Governated

Paul Waldie was interviewed on BNN, and reported that James Thompson didn't do all that well when cross-examined by Eddie Greenspan. He had testified, under direct examination, that he was never told about the individual non-compete agreements and he had not approved a one. He also testified that he had only skimmed the disclosure documents that included them, which did have language that explained the non-competes. Csr. Greenspan walked all over these stipulations. He even asked if Mr. Thompson "went to school to learn how to read documents," and did suggest that Mr. Thompson should have read them. Csr. Greenspan, before he was done with Mr. Thompson, noted that all three audit committee members had said the same things, and had missed the same things.

Near the end of the interview, Mr. Waldie passed along the expectation that David Radler will take the stand at the beginning of next week. The prosecution, though, has a lot more case left: they have yet to deal with the purchase of the New York apartment, the alleged tax fraud, and the 13 boxes that form the basis of the obstruction-of-justice charge. The prosecution has estimated that they will rest about one month later. He finished by noting that the prosecutorial team is diffuse with respect to strategy. [His latest Globe and Mail write-up has additional details.]

The Chicago Tribune has more details on this morning's cross-examination too. Mr. Thompson did admit, "'I should have read them word for word. I didn't,' [to] Edward Greenspan today, his second day of testimony in Chicago federal court." Mr. Thompson's stipulation that he had only skimmed the relevant documents, made under cross-examination yesterday, was pounced on by Csr. Greenspan: "'Hollinger didn't pay you $60,000 to skim documents?' Greenspan asked, referring to his director salary. 'They never asked you, 'Please skim this?'"

Later, Csr. Greenspan suggested that Mr. Thompson did in fact read the documents, which he had "'conveniently forgot'" when the audit committee was criticized for their approvals. This question got the answer, "That is false.'" Bloomberg's report, written by Andrew Harris and Bob Van Voris, contains similar details, but introduces those details with this sentence: "Thompson's statement undercuts his earlier assertion that he wasn't told about fees Black got from companies buying Hollinger properties."

The Daily Herald of Illinois has a report of its own, written by Anna Marie Kucek. Regarding the stipulation, it relates that Mr. Thompson "said during his testimony that he at least skimmed everything that came before the panel and 'obviously' missed some things, but he still believes he acted in the best interest of the company." It ends with an extract in which Mr. Thompson affirmed that he was not a rubber stamp for Mr. Black.

Associated Press' report has been webbed by ABC7 Chicago. It describes the cross-examination that Mr. Thompson went through this morning as "three merciless hours on the witness stand," as Csr. Greenspan, and Patrick Tuite, tore into him. Regarding the latter counsel, Csr. Tuite went so far as to explicitly mention to Mr. Thompson that they were old acquaintances, when outside the courthouse, before starting his cross-examination. He then used a patronizing approach to his questioning, asking once if Mr. Thompson would have preferred relevant parts of the documents be printed in "'bigger letters'" or in "'neon'" lettering. "Tuite reminded Thompson that he testified Tuesday that part of the job of the board of directors was to be careful of the company's interests." Mr. Thompson then reaffirmed that "'I exercised care in all of my duties as a Hollinger director for all of the years I was a director'" when asked if skimming constituted "care." [An AP summary has also been webbed.]

Andrew Stern's report, webbed by Reuters, does go easier on Mr. Thompson. It mentions that the documents being questioned about "often ran to 100 single-spaced pages," but immediately after that, it quotes Csr. Greenspan asking if Mr. Thompson could go to either Mr. Black or Mr. Radler for an explanation, to which the latter did assent.

MSNBC.com has webbed the FT report on this morning's testimony, written by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, which starts off by noting that "Conrad Black is beginning to look more upbeat." It quotes David Gourevitch, who noted that the stumbling block for the prosecution now is: why would the individual non-compete payments be disclosed at all, a point also made by Steve Skurka. "'There are certain crimes that are not self-evidently improper, which in certain circumstances are legal and certain circumstances are not. And those cases turn on evidence of intent and characterisation of what the transaction is about,' Mr Gourevitch says." It mentions later that the prosecution has made some headway, though, especially in casting doubt upon the defense's claim that Mr. Radler and Mr. Black were co-chiefs of different geographical parts of the business.

The most recent reports also have details of the cross-examination by Ron Safer, Mark Kipnis' defense counsel. Csr. Safer zeroed in on the audit committee's approval of the management fees sent to Ravelston. A report by Mary Vallis, webbed by Canada.com, discloses that "Thompson admitted he never asked for documentation supporting the fees that were being charged by Ravelston." The updated Bloomberg report puts dollar and time figure to the fees: "Safer reviewed with Thompson the more than $288 million in management fees and compensation paid by Hollinger to Black's privately-held Ravelston Corp. between 1997 and 2003." When asked by Csr. Safer if he had "'voted for every single dollar'" simply on David Radler's say-so, Mr. Thompson answered "'Yes.'"

Finally, as a re-cap, CBS2Chicago has an original report, by CBS2 correspondent Mike Parker, which primarily covers Csr. Greenspan's aggressive cross-examination. A video clip is embedded in the story page.

-----------

Those who don't like Mark Steyn's coverage may find a kindred spirit in Toronto Life's Douglas Bell, who labels a recent entry in Mr. Steyn's blog "sophistry." The entry in question is two previous to tonight's one, in which Mr. Steyn suggests a blind test with another 11 documents to see if the three audit committee members would miss the same items again.

Roger Martin, also with the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, points out a more serious implication of the three audit committee members' blame-the-CEO defense: what kind of protection for shareholders can be expected if this defense is credible, unless the CEO is not "wily and greedy" in which case their presence is largely superfluous?

The "Black Board" is heating up, with posts from Mary Vallis, which reports that Csr. Safer introduced himself to Mr. Thompson by saying "'Unlike Mr. Tuite, you and I are not old friends,'” and Theresa Tedesco, which discloses that Tom Bower got ejected from the cortroom today.

And finally, Steve Skurka, in "The Crime Sheet," concurs with Roger Martin's assessment after unfurling James Thompson's panolpy of board memberships and corporate-governance CV. He also predicts another exciting, if gruelling, day tomorrow.