Wednesday's Trial Show

The Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie has a report on the early bits of today's videotaped testimony from Darren Sukonick. Csr. Sukonick testified that "$23-million was added to non-compete payments just days before the deal was signed." Csr. Sukonick also testified under direct examination that, in a 2003 review, he couldn't find any documentation for director approval of the CanWest non-compete payments. In cross-examination, by Michael Schachter, Csr. Sukonick denied being advised by his firm, Torys LLP, to arrange the payments in the way they ended up.

On a BNN interview (2:05 PM ET), Mr. Waldie added these details: Csr. Schachter "took...Sukonick to task," claiming through his questions that Torys had offered tax-avoidance advice, and claimed, through a question, that counselor Sukonick was not being truthful. Sukonick was deposed in Canada, because he couldn't be subpoenaed in the United States. Only Csr. Schachter, lawyer for Peter Atkinson, has been heard from yet; there are three more cross-examinations on the tape.

Thom Weidlich and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg have a report that concentrates on testimony elicited by prosecutor Julie Ruder; it has nothing from the cross-examination.

Reuters' report, written by James B. Kelleher, also recounts the prosecution's questioning. From it (page 2): "Asked by Ruder about the sale of U.S. newspapers around the same time by Hollinger International Inc., Sukonick said he was 'surprised and curious' that non-compete payments to the four executives were not being disclosed in sales agreements." Romina Maurino's latest report, webbed by 570 News, also describes Csr. Sukonick's testimony under direct examination.

The Reuters report has now been updated, with details on the cross-examination added. It mentions Csr. Sukonick's denial, referred to above, and a retraction under that cross-examination, mentioned on p. 2 of the update: "Sukonick said he misspoke in 2003 when asked during Hollinger International's internal probe of the deals when he said he was not aware that non-compete payments were not taxed in Canada."


----------

Mark Steyn, deciding to dabble in arts criticism, has offered his opinion on the "Darren Sukonick Show" in "Der Ring des Noncompeten." His Wednesday post contains a critique of Fred Creasey as a comedy figure, and finds Mr. Creasey's buffoonery to be more than adequate for the purposes of a comedic performance. (It's entitled "The last round-up.")

[An entry by Roger Martin, in Toronto Life's trial blog, also deals with Mr. Creasey's testimony, but is quite serious regarding the implications of it falling apart under cross-examination. From Mr. Martin's entry: "The real fraud artists are the governance theorists who have spent decades trying to convince gullible shareholders that, in combination, boards, lawyers, accountants and security regulators can and will protect them from badly behaved executives. This is, plain and simply, a myth." Despite recent blandishments, in other words, it's still shareholder-save-thyself in the equity markets. Mr. Martin elaborates upon this point with needed candour.]