD.com of Moline, Illinois has an abridged summary-report from the Associated Press. A more detailed AP report has been webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat; it links the first part of Ms. DeMerchant's testimony to the prosecution's attempt to show that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Kipnis weren't exactly taken advantage of during the time when the suspicious transactions were put together. (This linking seems to be part of an overall prosecutors' theory that the four defendants plus David Radler were the dupers, that the directors testifying for the prosecution were the only dupees, and that Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee were both too smart, knowledgable and quick-thinking to be fooled by Mr. Radler.)

United Press is also on the story now; a short summary of this day's events, which reports that a "war of words" got two counsels in Judge St. Eve's chambers, has been webbed by Monsters and Critics. It didn't indicate that this chambers conference was the "exchange" referred to in the Reuter's report linked to above.

(If it were, then Csr. Sussman was practicing a kind of closing address on the Reuters reporter.)

----------

Another defense counsel, Michael Schachter, gets a tip of the hat from Peter Brieger at the "Black Board" for a zinger he came up with during his cross-examination of Darren Sukonick.