It's interesting that the Breeden Report [copy of it courtesy of the Chicago Tribune] used the word "levered" on p. 2: the subsequent fate of all three companies gives a fresh reminder to the concept that leverage is a two-edged sword. Over the last three years, from early April 2004 to today:
- The price of Sun-Times Media Group (formerly Hollinger International) common shares has declined close to 74%, from approx. $20/share to its most recent close of $5.30 (derived from this chart and its most recent quote);
- The common shares of parent company Hollinger Inc. has declined close to 95%, from about C$7.20/ share to its most recent close of 38 Canadian cents (derived from this chart);
- The parent company of Hollinger Inc., Ravelston, filed for bankruptcy on April 20, 2005, as did Argus and five associated companies associated with the latter. (Found in this Hollinger Inc. Status Update, in the second-to-last item, "Ravelston Receivership and CCAA Proceedings.") Since the bankruptcy proceedings are still in mid-stream, due to what could euphemistically described as "legal complications," there's no way of telling how far it's sunk. I suspect, though, that "declined close to 100%" is pretty accurate.
A sobering lesson for anyone who still believes in the efficaciousness of holding companies. FYI: Conrad Black was ousted from Hollinger International in December, 2003, and from the chairmanship of Hollinger Inc. on Jan. 18, 2004. (See this timeline.) The time between each ouster and April 2004 is enough for the "Black Factor," depressing the shares of each, to have vanished.
The Breeden Report was released on August 31, 2004.
[Thanks to Mark Steyn for bringing this subject up. Gordon Paris was CEO of Hollinger Int'l from about November 19, 2003, until Nov. 15, 2006.]
Also: as this August 2005 Canadian Business article recounts, Conrad Black being ridiculous with regard to Al Capone may have a very unhumorous blowback, in the end.
[Someone else may learn the hard way that ridiculousness of this sort does make one a marked man in moralizing times.]
Saturday, April 7, 2007
No Media Roundup Warranted Today; Mentions Instead
There were no new stories on the Conrad Black trial today, as far as I could find; the only reports to come in overnight covered Judge St. Eve's decision not to release the name of the jury, such as this one in the Chicago Tribune. It reports that she cited the appeal of the George Ryan trial as a reason for denying their motion. [This ruling has also been webbed by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and by the First Amendment Center. The Center's webbing of the AP report on the denial has a link to the text of her ruling.]
So, in lieu of a roundup, here are two blog items, a Free Republic post, an opinion piece and a lifestyle write-up that mention the trial:
- From "The Organic Leadership Blog," a twice-monthly round-up of business leadership articles, called "Carnival of Leadership Growth." One of its entries uses the Conrad Black trial as a case study and is from "SoxFirst."
- From "Skipper," a blog entry on Arnold Toynbee's theory of growth and decline of civilizations, which mentions Conrad Black as one symptom of a civilization in "the 'abundance-selfishness-apathy' stage."
- From the Free Republic: a posting of a Mark Steyn interview, which starts off with the trial and ends with Denny Doherty's recent demise.
- Pamela Wallin writes, as an opener to discussing what the American media is presently fixated upon, that the Conrad Black trial isn't attracting much mainstream media attention in the United States because the dollar amounts involved are small in comparison to that of a "real" corporate scandal. ('Call us when it hits a billion,' to put it one way.)
- Shinan Govani of the National Post notes how the lives of Richard Nixon and Conrad Black have become intertwined, with the "sluts" aspersion delivered by Barbara Amiel Black as an opener to it. (Mr. Black has recently written a biography of Richard M. Nixon.)
Also: Toronto Life's blog on "The Trial of Conrad Black" has lively commentary on the trial, as well as a top-stories list of its own.
So, in lieu of a roundup, here are two blog items, a Free Republic post, an opinion piece and a lifestyle write-up that mention the trial:
- From "The Organic Leadership Blog," a twice-monthly round-up of business leadership articles, called "Carnival of Leadership Growth." One of its entries uses the Conrad Black trial as a case study and is from "SoxFirst."
- From "Skipper," a blog entry on Arnold Toynbee's theory of growth and decline of civilizations, which mentions Conrad Black as one symptom of a civilization in "the 'abundance-selfishness-apathy' stage."
- From the Free Republic: a posting of a Mark Steyn interview, which starts off with the trial and ends with Denny Doherty's recent demise.
- Pamela Wallin writes, as an opener to discussing what the American media is presently fixated upon, that the Conrad Black trial isn't attracting much mainstream media attention in the United States because the dollar amounts involved are small in comparison to that of a "real" corporate scandal. ('Call us when it hits a billion,' to put it one way.)
- Shinan Govani of the National Post notes how the lives of Richard Nixon and Conrad Black have become intertwined, with the "sluts" aspersion delivered by Barbara Amiel Black as an opener to it. (Mr. Black has recently written a biography of Richard M. Nixon.)
Also: Toronto Life's blog on "The Trial of Conrad Black" has lively commentary on the trial, as well as a top-stories list of its own.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Notice of yet another Amazon review
[CORRECTION NOTICE: According to Richard Siklos, the '72%' factoid included below, now 'almost 72%,' covers the years "between 1997 and 2003" (Shades of Black, p. 438.) Apologies to any who were misled.]
I've submitted a short review of Wrong Way by Jacquie McNish and Sinclair Stewart to Amazon.com. As a preview, I offer this guess as to the historical significance of the Conrad Black trial: it will be to shareholder rights in America what the 1986 Dominion Stores case was to employee-pension rights in Ontario, Canada. (See item #3 in the opinion-and-analysis-piece list in the bottom half of this entry for a brief explanation.) The factoid that's stuck in many people's minds about this case is the egregious ratio, mentioned in Wrong Way as well as in other write-ups, of top executive compensation to Hollinger International's total net income from 1997 to 2003: almost 72%. (Wrong Way, p. 255) In terms of compensation packages for a company of comparable assets, though, I suspect that the compensation levels enjoyed by Mr. Black, et. al. weren't that far out of line. In this sense, the Conrad Black case is really a dredging of the top-executive mire, if in a spot of it that particularly inflames public sensitivities (or, perhaps, outrage.) It's a safe guess that, if Mr. Black is exculpated, then new corporate-governance laws will swiftly follow, ones that may go sufficiently far as to effectively neuter controlling shareholders. Taking companies private should enter a renascence as a result.
The Amazon review is now live.
I've submitted a short review of Wrong Way by Jacquie McNish and Sinclair Stewart to Amazon.com. As a preview, I offer this guess as to the historical significance of the Conrad Black trial: it will be to shareholder rights in America what the 1986 Dominion Stores case was to employee-pension rights in Ontario, Canada. (See item #3 in the opinion-and-analysis-piece list in the bottom half of this entry for a brief explanation.) The factoid that's stuck in many people's minds about this case is the egregious ratio, mentioned in Wrong Way as well as in other write-ups, of top executive compensation to Hollinger International's total net income from 1997 to 2003: almost 72%. (Wrong Way, p. 255) In terms of compensation packages for a company of comparable assets, though, I suspect that the compensation levels enjoyed by Mr. Black, et. al. weren't that far out of line. In this sense, the Conrad Black case is really a dredging of the top-executive mire, if in a spot of it that particularly inflames public sensitivities (or, perhaps, outrage.) It's a safe guess that, if Mr. Black is exculpated, then new corporate-governance laws will swiftly follow, ones that may go sufficiently far as to effectively neuter controlling shareholders. Taking companies private should enter a renascence as a result.
The Amazon review is now live.
Media Roundup: Week 3 Ends With Prosecution Ostensibly Weak
As the Conrad Black trial enters the usual three-day weekend hiatus, the overnight media reports are reassessing the prosecution's resurgence that was reported the night before last:
1. The Chicago Tribune's report on the cross-examination of the latest witness, George Creasey.
2. From NewsMax.com, a report that highlights Mr. Creasey's wobbly recall.
3. CBC News has a report that includes one of the questions of Mr. Creasey by Conrad Black's co-chief counsel, Eddie Greenspan, yesterday: "'You rounded up?' Greenspan asked Creasey. 'You made the tax bill bigger? H&R Block would never do that, would they?'" This question refers to Mr. Creasey's calculation of the tax liability for the Bora Bora flight.
4. The International Herald Tribune has a wrapup of the most telling points that Csr. Greenspan made in his cross-examination of Mr. Creasey yesterday.
5. From 570 News, a brief wrap-up and note that Mr. Creasey will be cross-examined again Monday, followed by a videotape of the next witness, Torys LLP lawyer Darren Sukonick.
6. The Ottawa Citizen has a subscribers-only report.
7. The Boston Globe report mentions another document whose existence Mr. Creasey couldn't remember.
8. From the Calgary Sun, a write-up that mentions the frequency of Mr. Creasey's memory lapses, with respect to "meetings and memos that were at least five-years-old[sic]." Also webbed by the Courier.
9. The Australian has a report that relays Mr. Creasey's testimony under direct examination, with a costing of $8.5 million for the annual cost of the plane used by Mr. Black.
10. The write-up from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Witness' math skills questioned," reports on both Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination and Patrick Tuite's earlier memory checks.
11. The Globe and Mail's latest report, by Paul Waldie, starts off with this sentence: "If the prosecutors going after Conrad Black hoped to build their case around the testimony of former Hollinger Inc. executive Fred Creasey, they're in trouble." Like the Australian report, it recounts the testimony elicited by both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey, but it also mentions that the "half" of the cost of the Bora Bora trip that Mr. Black offered to pay was reported as a taxable benefit on his T4 income tax statement for that year.
12. An AP story, posted by the Belleville News-Democrat, has revealed that Judge St. Eve will not allow the names of the trial jurors to be made public. So, the Chicago Tribune is out of luck. [It's also been webbed by Business Week, and has propagated to quite a few media Websites in the last hour or so. The author of it, Mike Robinson, included copious quotes from Judge St. Eve's ruling; those quotes give her reasoning behind the rejection of the Tribune's motion.]
Also: both Tom Bower's biography of Conrad Black and Mr. Black's own biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt have gotten a mention in a column on biographies, by the Times' Ben Macintyre, which discusses how far the genre has come from its servants'-entrance origins.
1. The Chicago Tribune's report on the cross-examination of the latest witness, George Creasey.
2. From NewsMax.com, a report that highlights Mr. Creasey's wobbly recall.
3. CBC News has a report that includes one of the questions of Mr. Creasey by Conrad Black's co-chief counsel, Eddie Greenspan, yesterday: "'You rounded up?' Greenspan asked Creasey. 'You made the tax bill bigger? H&R Block would never do that, would they?'" This question refers to Mr. Creasey's calculation of the tax liability for the Bora Bora flight.
4. The International Herald Tribune has a wrapup of the most telling points that Csr. Greenspan made in his cross-examination of Mr. Creasey yesterday.
5. From 570 News, a brief wrap-up and note that Mr. Creasey will be cross-examined again Monday, followed by a videotape of the next witness, Torys LLP lawyer Darren Sukonick.
6. The Ottawa Citizen has a subscribers-only report.
7. The Boston Globe report mentions another document whose existence Mr. Creasey couldn't remember.
8. From the Calgary Sun, a write-up that mentions the frequency of Mr. Creasey's memory lapses, with respect to "meetings and memos that were at least five-years-old[sic]." Also webbed by the Courier.
9. The Australian has a report that relays Mr. Creasey's testimony under direct examination, with a costing of $8.5 million for the annual cost of the plane used by Mr. Black.
10. The write-up from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Witness' math skills questioned," reports on both Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination and Patrick Tuite's earlier memory checks.
11. The Globe and Mail's latest report, by Paul Waldie, starts off with this sentence: "If the prosecutors going after Conrad Black hoped to build their case around the testimony of former Hollinger Inc. executive Fred Creasey, they're in trouble." Like the Australian report, it recounts the testimony elicited by both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey, but it also mentions that the "half" of the cost of the Bora Bora trip that Mr. Black offered to pay was reported as a taxable benefit on his T4 income tax statement for that year.
12. An AP story, posted by the Belleville News-Democrat, has revealed that Judge St. Eve will not allow the names of the trial jurors to be made public. So, the Chicago Tribune is out of luck. [It's also been webbed by Business Week, and has propagated to quite a few media Websites in the last hour or so. The author of it, Mike Robinson, included copious quotes from Judge St. Eve's ruling; those quotes give her reasoning behind the rejection of the Tribune's motion.]
Also: both Tom Bower's biography of Conrad Black and Mr. Black's own biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt have gotten a mention in a column on biographies, by the Times' Ben Macintyre, which discusses how far the genre has come from its servants'-entrance origins.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Nothing On The Trial On The Verdict; "Sub" Found
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had nothing relating to the Conrad Black trial in it. So, in lief of the standard reportage on it, I point to a column in the Chicago Reader, the latest "Hot Type," in which Sam Zell is compared to Conrad Black. The section in the column devoted to this question, "Sam Zell: An Old-Fashioned Publisher?," answers (despite the fact that the two men in question took over different papers) that there is a certain similarity between the old proprietor and the new, in extravagance and in a causative similarity to William Randolph Hearst (one of Conrad Black's heroes.)
Enjoy your "Chicago homecoming," Mr. Zell, and be contented with the cheery realization that you weren't given the full-ignore treatment instead.
Enjoy your "Chicago homecoming," Mr. Zell, and be contented with the cheery realization that you weren't given the full-ignore treatment instead.
Mr. Creasey and "Csr. Rollback"
The Globe and Mail has an item, by Paul Waldie, reporting that Fred Creasey was flummoxed by the defense presenting a document, one that he admitted to signing after being shown it, which mentioned the non-compete agreements, long before 2002: "under cross examination Thursday morning by Patrick Tuite, a lawyer for John Boultbee who is on trial with Lord Black, Mr. Creasey was shown a regulatory filing signed by him in November, 2000, that mentioned the non-compete payments."
[A BNN interview with Mr. Waldie mentions the compound confoundment. Look for the 1:40 PM ET clip near the bottom of BNN's home page. According to Mr. Waldie, there's more cross-examination in the afternoon shift. He also anticipates redirect, with this forecast: the prosecution will clarify that the documents signed did not specify any of the defendants as payees.]
Other reports are beginning to hit the Internet. From WQAD in Moline, Illinois, a short AP report which implies that Mr. Creasey was confounded over several points: "Creasey often had to confess that he had no memory of meetings and memos that were at least five years old." A more detailed report, by AP's Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It mentions that Mr. Creasey used the phrase "vague recollection" when cross-examined, and ends with a coup-de-grace. "[H]e said that Boultbee never asked him to change, erase, shred or hide documents either" is part of it. This longer report has also been webbed by the Toronto Star.
[Today's cross-examination was also mentioned on BNN, on its program "Squeeze Play;" the discussion aired at about 5:10 PM ET today. The co-host Kevin O'Leary, predicted that "every one" of the documents relating to the non-competes will be shown to have been passed by the board of directors, and that "every single" non-compete payment was disclosed in a timely manner. This thoroughness, he added, will emerge over the next several weeks. FYI: Mr. O'Leary is rather forthright.]
A Reuters write-up, by Andrew Stern, has also been webbed, by EarthTimes.org. It starts off by disclosing that some of the payments under allegation "were reported to U.S. government regulators in a timely fashion and not hidden as prosecutors have suggested". It also mentions that Csr. "Tuite suggested that Creasey was trying to 'mislead the jury,' but he was cut off after objections from prosecutors." The CBC has webbed a slightly different version of this report, with a few background facts snipped out, and a quote from a 2002 Hollinger Int'l document, prepared for the February meeting of the audit committee, added in. A much smaller write-up, with little detail about Fred Creasey's grey day, has been webbed by LawFuel, and AP has its "Summary Box" out now, with the note that the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey will continue on Monday, when the trial resumes.
Csr. Tuite wasn't the only defense counselor whose cross-examination knocked down Mr. Creasey's testimony, though. Peter Brieger of the National Post has details on Edward Greenspan's questioning, which got Mr. Creasey's lack of knowledge of how much business was conducted during the flight to Bora Bora as well as the fact that Hollinger Int'l. was obliged to pay for the fixed costs for the planes anyway, on the record.
The latest from 680 News has CP's Romina Maurino back on the beat: her latest piece makes the point that Conrad Black's attempt at image management, through writing articles for the press, may very well "galvanize" the prosecution "to seek a harsher sentence if he is convicted..." [She also mentions Mr. Black pouring himself into an unrelated activity when under stress: two of these activities during the trial itself were his attendance at George Jonas' book launch party, and his penning an article on Mario Dumont's unexpected success in the recent Quebec election. You can judge for yourself if Conrad Black has an unrepentant attitude in his March 10th column, published and webbed by the National Post.]
Mark Steyn has heard of Mr. Creasey's witness-stand troubles...and he did revise his earlier assessment of Mr. Creasey's value to the prosecution. [His second post for today speculates on why the prosecution seems to have miscalculated in their handling of the case.]
-----------
This seems the best time to call attention to the webbed Globe article, which anointed Conrad Black as Report on Business' "Man of the Year 1978." In this congratulatory mini-biography of Black '78, it mentions Massey-Ferguson, the company that Mr. Black later pulled Argus out of by giving Argus' shareholdings in it to the Massey employees' pension fund. He did so on October 1, 1980, after an intial turnaround under Victor Rice, its then CEO, went sour. (Richard Siklos, Shades of Black , p. 66.) As of the time of Mr. Black's anointing, Victor Rice was 37 years old, the same age then as Eric Sussman is now (Admittedly, I'm that age too.) I am happy to relate, though, that Mr. Rice grew into the job: "$1 invested in Massey [later Varity Corp and Lucas Varity plc.] stock when Argus walked away from it would have been worth nearly $75 by 1999." (Ibid , p. 68.)
So, there's hope, in their long-term futures, for thirty-seven year old wunderkinds who, somewhat later, end up hapless during unexpected times.
[A BNN interview with Mr. Waldie mentions the compound confoundment. Look for the 1:40 PM ET clip near the bottom of BNN's home page. According to Mr. Waldie, there's more cross-examination in the afternoon shift. He also anticipates redirect, with this forecast: the prosecution will clarify that the documents signed did not specify any of the defendants as payees.]
Other reports are beginning to hit the Internet. From WQAD in Moline, Illinois, a short AP report which implies that Mr. Creasey was confounded over several points: "Creasey often had to confess that he had no memory of meetings and memos that were at least five years old." A more detailed report, by AP's Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It mentions that Mr. Creasey used the phrase "vague recollection" when cross-examined, and ends with a coup-de-grace. "[H]e said that Boultbee never asked him to change, erase, shred or hide documents either" is part of it. This longer report has also been webbed by the Toronto Star.
[Today's cross-examination was also mentioned on BNN, on its program "Squeeze Play;" the discussion aired at about 5:10 PM ET today. The co-host Kevin O'Leary, predicted that "every one" of the documents relating to the non-competes will be shown to have been passed by the board of directors, and that "every single" non-compete payment was disclosed in a timely manner. This thoroughness, he added, will emerge over the next several weeks. FYI: Mr. O'Leary is rather forthright.]
A Reuters write-up, by Andrew Stern, has also been webbed, by EarthTimes.org. It starts off by disclosing that some of the payments under allegation "were reported to U.S. government regulators in a timely fashion and not hidden as prosecutors have suggested". It also mentions that Csr. "Tuite suggested that Creasey was trying to 'mislead the jury,' but he was cut off after objections from prosecutors." The CBC has webbed a slightly different version of this report, with a few background facts snipped out, and a quote from a 2002 Hollinger Int'l document, prepared for the February meeting of the audit committee, added in. A much smaller write-up, with little detail about Fred Creasey's grey day, has been webbed by LawFuel, and AP has its "Summary Box" out now, with the note that the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey will continue on Monday, when the trial resumes.
Csr. Tuite wasn't the only defense counselor whose cross-examination knocked down Mr. Creasey's testimony, though. Peter Brieger of the National Post has details on Edward Greenspan's questioning, which got Mr. Creasey's lack of knowledge of how much business was conducted during the flight to Bora Bora as well as the fact that Hollinger Int'l. was obliged to pay for the fixed costs for the planes anyway, on the record.
The latest from 680 News has CP's Romina Maurino back on the beat: her latest piece makes the point that Conrad Black's attempt at image management, through writing articles for the press, may very well "galvanize" the prosecution "to seek a harsher sentence if he is convicted..." [She also mentions Mr. Black pouring himself into an unrelated activity when under stress: two of these activities during the trial itself were his attendance at George Jonas' book launch party, and his penning an article on Mario Dumont's unexpected success in the recent Quebec election. You can judge for yourself if Conrad Black has an unrepentant attitude in his March 10th column, published and webbed by the National Post.]
Mark Steyn has heard of Mr. Creasey's witness-stand troubles...and he did revise his earlier assessment of Mr. Creasey's value to the prosecution. [His second post for today speculates on why the prosecution seems to have miscalculated in their handling of the case.]
-----------
This seems the best time to call attention to the webbed Globe article, which anointed Conrad Black as Report on Business' "Man of the Year 1978." In this congratulatory mini-biography of Black '78, it mentions Massey-Ferguson, the company that Mr. Black later pulled Argus out of by giving Argus' shareholdings in it to the Massey employees' pension fund. He did so on October 1, 1980, after an intial turnaround under Victor Rice, its then CEO, went sour. (Richard Siklos, Shades of Black , p. 66.) As of the time of Mr. Black's anointing, Victor Rice was 37 years old, the same age then as Eric Sussman is now (Admittedly, I'm that age too.) I am happy to relate, though, that Mr. Rice grew into the job: "$1 invested in Massey [later Varity Corp and Lucas Varity plc.] stock when Argus walked away from it would have been worth nearly $75 by 1999." (Ibid , p. 68.)
So, there's hope, in their long-term futures, for thirty-seven year old wunderkinds who, somewhat later, end up hapless during unexpected times.
Media Roundup: More Bora, Less Boring
Here is a broad sample of stories about Wednesday's revelations in the Conrad Black trial:
1. From the Chicago Tribune's Rudolph Bush: highlights from Fred Creasey's testimony yesterday afternoon. Contains a breakdown of the $7 million/year corporate jet costing: $4.6 million/yr for Conrad Black's jet, and "$2 million to $3 million" per year for David Radler's.
2. From NewsMax.com, a summarization of both Angela Way's testimony and Mr. Creasey's.
3. ABC Money has a write-up that includes, at the end of it, a fuller quote from that E-mail from Mr. Black to Mr. Creasey about the Hollinger Inc. audit committee, along with a next-day softening of the message: "One day later, a contrite sounding Black sent another memo saying that his missive of the previous day may have sounded 'a bit abrupt.'" It also reports that Jack Boultbee considered the jets to be a "'reasonable business expense'."
4. Canadian Business has a brief item, which reports that there'll be more disclosures from Mr. Creasey today as his direct-examination testimony continues.
5. Andrew Clark of the Guardian reports that a logbook showing all of the flights Conrad Black made in 2001, including the vacation to Bora Bora, was introduced into testimony yesterday afternoon by questions from prosecuting attorney Julie Ruder. Also in his report: the only flight that seemed dubious to Mr. Creasey was the flight to Bora Bora; as Mr. Clark recounts, Mr. Creasey didn't quite know the precise location of it. Mr. Clark has also written a longer piece, on the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" and what this imples for Black's life after the trial is over, for his "On America" column.
6. From the Montreal Gazette, Peter Brieger reports that Mr. Creasey "was accustomed to Conrad Black and his right-hand man David Radler running a tab of up to $10 million annually on the newspaper publisher's two private jets..." He also costs out the Bora Bora trip at a precise $565,326. His article supplies jet costs that are different from Mr. Bush's more recent Tribune piece, as do the others below which split those costs between Black and Radler.
[A more recent report by the same Mr. Brieger, in the National Post, shrinks that figure to $9 million. It's a complete summation of yesterday's testimony, and is much longer than the Gazette report. ]
7. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail goes into detail about Mr. Creasey's testimony concerning his 2003 hunt for documentation on the non-compete agreements that are at the heart of the prosecution's case. Excerpt: "After about a week of reviewing the information, Mr. Creasey recorded his findings in a memo, portions of which were read out in court. He concluded that it did not appear that payments to the individuals had been approved by company directors. He also found that some of the underlying documents approving the payments to Hollinger Inc. had been signed by Mark Kipnis, a company lawyer at Hollinger International at the time who is also on trial. Mr. Creasey told the jury that Mr. Kipnis did not have signing authority for Hollinger Inc."
8. The New York Post has a wrap-up of Angela Way's testimony under cross-examination.
9. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's report on Mr. Creasey's yesterday-afternoon testimony includes the methodology that Mr. Black used to come up with the 50/50 split of costs for the Bora Bora trip.
10. Mark Steyn's blog entry discussing yesterday afternoon's testimony acknowledges that Mr. Creasey is the best prosecution witness so far but concludes: "As a criminal act, Bora Bora is several blades short of a grass skirt..."
11. Another report from the Globe and Mail's Mr. Waldie follows up on the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the name of the jurors released. He also reports on two other expected rulings: on a motion from David Radler's company, Horizon Communications, to quash a subpoena by the defense for it to release certain documents; and, on a motion from the defense asking that Mr. Creasey's further testimony, on the Bora Bora trip, be limited.
12. The latest, televised, report from from CBC Newsworld's Mike Hornbrook: a brief summation of the testimony of Mr. Creasey, the comptroller or "money-tracker," or "money guy," of Hollinger Int'l back in 2001. He also provided accounting services for Ravelston, the holding company that controlled Hollinger Inc., and Hollinger Int'l. Mr. Hornbrook also related that Black's own jet cost $7 million, and that Mr. Radler's cost "2 to 3" million dollars a year. There's no word as of yet when Mr. Radler will testify.
13. The Age of Australia has a report, with an extra detail about that "more concilatory E-mail" which Mr. Black wrote the day after he penned the more controversial one; the later E-mail said that "no related-party transactions were expected and that if any arose, the board would be told..."
14. The Times Online also has a report, as does the Telegraph; the latter mentions the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey at the end of it.
Also from the Chicago Tribune: a media column from Phil Rosenthal about the present circulation difficulties that the Chicago Sun-Times is facing.
----------
The current trial in Chicago isn't the only legal trouble that Conrad Black is facing; there's also an Ontario Securities Commission hearing on the matter of Mr. Black, et. al.'s alleged violation of Ontario securities laws. Out of consideration for the American judicial process, as this Globe and Mail report relates, the June 1 hearing, for Mr. Black, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee, has been thoughtfully postponed.
If you haven't seen it already, here's a trivia exercise for you: go through the list of names at the bottom of this Regulatory Order and see how many of them you know. The Globe article above reports that the next lift-the-restriction hearing is on April 10.
1. From the Chicago Tribune's Rudolph Bush: highlights from Fred Creasey's testimony yesterday afternoon. Contains a breakdown of the $7 million/year corporate jet costing: $4.6 million/yr for Conrad Black's jet, and "$2 million to $3 million" per year for David Radler's.
2. From NewsMax.com, a summarization of both Angela Way's testimony and Mr. Creasey's.
3. ABC Money has a write-up that includes, at the end of it, a fuller quote from that E-mail from Mr. Black to Mr. Creasey about the Hollinger Inc. audit committee, along with a next-day softening of the message: "One day later, a contrite sounding Black sent another memo saying that his missive of the previous day may have sounded 'a bit abrupt.'" It also reports that Jack Boultbee considered the jets to be a "'reasonable business expense'."
4. Canadian Business has a brief item, which reports that there'll be more disclosures from Mr. Creasey today as his direct-examination testimony continues.
5. Andrew Clark of the Guardian reports that a logbook showing all of the flights Conrad Black made in 2001, including the vacation to Bora Bora, was introduced into testimony yesterday afternoon by questions from prosecuting attorney Julie Ruder. Also in his report: the only flight that seemed dubious to Mr. Creasey was the flight to Bora Bora; as Mr. Clark recounts, Mr. Creasey didn't quite know the precise location of it. Mr. Clark has also written a longer piece, on the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" and what this imples for Black's life after the trial is over, for his "On America" column.
6. From the Montreal Gazette, Peter Brieger reports that Mr. Creasey "was accustomed to Conrad Black and his right-hand man David Radler running a tab of up to $10 million annually on the newspaper publisher's two private jets..." He also costs out the Bora Bora trip at a precise $565,326. His article supplies jet costs that are different from Mr. Bush's more recent Tribune piece, as do the others below which split those costs between Black and Radler.
[A more recent report by the same Mr. Brieger, in the National Post, shrinks that figure to $9 million. It's a complete summation of yesterday's testimony, and is much longer than the Gazette report. ]
7. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail goes into detail about Mr. Creasey's testimony concerning his 2003 hunt for documentation on the non-compete agreements that are at the heart of the prosecution's case. Excerpt: "After about a week of reviewing the information, Mr. Creasey recorded his findings in a memo, portions of which were read out in court. He concluded that it did not appear that payments to the individuals had been approved by company directors. He also found that some of the underlying documents approving the payments to Hollinger Inc. had been signed by Mark Kipnis, a company lawyer at Hollinger International at the time who is also on trial. Mr. Creasey told the jury that Mr. Kipnis did not have signing authority for Hollinger Inc."
8. The New York Post has a wrap-up of Angela Way's testimony under cross-examination.
9. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's report on Mr. Creasey's yesterday-afternoon testimony includes the methodology that Mr. Black used to come up with the 50/50 split of costs for the Bora Bora trip.
10. Mark Steyn's blog entry discussing yesterday afternoon's testimony acknowledges that Mr. Creasey is the best prosecution witness so far but concludes: "As a criminal act, Bora Bora is several blades short of a grass skirt..."
11. Another report from the Globe and Mail's Mr. Waldie follows up on the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the name of the jurors released. He also reports on two other expected rulings: on a motion from David Radler's company, Horizon Communications, to quash a subpoena by the defense for it to release certain documents; and, on a motion from the defense asking that Mr. Creasey's further testimony, on the Bora Bora trip, be limited.
12. The latest, televised, report from from CBC Newsworld's Mike Hornbrook: a brief summation of the testimony of Mr. Creasey, the comptroller or "money-tracker," or "money guy," of Hollinger Int'l back in 2001. He also provided accounting services for Ravelston, the holding company that controlled Hollinger Inc., and Hollinger Int'l. Mr. Hornbrook also related that Black's own jet cost $7 million, and that Mr. Radler's cost "2 to 3" million dollars a year. There's no word as of yet when Mr. Radler will testify.
13. The Age of Australia has a report, with an extra detail about that "more concilatory E-mail" which Mr. Black wrote the day after he penned the more controversial one; the later E-mail said that "no related-party transactions were expected and that if any arose, the board would be told..."
14. The Times Online also has a report, as does the Telegraph; the latter mentions the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey at the end of it.
Also from the Chicago Tribune: a media column from Phil Rosenthal about the present circulation difficulties that the Chicago Sun-Times is facing.
----------
The current trial in Chicago isn't the only legal trouble that Conrad Black is facing; there's also an Ontario Securities Commission hearing on the matter of Mr. Black, et. al.'s alleged violation of Ontario securities laws. Out of consideration for the American judicial process, as this Globe and Mail report relates, the June 1 hearing, for Mr. Black, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee, has been thoughtfully postponed.
If you haven't seen it already, here's a trivia exercise for you: go through the list of names at the bottom of this Regulatory Order and see how many of them you know. The Globe article above reports that the next lift-the-restriction hearing is on April 10.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Verdict: When Itemization Become Lurid
Tonight's episode of The Verdict discussed the first surprise that's been advantageous to the prosecution, pending cross-examination. In the only segment of the show devoted to the Conrad Black trial, Ms. Todd had three guests on to discuss George Creasey's testimony about Mr. Black's corporate expenses: Steve Skurka, a show regular who was at the trial earlier today; James Morton, a criminal lawyer in Toronto; and Howard Anglin, an appellate lawyer.
Csr. Skurka began by stating that the surprise factor wasn't a complete one, as there has been talk of the Bora Bora trip already. Now, the full extent of the alleged theft from the shareholders of Hollinger International is becoming evident. He reported that the evidence was presented in a matter-of-fact way at the trial, but noted that Barbara Black's expenditures haven't been testified about, as of yet. So, it is possible that there may be a bit of courtroom demagogy soon. The third guest, Csr. Anglin, said that the expenses were itemized in "vulgar" detail so as to impress the jury.
He also pointed out a comparison to the Dennis Kozlowski trial, noting that Mr. Kozlowski's initially ended with a mistrial, and the re-trial had a jury that was not very swayed by Mr. Kozlowski's wife's even more lavish birthday party, which cost $2 million in total. More germane, if mundane, evidence was decisive in convicting him.
The second guest, Csr. Morton, observed that a Canadian trial would leave far less latitude to the prosecutor to itemize in that way; a total would have sufficed. It's quite evident that the prosecution is trying to paint a picture of an avaricious Conrad Black to the jury. Even though Csr. Skurka pointed out that the jury should know what the money was spent on, Csr. Morton said that it wasn't necessary for a Canadian trial, at least in that much detail.
Near the end of the segment, Ms. Todd raised the question of what the defense will put into the record; she started off by mentioning the standard workaholic defense. She then raised the point, dealt with by Csr. Morton, of whether or not the establishment of board-of-directors' approval for all of these expenditures was sufficient to acquit. Morton said that it wasn't. It does, though, place an additional burden on the prosecution; some kind of hoodwinking has to be shown to have taken place. Csr. Skurka noted that the audit committee members, including a former prosecutor, were no dummies.
That former prosecutor was former Governor James Thompson. None of the three guests brought up a certain Lieutenant-Governor who was elected under then-Gov. Thompson's governorship.
If you're interested, this episode will be available in broadband form as of approx. 11:30 PM tonight. Quite evidently, George Creasey is one prosecution witness that David Radler won't have to "fire."
Csr. Skurka began by stating that the surprise factor wasn't a complete one, as there has been talk of the Bora Bora trip already. Now, the full extent of the alleged theft from the shareholders of Hollinger International is becoming evident. He reported that the evidence was presented in a matter-of-fact way at the trial, but noted that Barbara Black's expenditures haven't been testified about, as of yet. So, it is possible that there may be a bit of courtroom demagogy soon. The third guest, Csr. Anglin, said that the expenses were itemized in "vulgar" detail so as to impress the jury.
He also pointed out a comparison to the Dennis Kozlowski trial, noting that Mr. Kozlowski's initially ended with a mistrial, and the re-trial had a jury that was not very swayed by Mr. Kozlowski's wife's even more lavish birthday party, which cost $2 million in total. More germane, if mundane, evidence was decisive in convicting him.
The second guest, Csr. Morton, observed that a Canadian trial would leave far less latitude to the prosecutor to itemize in that way; a total would have sufficed. It's quite evident that the prosecution is trying to paint a picture of an avaricious Conrad Black to the jury. Even though Csr. Skurka pointed out that the jury should know what the money was spent on, Csr. Morton said that it wasn't necessary for a Canadian trial, at least in that much detail.
Near the end of the segment, Ms. Todd raised the question of what the defense will put into the record; she started off by mentioning the standard workaholic defense. She then raised the point, dealt with by Csr. Morton, of whether or not the establishment of board-of-directors' approval for all of these expenditures was sufficient to acquit. Morton said that it wasn't. It does, though, place an additional burden on the prosecution; some kind of hoodwinking has to be shown to have taken place. Csr. Skurka noted that the audit committee members, including a former prosecutor, were no dummies.
That former prosecutor was former Governor James Thompson. None of the three guests brought up a certain Lieutenant-Governor who was elected under then-Gov. Thompson's governorship.
If you're interested, this episode will be available in broadband form as of approx. 11:30 PM tonight. Quite evidently, George Creasey is one prosecution witness that David Radler won't have to "fire."
The Greasy From Creasey
A re-updated Reuters report on today's testimony has a new snippet that reports some testimony by Fred Creasey. It mentions that Conrad Black described, perhaps disparaged, the Hollinger Inc's audit committee as a "superfluous committee."
Mr. Black has done something like this before. As recounted by Richard Siklos (Shades of Black , pp. 179-80,) Conrad Black wrote a column for the Financial Post, back in 1989, in which he called journalist Linda McQuaig "a weedy and not very bright leftist reporter." He had asked Douglas Creighton, the boss of the Financial Post's then-editor John Godfrey, to make sure that it ran unedited. Mr. Godfrey, though, believed that the quoted snippet could be seen as libelous, so he excised it, along with the word "mendacious," after finding out that the Post's libel lawyers believed those parts of it to be risky too. This made Conrad Black umbrous, because, he said, he himself had pre-run it by his own libel lawyer before submitting it. Mr. Siklos doesn't explicitly say that Mr. Black had used the word "superfluous" at that time, but I'd be unsurprised if he had used that same word back then.
More details are already hitting the web. According to this AP Wire "Summary Box," Mr. Creasey is already getting into the Bora Bora gritty gritty. A more detailed AP report, as webbed by MSN Money, relates that the spending didn't stop with that trip. Creasey put the total bill for the use of the corporate jet, while he was Hollinger Inc.'s comptroller, at 7 million bucks a year - and co-defendant Jack Boultbee had approved it all. "Black regularly billed the company when he took the jet to visit his estate in West Palm Beach, Fla., said Fred Creasey, the former comptroller of the newspaper conglomerate."
He's yet to be cross-examined, though.
----------
An updated CBC report has put Angela Way's earlier testimony in perspective: "'It is quite apparent that rather than concealing information, [the Hollinger officials in question] were disclosing a lot of information,' [CBC reporter Mike] Hornbrook said. 'They were also concerned that fairness to the shareholders was a principle that was discussed and arbitrated.'"
Mr. Black has done something like this before. As recounted by Richard Siklos (Shades of Black , pp. 179-80,) Conrad Black wrote a column for the Financial Post, back in 1989, in which he called journalist Linda McQuaig "a weedy and not very bright leftist reporter." He had asked Douglas Creighton, the boss of the Financial Post's then-editor John Godfrey, to make sure that it ran unedited. Mr. Godfrey, though, believed that the quoted snippet could be seen as libelous, so he excised it, along with the word "mendacious," after finding out that the Post's libel lawyers believed those parts of it to be risky too. This made Conrad Black umbrous, because, he said, he himself had pre-run it by his own libel lawyer before submitting it. Mr. Siklos doesn't explicitly say that Mr. Black had used the word "superfluous" at that time, but I'd be unsurprised if he had used that same word back then.
More details are already hitting the web. According to this AP Wire "Summary Box," Mr. Creasey is already getting into the Bora Bora gritty gritty. A more detailed AP report, as webbed by MSN Money, relates that the spending didn't stop with that trip. Creasey put the total bill for the use of the corporate jet, while he was Hollinger Inc.'s comptroller, at 7 million bucks a year - and co-defendant Jack Boultbee had approved it all. "Black regularly billed the company when he took the jet to visit his estate in West Palm Beach, Fla., said Fred Creasey, the former comptroller of the newspaper conglomerate."
He's yet to be cross-examined, though.
----------
An updated CBC report has put Angela Way's earlier testimony in perspective: "'It is quite apparent that rather than concealing information, [the Hollinger officials in question] were disclosing a lot of information,' [CBC reporter Mike] Hornbrook said. 'They were also concerned that fairness to the shareholders was a principle that was discussed and arbitrated.'"
Wednesday's Testimony So Far
BNN is back to daytime coverage of the Conrad Black trial. Here's the latest from them, as reported on-camera by Paul Waldie:
Fred Creasey was testifying on how the non-compete agreements were accounted for - specifically, the CanWest one. He had asked Jack Boultbee how to account for the non-compete payments; he was told by Mr. Boultbee not to worry about it, as the payments related to individuals. Then, in 2003, he investigated the CanWest transaction, went to Mr. Boultbee and heard the same; Mr. Boultbee had "advisors" that said it was okay to leave the non-compete payment out of corporate accounts.
The prosecution takes "great pains" to explain any relevant financial terminology, through asking the witnesses to explain all terms carefully. Conrad Black's alleged personal use of corporate funds will be testified about during this afternoon's shift.
A written report by Mr. Waldie has now been webbed by the Globe and Mail. It adds the detail that, at the time of the CanWest sale, Mr. Creasey was the controller of Hollinger International and Mr. Boultbee was its CFO.
[Mr. Creasey later became the CFO of Hollinger Inc, a position he assumed before Jan. 1, 2003; see the bottom of this quarterly report for confirmation. So, the '03 investigation he pursued was conducted while he was a CFO himself, though not of Hollinger Int'l. Much later, he became Hollinger Int'l's CFO,]
Andrew Stern of Reuters has a webbed report covering an unanticipated line of questioning by Edward Genson in the cross-examination of Angela Way. "Genson had the secretary...read minutes of board meetings showing that the board and a subset of its members who served as an audit committee approved the payments." Mr. Stern's write-up also discloses that the audit committee itself was investigated, without any charges resulting, and that Mr. Kipnis didn't instruct Ms. Way to keep any hidden files. (This last point was established by questioning from defense lawyer Patricia Brown-Holmes.)
Another report, based on the Reuters one, also contains the fact that the minutes being focused upon contained a request by CanWest that Conrad Black and David Radler be paid $26 million each, in exchange for refraining from buying Canadian newspapers. The reporter, Peter Brieger, also notes its significance.
The story's also been picked up by CNNMoney. The version they've webbed also has related links from their earlier reports.
A write-up by David Litterick of the Telegraph summarizes both Ms. Way's and Mr. Creasey's morning testimony. The former, as part of the cross-examination of her, testified that at "one meeting of the board, directors had agreed that the '2.5pc allocated to non-compete agreements [from sale prices] was consistent with the amount of payments made for non-competition agreements in previous Hollinger International transactions,' according to the minutes."
As far as I know, Ms. Way was not subject to redirect examination by the prosecution.
Fred Creasey was testifying on how the non-compete agreements were accounted for - specifically, the CanWest one. He had asked Jack Boultbee how to account for the non-compete payments; he was told by Mr. Boultbee not to worry about it, as the payments related to individuals. Then, in 2003, he investigated the CanWest transaction, went to Mr. Boultbee and heard the same; Mr. Boultbee had "advisors" that said it was okay to leave the non-compete payment out of corporate accounts.
The prosecution takes "great pains" to explain any relevant financial terminology, through asking the witnesses to explain all terms carefully. Conrad Black's alleged personal use of corporate funds will be testified about during this afternoon's shift.
A written report by Mr. Waldie has now been webbed by the Globe and Mail. It adds the detail that, at the time of the CanWest sale, Mr. Creasey was the controller of Hollinger International and Mr. Boultbee was its CFO.
[Mr. Creasey later became the CFO of Hollinger Inc, a position he assumed before Jan. 1, 2003; see the bottom of this quarterly report for confirmation. So, the '03 investigation he pursued was conducted while he was a CFO himself, though not of Hollinger Int'l. Much later, he became Hollinger Int'l's CFO,]
Andrew Stern of Reuters has a webbed report covering an unanticipated line of questioning by Edward Genson in the cross-examination of Angela Way. "Genson had the secretary...read minutes of board meetings showing that the board and a subset of its members who served as an audit committee approved the payments." Mr. Stern's write-up also discloses that the audit committee itself was investigated, without any charges resulting, and that Mr. Kipnis didn't instruct Ms. Way to keep any hidden files. (This last point was established by questioning from defense lawyer Patricia Brown-Holmes.)
Another report, based on the Reuters one, also contains the fact that the minutes being focused upon contained a request by CanWest that Conrad Black and David Radler be paid $26 million each, in exchange for refraining from buying Canadian newspapers. The reporter, Peter Brieger, also notes its significance.
The story's also been picked up by CNNMoney. The version they've webbed also has related links from their earlier reports.
A write-up by David Litterick of the Telegraph summarizes both Ms. Way's and Mr. Creasey's morning testimony. The former, as part of the cross-examination of her, testified that at "one meeting of the board, directors had agreed that the '2.5pc allocated to non-compete agreements [from sale prices] was consistent with the amount of payments made for non-competition agreements in previous Hollinger International transactions,' according to the minutes."
As far as I know, Ms. Way was not subject to redirect examination by the prosecution.
Professionalism
Believe it or not, Mark Kipnis' attorney, Ronald Safer, has stuck up for Patrick Fitzgerald's overall record as a prosecutor. As the article relates, two assistant D.A.s on the prosecutorial team, Eric Sussman and Jeffrey Cramer, had earlier extended professional courtesies to Csr. Safer. His opinion piece was published by the Chicago Tribune; it's been webbed.
The Globe and Mail article, by Paul Waldie, already has three comments on it.
Ron Safer is a former prosecutor. It's not too surprising that two prosecutors would have complimentary words for a former one, or a former one for a beleaguered current one. The charges against Mr. Kipnis, though, do seem to be the flimsiest.
-----------
This is quite off-topic, but I've seen a news report about a coyote putting in an extended appearance, yesterday, inside a Quiznos subway shop in downtown Chicago. This story has spread all over the Internet news services, and it's made CNN. (As far as local jokes are concerned, my own hunch says that'd be directed at Sam Zell, but you never know. Thanks to CTV NewsNet for putting me on to this item.)
[The coyote, now named Adrian, was caught, taken to Chicago's Animal Control and Care centre, and put in a refuge in Flint Creek; it's owned by retied IBM executive Barbara Overbey. Thanks to the Chicago Tribune for the update.]
The Globe and Mail article, by Paul Waldie, already has three comments on it.
Ron Safer is a former prosecutor. It's not too surprising that two prosecutors would have complimentary words for a former one, or a former one for a beleaguered current one. The charges against Mr. Kipnis, though, do seem to be the flimsiest.
-----------
This is quite off-topic, but I've seen a news report about a coyote putting in an extended appearance, yesterday, inside a Quiznos subway shop in downtown Chicago. This story has spread all over the Internet news services, and it's made CNN. (As far as local jokes are concerned, my own hunch says that'd be directed at Sam Zell, but you never know. Thanks to CTV NewsNet for putting me on to this item.)
[The coyote, now named Adrian, was caught, taken to Chicago's Animal Control and Care centre, and put in a refuge in Flint Creek; it's owned by retied IBM executive Barbara Overbey. Thanks to the Chicago Tribune for the update.]
Media Roundup: Gearing Up From The Holiday
Excerpted below are two preparatory articles, two analysis pieces, and one preparatory television report as the Conrad Black trial prepares to resume:
1. A short piece listing the next two witnesses to testify: Angela Way, who will be cross-examined today, and Fred Creasey, at one time Hollinger Int'l's controller and at another time, Hollinger Inc.'s Chief Financial Officer.
2. More detail about Mr. Creasey from the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie. Contains details about a separate internal investigation conducted by Mr. Creasey in 2003, and also mentions that Mr. Creasey used to work for Ravelston, the company controlling Hollinger Inc. and, indirectly, Hollinger Int'l.
3. Two from the Toronto Star: First of all, Rick Westhead discusses how the prosecution team, and occasionally counsels for the defense, use body language in the trial. Secondly, Jennifer Wells squares off the $84 million figure used before the trial with the $60 million figure used in Jeffrey Cramer's opening address: the difference is found in the $11.9 million each received by Mr. Black and David Radler, in exchange for non-compete agreements in the asset sale to CanWest. She closes by noting that the prosecution will concentrate upon Mr. Black's performance of his "fiduciary duty."
4. CBC Newsworld had a televised interview with CBC reporter Mike Hornbrook, in which he sketched out what will take place in today's testimony. After briefly mentioning Angela Way, Mark Kipnis' "secretary," Mr. Hornbrook went into detail about what's expected to be heard from Mr. Creasey during his testimony. He'll testify on that Bora Bora trip, and more generally, about alleged abuse of corporate perks, including those pricey accessories charged to Hollinger. It's likely that there will be both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey today. With regard to the speculation that David Radler may be called soon, Mr. Hornbrook related that Mr. Radler was "reportedly" spotted in Chicago a few days ago.
Mr. Hornbrook also gave some background on why David Radler is the prosecution's star witness: he "knows where all the bones are buried," and he has a very detailed knowledge of the Hollinger operations from day 1 - as reinforced, according to Mr. Hornbrook, with a copious amount of paper records that cover the deals he was involved in.
1. A short piece listing the next two witnesses to testify: Angela Way, who will be cross-examined today, and Fred Creasey, at one time Hollinger Int'l's controller and at another time, Hollinger Inc.'s Chief Financial Officer.
2. More detail about Mr. Creasey from the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie. Contains details about a separate internal investigation conducted by Mr. Creasey in 2003, and also mentions that Mr. Creasey used to work for Ravelston, the company controlling Hollinger Inc. and, indirectly, Hollinger Int'l.
3. Two from the Toronto Star: First of all, Rick Westhead discusses how the prosecution team, and occasionally counsels for the defense, use body language in the trial. Secondly, Jennifer Wells squares off the $84 million figure used before the trial with the $60 million figure used in Jeffrey Cramer's opening address: the difference is found in the $11.9 million each received by Mr. Black and David Radler, in exchange for non-compete agreements in the asset sale to CanWest. She closes by noting that the prosecution will concentrate upon Mr. Black's performance of his "fiduciary duty."
4. CBC Newsworld had a televised interview with CBC reporter Mike Hornbrook, in which he sketched out what will take place in today's testimony. After briefly mentioning Angela Way, Mark Kipnis' "secretary," Mr. Hornbrook went into detail about what's expected to be heard from Mr. Creasey during his testimony. He'll testify on that Bora Bora trip, and more generally, about alleged abuse of corporate perks, including those pricey accessories charged to Hollinger. It's likely that there will be both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey today. With regard to the speculation that David Radler may be called soon, Mr. Hornbrook related that Mr. Radler was "reportedly" spotted in Chicago a few days ago.
Mr. Hornbrook also gave some background on why David Radler is the prosecution's star witness: he "knows where all the bones are buried," and he has a very detailed knowledge of the Hollinger operations from day 1 - as reinforced, according to Mr. Hornbrook, with a copious amount of paper records that cover the deals he was involved in.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Nothing On The Trial On The Verdict Tonight
The entire episode of tonight's Verdict was devoted to a controversial Canadian sex-assault case, so there was no discussion on the Conrad Black trial. The only item I have to pass along is that Ms. Todd is herself a lawyer. If Csr. Todd hews to precedent, there'll be at least another segment on the trial tomorrow.
In lieu of a report, therefore, I have an update on the Website that's been making book on the trial. BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category, the one where the Conrad Black bet lines were found. I suppose the owners of BetUS decided that they couldn't handicap events of this nature. In addition, I suspect, they closed the subcategory because the twists and turns, not to mention the dirty or unexpectedly clean laundry, that emerge in any such scandal would have called for a change in the odds, which just ain't bookmakin'.
[Also, the valued clients may buy and sell already-placed wagers on the sly, if the odds undergo changes.]
In lieu of a report, therefore, I have an update on the Website that's been making book on the trial. BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category, the one where the Conrad Black bet lines were found. I suppose the owners of BetUS decided that they couldn't handicap events of this nature. In addition, I suspect, they closed the subcategory because the twists and turns, not to mention the dirty or unexpectedly clean laundry, that emerge in any such scandal would have called for a change in the odds, which just ain't bookmakin'.
[Also, the valued clients may buy and sell already-placed wagers on the sly, if the odds undergo changes.]
Media Roundup: Holick, Way
The overnight reports on the Conrad Black trial have filled in a few gaps:
1. From NewsMax.com, a Reuters report, credited elsewhere (including here) to Andrew Stern, which contains more details on Craig Holick's testimony. In addition to testifying that Todd Vogt wanted the payments to Mr. Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson transferred quickly, he also testified that the payments were "'very clever but not illegal' ways to funnel money to a Canadian holding company closely controlled by Black" The report also states that Mr. Black has not been directly tied to any illegal activity, as of yet. It's also been webbed by the Sydney Morning Herald.
2. A brief summary of the day's events appears in the paragraph entitled "Conrad Black trial enters third week" in the Daily Briefing of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
3. From the Daily Southtown, an updated report by the Associated Press' Mike Robinson, which focuses upon the testimony of Angela Way. It notes that she hasn't been cross-examined yet. This report was also webbed by Canadian Business, and the Sydney Morning Herald has a shorter version, with an added reminder that the defense is blaming David Radler for any illegal transactions.
4. Canoe Money has a briefer summation, with a forecast of what point the defense will make on Wednesday's cross-examination of Ms. Way: "Defence lawyers are expected to portray the money as management fees wrongly characterized as non-compete fees."
5. Another AP report, webbed by the Los Angeles Times, re-caps David Paxton's testimony.
6. The Guardian's Andrew Clark's report includes the means by which an image of the cheque to Conrad Black was shown in court when Ms. Way was testifying. It also includes some testimony by Mr. Holick, elicited from cross-examination by relatively-unknown lawyer Patricia Brown Holmes, that Mr. Holick didn't check up on the veracity of the memo he demanded from Todd Vogt: "Mr Vogt was a senior executive of the company [relative to Mr. Holick himself]."
7. The Edmonton Journal has a report, entitled "Non-compete fees described as 'ingenious' at Black trial," which is available to subscribers only.
8. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail sums up the testimonies of both Mr. Holick and Ms. Way. His report also notes that Todd Vogt is expected to be a witness himself, but not for which side, and that Conrad Black arranged to have dinner with Dominick Dunne. (Given the hearsay element of Mr. Holick's testimony, Mr. Vogt will probably appear for the prosecution.)
9. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead speculates that David Radler may appear on the witness stand as early as this week, because "several lawyers working on the case said that it would make sense for prosecutors to have him testify before turning their attention to Hollinger International Inc.'s audit committee in coming weeks. Radler may have been in Chicago practising his turn in the witness box, lawyers said." This report also has a recent picture of Mr. Radler.
10. Mr. Paxton's testimony gets a brief mention at the botton of the Kentucky Courier-Journal's "Business Briefs"
11. The Chicago Sun-Times report focuses on the testimony of both Ms. Way and Bill Paxton, with Mr. Paxton's first.
12. From the Vancouver Sun, a report which says that Ms. Way's testimony contradicted a suggestion, made by Mark Kipnis' defense counsel when cross-examining Mr. Holick, that Mr. Kipnis didn't know about the issuance of the cheques.
Also: A mildly pro-comeuppance editorial has been webbed...it's from the Japan Times.
1. From NewsMax.com, a Reuters report, credited elsewhere (including here) to Andrew Stern, which contains more details on Craig Holick's testimony. In addition to testifying that Todd Vogt wanted the payments to Mr. Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson transferred quickly, he also testified that the payments were "'very clever but not illegal' ways to funnel money to a Canadian holding company closely controlled by Black" The report also states that Mr. Black has not been directly tied to any illegal activity, as of yet. It's also been webbed by the Sydney Morning Herald.
2. A brief summary of the day's events appears in the paragraph entitled "Conrad Black trial enters third week" in the Daily Briefing of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
3. From the Daily Southtown, an updated report by the Associated Press' Mike Robinson, which focuses upon the testimony of Angela Way. It notes that she hasn't been cross-examined yet. This report was also webbed by Canadian Business, and the Sydney Morning Herald has a shorter version, with an added reminder that the defense is blaming David Radler for any illegal transactions.
4. Canoe Money has a briefer summation, with a forecast of what point the defense will make on Wednesday's cross-examination of Ms. Way: "Defence lawyers are expected to portray the money as management fees wrongly characterized as non-compete fees."
5. Another AP report, webbed by the Los Angeles Times, re-caps David Paxton's testimony.
6. The Guardian's Andrew Clark's report includes the means by which an image of the cheque to Conrad Black was shown in court when Ms. Way was testifying. It also includes some testimony by Mr. Holick, elicited from cross-examination by relatively-unknown lawyer Patricia Brown Holmes, that Mr. Holick didn't check up on the veracity of the memo he demanded from Todd Vogt: "Mr Vogt was a senior executive of the company [relative to Mr. Holick himself]."
7. The Edmonton Journal has a report, entitled "Non-compete fees described as 'ingenious' at Black trial," which is available to subscribers only.
8. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail sums up the testimonies of both Mr. Holick and Ms. Way. His report also notes that Todd Vogt is expected to be a witness himself, but not for which side, and that Conrad Black arranged to have dinner with Dominick Dunne. (Given the hearsay element of Mr. Holick's testimony, Mr. Vogt will probably appear for the prosecution.)
9. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead speculates that David Radler may appear on the witness stand as early as this week, because "several lawyers working on the case said that it would make sense for prosecutors to have him testify before turning their attention to Hollinger International Inc.'s audit committee in coming weeks. Radler may have been in Chicago practising his turn in the witness box, lawyers said." This report also has a recent picture of Mr. Radler.
10. Mr. Paxton's testimony gets a brief mention at the botton of the Kentucky Courier-Journal's "Business Briefs"
11. The Chicago Sun-Times report focuses on the testimony of both Ms. Way and Bill Paxton, with Mr. Paxton's first.
12. From the Vancouver Sun, a report which says that Ms. Way's testimony contradicted a suggestion, made by Mark Kipnis' defense counsel when cross-examining Mr. Holick, that Mr. Kipnis didn't know about the issuance of the cheques.
Also: A mildly pro-comeuppance editorial has been webbed...it's from the Japan Times.
Mark Steyn and Old Memories, Badly Recalled
Mark Steyn's report on Craig Holick's testimony pictures a witness who got his own comeuppance on the stand yesterday. According to Mr. Steyn, Mr. Holick ended up contradicting his own testimony, with his recall mechanism falling apart. (This failure of recall can be explained by Mr. Holick being a coached witness for the prosecution.)
The way that Mr. Steyn describes Mr. Holick's recall difficulties makes for an interesting parallel to Mr. Black's own testimony in the 1982 injunction/lawsuit, launched by Hanna Inc., to block a takeover offer from Norcen, then controlled by Hollinger Argus through its majority holding in Labrador Mining. (Labrador controlled 36% of Norcen in 1982, according to Richard Siklos, Shades of Black, p. 74.) Although Mr. Black was not CEO, he was chairman of Norcen's board at the time of the takeover attempt. Nowadays, combining the roles of chairman and CEO is common, but back in the days when the professional-management ethos was being implemented in public corporations, separation of the chairmancy and the CEOship was recommended, to keep the CEO properly overseen. In fact, it was not uncommon to assume that a public company permitting a chairman-CEO risked a potential conflict of interest, to the detriment of its shareholders.
During a deposition he had to make for the suit, Conrad Black was asked about the conflict between a Norcen board resolution, which he had to sign off on, and a later filing to the SEC. That resolution, passed on September 9, 1981, contained the words, "U.S. Acquisition: Mr. Battle [the President and CEO] stated that the Company [Norcen], subsequent to telephone contact with the members of the executive committee [of Norcen's board of directors], had initiated through stock market transactions the acquisition of a 4.9 per cent stock interest [regular voting shares of common stock] in a U.S. company [Hanna] listed on the New York Stock Exchange with the ultimate purpose of acquiring a fifty-one per cent control position at a later date." (Quoted in Siklos, p. 79.) The SEC 13-D statement filing, made on November 9, 1981, said that Norcen had "acquire[d] an investment position in Hanna" with the further note that Norcen planned to acquire more shares (Siklos, p. 82.) Perhaps, Mr. Black's staff had assumed that this was a well-understood way of signalling to the SEC that Norcen did plan for an eventual takeover, but no definite steps in that direction had been taken as of the time of the filing of the 13-D.
Nevertheless, the (at least ostensible) contradiction between the two documents, and the fact that the Norcen board resolution was passed before the SEC statement was filed, was considered by the Hanna legal team to be the smoking gun. So, as it turns out, did the judge in the injunction case. Mr. Black's testimony didn't help; the judge called it "strained and unpersuasive." (Ibid, p. 89.) In fact, the testimony excerpted from Mr. Black's deposition suggests that he either was flat-out dissembling, or that he had not reviewed either document while signing it. (Ibid, p. 88)
The moral of the story? If you're giving testimony in a United States court of law, and you can't recall something, then it's prudent to simply say "I can't recall" and stick with it - even if you get compared to John N. Mitchell afterwards. The verbal dances seem best confined to the watering hole.
To move to a lighter item, if you're familiar with the Conrad Black story, at least one of the comments on Mr. Waldie's article in the Globe and Mail will be somewhat amusing.
Also: an excerpt from Naomi Klein's Guardian article on the trial was quoted approvingly in a recent post by Jane Smiley, which discusses the dilemma of democracy from a liberal point of view.
The way that Mr. Steyn describes Mr. Holick's recall difficulties makes for an interesting parallel to Mr. Black's own testimony in the 1982 injunction/lawsuit, launched by Hanna Inc., to block a takeover offer from Norcen, then controlled by Hollinger Argus through its majority holding in Labrador Mining. (Labrador controlled 36% of Norcen in 1982, according to Richard Siklos, Shades of Black, p. 74.) Although Mr. Black was not CEO, he was chairman of Norcen's board at the time of the takeover attempt. Nowadays, combining the roles of chairman and CEO is common, but back in the days when the professional-management ethos was being implemented in public corporations, separation of the chairmancy and the CEOship was recommended, to keep the CEO properly overseen. In fact, it was not uncommon to assume that a public company permitting a chairman-CEO risked a potential conflict of interest, to the detriment of its shareholders.
During a deposition he had to make for the suit, Conrad Black was asked about the conflict between a Norcen board resolution, which he had to sign off on, and a later filing to the SEC. That resolution, passed on September 9, 1981, contained the words, "U.S. Acquisition: Mr. Battle [the President and CEO] stated that the Company [Norcen], subsequent to telephone contact with the members of the executive committee [of Norcen's board of directors], had initiated through stock market transactions the acquisition of a 4.9 per cent stock interest [regular voting shares of common stock] in a U.S. company [Hanna] listed on the New York Stock Exchange with the ultimate purpose of acquiring a fifty-one per cent control position at a later date." (Quoted in Siklos, p. 79.) The SEC 13-D statement filing, made on November 9, 1981, said that Norcen had "acquire[d] an investment position in Hanna" with the further note that Norcen planned to acquire more shares (Siklos, p. 82.) Perhaps, Mr. Black's staff had assumed that this was a well-understood way of signalling to the SEC that Norcen did plan for an eventual takeover, but no definite steps in that direction had been taken as of the time of the filing of the 13-D.
Nevertheless, the (at least ostensible) contradiction between the two documents, and the fact that the Norcen board resolution was passed before the SEC statement was filed, was considered by the Hanna legal team to be the smoking gun. So, as it turns out, did the judge in the injunction case. Mr. Black's testimony didn't help; the judge called it "strained and unpersuasive." (Ibid, p. 89.) In fact, the testimony excerpted from Mr. Black's deposition suggests that he either was flat-out dissembling, or that he had not reviewed either document while signing it. (Ibid, p. 88)
The moral of the story? If you're giving testimony in a United States court of law, and you can't recall something, then it's prudent to simply say "I can't recall" and stick with it - even if you get compared to John N. Mitchell afterwards. The verbal dances seem best confined to the watering hole.
To move to a lighter item, if you're familiar with the Conrad Black story, at least one of the comments on Mr. Waldie's article in the Globe and Mail will be somewhat amusing.
Also: an excerpt from Naomi Klein's Guardian article on the trial was quoted approvingly in a recent post by Jane Smiley, which discusses the dilemma of democracy from a liberal point of view.
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Verdict: Tagging The Team
The segment of tonight's episode of The Verdict devoted to the Conrad Black trial discussed how Edward Genson and Eddie Greenspan were working together. Previous to that discussion, though, was an interview with a Canadian lawyer, Don Jack, who represents Jack Boultbee in other capacities, looking after a wrongful-dismissal suit, directed at Hollinger Inc., and an OSC action, in which Mr. Boultbee has been charged. He disclosed that the OSC hearing will commence in November, once the Chicago trial is over.
Csr. Jack also said that Mr. Boultbee is holding up well. But, he’s concerned about Mr. Boultbee getting a fair trial: a “severed” trial would have been preferable, but Mr. Boultbee, or any of the other defendants, never had any real chance of getting the cases split. The prosecution is trying to get evidence in Canada's jurisdiction, through an inspector appointed to Hollinger Inc. under the Canada Business Incorporations Act. The risk to Mr. Boultbee's fair-trial chances exists in the difference between the self-incrimination laws in the two countries. The nub of the matter is, how the Fifth Amendment is typically used, as recommended by U.S. defense lawyers - namely, the custom of interpreting "tend to incriminate" with some latitude. This practice is contrary to Canadian legal customs and practice. To Ms. Todd, the cases against Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee seem weak relative to the charges pressed against them. When she asked if the prosecution is pressuring them to roll to the detriment of Conrad Black, Csr. Jack didn’t speculate.
The second part looked at the question, how do Csr. Genson and Csr. Greenspan work as a team? The guests brought on to answer were Hugh Totten and Marie Henein. Csr. Totten thought that the personal relationship between the two star lawyers is irrelevant to their court performance; there's no "ego factor" between them. They’re both excellent trial lawyers. Csr. Henein, when asked about Csr. Greenspan's mistakes in court procedure, replied that Csr. Greenspan just needs to get his footing. Csr. Genson, though, does relate to a Chicago jury more easily. Ms. Todd noted that Csr. Greenspan is the more open of the two to "media relations," and asked if Csr. Genson was bothered by that. Csr. Henein herself noted that a Canadian lawyer serving as the "spotlight hog" was ironic. Csr. Totten added that both lawyers faced an already heavily-publicized case, thanks to Mr. Black’s loquaciousness and prolificity. This restricts the defense's case somewhat. Ms. Todd's last question in this segment was, when will David Radler take the stand? Csr. Totten answered, somewhat congenially, that in order to relieve the boredom so far, the prosecution will move Mr. Radler up to an earlier slot than the one originally planned for him.
Ms. Todd's "closing argument" dealt with the likability factor of defendants, and how unlikability can occlude the presumption of innocence, but she related it to one other of the cases that were highlighted on The Verdict tonight.
Csr. Jack also said that Mr. Boultbee is holding up well. But, he’s concerned about Mr. Boultbee getting a fair trial: a “severed” trial would have been preferable, but Mr. Boultbee, or any of the other defendants, never had any real chance of getting the cases split. The prosecution is trying to get evidence in Canada's jurisdiction, through an inspector appointed to Hollinger Inc. under the Canada Business Incorporations Act. The risk to Mr. Boultbee's fair-trial chances exists in the difference between the self-incrimination laws in the two countries. The nub of the matter is, how the Fifth Amendment is typically used, as recommended by U.S. defense lawyers - namely, the custom of interpreting "tend to incriminate" with some latitude. This practice is contrary to Canadian legal customs and practice. To Ms. Todd, the cases against Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee seem weak relative to the charges pressed against them. When she asked if the prosecution is pressuring them to roll to the detriment of Conrad Black, Csr. Jack didn’t speculate.
The second part looked at the question, how do Csr. Genson and Csr. Greenspan work as a team? The guests brought on to answer were Hugh Totten and Marie Henein. Csr. Totten thought that the personal relationship between the two star lawyers is irrelevant to their court performance; there's no "ego factor" between them. They’re both excellent trial lawyers. Csr. Henein, when asked about Csr. Greenspan's mistakes in court procedure, replied that Csr. Greenspan just needs to get his footing. Csr. Genson, though, does relate to a Chicago jury more easily. Ms. Todd noted that Csr. Greenspan is the more open of the two to "media relations," and asked if Csr. Genson was bothered by that. Csr. Henein herself noted that a Canadian lawyer serving as the "spotlight hog" was ironic. Csr. Totten added that both lawyers faced an already heavily-publicized case, thanks to Mr. Black’s loquaciousness and prolificity. This restricts the defense's case somewhat. Ms. Todd's last question in this segment was, when will David Radler take the stand? Csr. Totten answered, somewhat congenially, that in order to relieve the boredom so far, the prosecution will move Mr. Radler up to an earlier slot than the one originally planned for him.
Ms. Todd's "closing argument" dealt with the likability factor of defendants, and how unlikability can occlude the presumption of innocence, but she related it to one other of the cases that were highlighted on The Verdict tonight.
Monday's trial events
Mark Steyn has another blog entry on today's testimony, which notes that the non-compete agreements, in and of themselves, aren't that controversial. In typical testimony, the buyer is glad to have Hollinger Inc. added, but also says that its addition was "no big deal."
More specific details on today's testimony are in the Globe and Mail's report from Paul Waldie. It starts with reporting on Craig Holick's testimony on Todd Vogt's instructions to move some of the funds from the non-compete agreement, attached to the first Hollinger International sale to Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., to Hollinger Inc. instead of Hollinger Int'l. From it: "'Todd was quite agitated that morning to have the funds moved,'... Mr. Holick said Mr. Vogt told him that there had been a mistake in the newspaper sale and that the non-compete payment should have gone to Hollinger Inc., not Hollinger International. Mr. Holick said he found the request unusual and said he wanted something on paper directing him to make the transfer." It also details Judge St. Eve's rejection of a defense motion to widen the latitude of cross-examination, to include a what-if line of questioning that's intended by the defense to put a reasonable-person standard into the record.
Another report has hit the Web, from CBS2 Chicago, which contains a precis of David Paxton's testimony. It reports that Mr. Paxton "insisted that a non-competition agreement he received from former press lord Conrad Black's holding company was all but valueless." The same report has also been webbed by WQAD of Moline, Illinois.
A third report, webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat, has some details of the cross-examination of Mr. Paxton by Mark Kipnis' lawyer, Ron Safer. The report, by Mike Robinson of Associated Press, details that Mr. Paxton tried to square off his present testimony with the testimony he gave to the grand jury. In the latter, he testified that he was glad of the addition of Hollinger Inc. to the relevant non-compete agreement. This latest report has also been webbed by the Daily Southtown, and it is propagating to other media Websites. As it does, the headline tends to change into an acknowledgement that the addition of Hollinger Inc. did add some level of protection for the Paxton Media Group. The Canadian copy-posts (like this one) do add a mention Craig Holick testifying; none mention Mr. Holick's testimony. Mr. Waldie's report is the only that I've seen to do so.
A more recent CBC News item on the Conrad Black trial doesn't bring up Mr. Holick at all, but does have an updated section, entitled "Labyrinthine intricacies," and notes that the trial will not be conducted tomorrow. None of the above, as of the time of this entry, have mentioned whether or not Dominick Dunne has shown up.
There has been, however, posted reports on the testimony of Angela Way. The latest update to Mike Robinson's AP report, has been posted by the JournalGazette Times-Courier of Mattoon and Charleston, Illinois. It discloses, at the beginning, that Ms. Way testified to sending checks in the amount of $2.6 million to Conrad Black, and two checks for $137,500 each to Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. Mr. Black got the money "for signing a contract promising not to compete with a company Black himself controlled." This updated report has also been posted by Business Week.
There's a brief "Summary Box" of this latest bit of information, with the note that Ms. Way will be on the stand again Wednesday.
----------
In addition, I include a 2004 Vanity Fair biographical feature on Conrad Black, "The Man Who Wanted More," which contains criticism of Mr. Black by old friend, but no longer ally, Hal Jackman. Also for your perusal: a column by George Jonas, in the National Post, which speculates that Eric Sussman's stumble over the word "calumny" was an act for the jury. (I saw it at the Free Republic.) Mr. Jonas was the author whose book-launch party the Blacks attended last Saturday.
More specific details on today's testimony are in the Globe and Mail's report from Paul Waldie. It starts with reporting on Craig Holick's testimony on Todd Vogt's instructions to move some of the funds from the non-compete agreement, attached to the first Hollinger International sale to Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., to Hollinger Inc. instead of Hollinger Int'l. From it: "'Todd was quite agitated that morning to have the funds moved,'... Mr. Holick said Mr. Vogt told him that there had been a mistake in the newspaper sale and that the non-compete payment should have gone to Hollinger Inc., not Hollinger International. Mr. Holick said he found the request unusual and said he wanted something on paper directing him to make the transfer." It also details Judge St. Eve's rejection of a defense motion to widen the latitude of cross-examination, to include a what-if line of questioning that's intended by the defense to put a reasonable-person standard into the record.
Another report has hit the Web, from CBS2 Chicago, which contains a precis of David Paxton's testimony. It reports that Mr. Paxton "insisted that a non-competition agreement he received from former press lord Conrad Black's holding company was all but valueless." The same report has also been webbed by WQAD of Moline, Illinois.
A third report, webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat, has some details of the cross-examination of Mr. Paxton by Mark Kipnis' lawyer, Ron Safer. The report, by Mike Robinson of Associated Press, details that Mr. Paxton tried to square off his present testimony with the testimony he gave to the grand jury. In the latter, he testified that he was glad of the addition of Hollinger Inc. to the relevant non-compete agreement. This latest report has also been webbed by the Daily Southtown, and it is propagating to other media Websites. As it does, the headline tends to change into an acknowledgement that the addition of Hollinger Inc. did add some level of protection for the Paxton Media Group. The Canadian copy-posts (like this one) do add a mention Craig Holick testifying; none mention Mr. Holick's testimony. Mr. Waldie's report is the only that I've seen to do so.
A more recent CBC News item on the Conrad Black trial doesn't bring up Mr. Holick at all, but does have an updated section, entitled "Labyrinthine intricacies," and notes that the trial will not be conducted tomorrow. None of the above, as of the time of this entry, have mentioned whether or not Dominick Dunne has shown up.
There has been, however, posted reports on the testimony of Angela Way. The latest update to Mike Robinson's AP report, has been posted by the JournalGazette Times-Courier of Mattoon and Charleston, Illinois. It discloses, at the beginning, that Ms. Way testified to sending checks in the amount of $2.6 million to Conrad Black, and two checks for $137,500 each to Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. Mr. Black got the money "for signing a contract promising not to compete with a company Black himself controlled." This updated report has also been posted by Business Week.
There's a brief "Summary Box" of this latest bit of information, with the note that Ms. Way will be on the stand again Wednesday.
----------
In addition, I include a 2004 Vanity Fair biographical feature on Conrad Black, "The Man Who Wanted More," which contains criticism of Mr. Black by old friend, but no longer ally, Hal Jackman. Also for your perusal: a column by George Jonas, in the National Post, which speculates that Eric Sussman's stumble over the word "calumny" was an act for the jury. (I saw it at the Free Republic.) Mr. Jonas was the author whose book-launch party the Blacks attended last Saturday.
Media Roundup: More Action In The Press Box
Now that the Conrad Black trial is to resume, the reports on it are phasing in:
1. A brief write-up from "To The Center" notes that the Canwest non-compete payments have been testified about.
2. An abbreviated CP report, webbed by the Calgary Sun, is entitled "Experts warn of Black jury boredom."
3. A different abridgement of the same CP report, evidently by Romina Maurino, contains a forecast of who will, and who won't, tesify this week.
4. The Toronto Star has two articles that deal with the trial: one discusses it as item two of four, and supports the comeuppance case; the other details that Dominick Dunne plans to show up this afternoon, and Eddie Greenspan has already feuded with him. The latter article also notes that Mr. Dunne bumped into Barbara Amiel Black when she was still with George Bloomfield, and was still Barbara Amiel. (From what I recall, Mr. Dunne's name was not dropped in Confessions.)
5. The Wellington Financial blog post, entitled "Born In The Wrong Century," has been picked up by Seeking Alpha.
6. Crikey has a writeup on the trial, available to subscribers only, but a free trial is offered.
7. BNN had a brief report, which gave the order of testimony: Bill Paxton first, Craig Holick next. On CBC Newsworld, Mike Hornbrook reported that the details of the non-compete agreements, including their unusual nature, are being unveiled in the trial. He mentioned that the repetitive nature of the testimony results from four rounds of cross-examination, one for each defendant. [He also provided a brief sleep tally: some jurors, a few lawyers, and at least one reporter in the audience. Another report, from CTV NewsNet, concluded by noting that none of the prosecution's charges have been proven yet.]
1. A brief write-up from "To The Center" notes that the Canwest non-compete payments have been testified about.
2. An abbreviated CP report, webbed by the Calgary Sun, is entitled "Experts warn of Black jury boredom."
3. A different abridgement of the same CP report, evidently by Romina Maurino, contains a forecast of who will, and who won't, tesify this week.
4. The Toronto Star has two articles that deal with the trial: one discusses it as item two of four, and supports the comeuppance case; the other details that Dominick Dunne plans to show up this afternoon, and Eddie Greenspan has already feuded with him. The latter article also notes that Mr. Dunne bumped into Barbara Amiel Black when she was still with George Bloomfield, and was still Barbara Amiel. (From what I recall, Mr. Dunne's name was not dropped in Confessions.)
5. The Wellington Financial blog post, entitled "Born In The Wrong Century," has been picked up by Seeking Alpha.
6. Crikey has a writeup on the trial, available to subscribers only, but a free trial is offered.
7. BNN had a brief report, which gave the order of testimony: Bill Paxton first, Craig Holick next. On CBC Newsworld, Mike Hornbrook reported that the details of the non-compete agreements, including their unusual nature, are being unveiled in the trial. He mentioned that the repetitive nature of the testimony results from four rounds of cross-examination, one for each defendant. [He also provided a brief sleep tally: some jurors, a few lawyers, and at least one reporter in the audience. Another report, from CTV NewsNet, concluded by noting that none of the prosecution's charges have been proven yet.]
Mark Steyn's Suggested Candidates For Redaction
to Conrad and Lady Black by Tom Bower. In his latest blog entry, Mr. Stein finds three mistakes in Mr. Bower's book, two in one paragraph of it. He concludes by wondering how out of his depth Mr. Bower was. (Mr. Steyn certainly beat me with respect to the fact-checking of the book.)
All is not lost, though, If the title can be changed, then a few of the facts therein can be changed too.
All is not lost, though, If the title can be changed, then a few of the facts therein can be changed too.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
The Verdict: Second Week Recap
Like last Sunday's, tonight's episode of The Verdict re-ran segments from the previous four shows. There was only one discussing the Conrad Black trial, which dealt with private E-mails being admitted into court; it was shown last Thursday. In her "closing argument," Ms. Todd disclosed that she had gotten a fan letter from none other than Barbara Black, who wrote that her husband's defense lawyers watch the show regularly and discuss it afterwards. High praise indeed, it was.
Review of The Establishment Man (1982)
Peter C. Newman’s book, The Establishment Man, is only somewhat of a period piece. It has more detail on how Conrad Black ticks than the others I’ve read, and is still an authoritative addition to the bibliography of any recent one. Even if it carries the implication that Conrad Black had met his destiny by taking over Hollinger, with a friends'-consensus forecast that he would pursue the Canadian Prime Ministership, its depth still carries to the present.
One anecdote that stuck in my mind was the story of how Conrad’s father, George Black, had gotten himself marked down as a deserter. After donning a Royal Canadian Air Force uniform for the Canadian war effort, he was told by Walter Macdonald that he was more valuable to it as his assistant, a civilian position. He went with Mr. Macdonald instead of to basic training. After six months’ work later, he found out that he had been listed as having deserted. (p. 22)
The picture portrayed of Conrad Black in this biography is the second son, of a businessman known as a mental whiz for prodigious feats of arithmetical calculation, who was trained to be a whiz himself, only with words and facts. His elder brother, Monte, was pushed into financial-statement interpretation. Young Conrad was something of a rebel, but found himself through buying a small Quebec newspaper, the Knowlton (later, the Eastern Townships) Advertiser, which his partner, Peter White, had gotten for a dollar. He made it profitable; this turnaround was a trial run for his more known takeover and turnaround of the Sherbrooke Record, his first Sterling paper. It was Peter White who had introduced him to F. David Radler, his partner until recently.
Sterling Newspapers had grown like a rocket, under his and Mr. Radler’s management. Like his dad with Canadian Breweries, Conrad Black proved to be able to grow a business, with a less than sixty-hour work week for the head honcho. Mr. Newman mentions that famous pro-LBJ editorial, as well as the interview with Nguyen Van Thieu, which was picked up by the New York Times and some European press services. Also recounted are the controversies Conrad Black found himself in as a political figure and writer, including the one surrounding his Duplessis book, Render Unto Caesar : The Life And Legacy Of Maurice Duplessis (titled, simply, Duplessis when first issued in 1977.)
The centerpiece of the book, though, is devoted to Conrad Black’s takeover of Argus Corporation, after its previous head, Bud McDougald, had died. Argus was a dividend stock, and its top management characteristically showed an indifference to the price of its shares: if the price dropped, then all that signified was it becoming a better bargain because the current yield rose. The prime responsibility of Argus' top management was to keep the dividend safe. (An American may find it odd that the head of such a company would be such a colourful Torontonian, as Mr. Macdougald was, but a Briton would understand.) This policy, though, did lead to one of Argus’ holdings, Massey-Ferguson, descending into serious trouble in the 1970s, because it had been treated as Argus’ cash cow for too long. Newman’s recounting of the takeover itself is sufficiently detailed to include not only descriptions of all the players involved, but also some revealing side anecdotes. One of them featured then-Black ally Nelson Davis, after he was called a “double-crossing rat” by Mr. McDougald’s widow when speaking to his wife, threatening a $100 million defamation suit, which he never followed through upon (p. 134.) The book does reveal a “duels with writs” custom in the Toronto business Establishment back then. Conrad Black, of course, was one of them.
The rest of the book is devoted to Mr. Black’s moves while heading up Argus, including details of his notorious asset shuffles. It also discusses the legal troubles he encountered while making a run at the American company, Hanna Inc., which climaxed with the revelation of that notorious Norcen director’s resolution. It said that Norcen "ultimately" aimed to take Hanna over, which, according to the judgement, belied its SEC filing made two months later. The latter had said that Norcen's increase of its holdings in Hanna to 8.8 % was made "for investment purposes." Newman notes that Black laughed off the “racketeering” language in the Hanna-instigated legal action against him (an injunction blocking Norcen from buying more Hanna shares) when it was over, one that seemed unusual for the stridency of the language from Hanna in it; Hanna won its case. Mr. Black later signed an SEC consent decree, but there’s a hint that he regarded it as a kind of payoff, and that he still believed that he had gotten in trouble for doing nothing more than seizing an opportunity when the opportune moment fortuitously had arrived. (Other people have, of course, interpreted the word "ultimate" differently.) Despite one of Argus' asset shuffles raising the stock price after its announcement, Mr. Newman mentions a contemporaneous suspicion that Mr. Black’s conduct showed that he considered the smaller shareholders of the companies he controlled to be merely along for the ride. He also mentions the early-1982 criminal investigation of Black and Argus in the chapter that recounts the Hanna takeover attempt.
The Establishment Man will be an absorbing book for anyone who wants to see what business and social milieu Conrad Black rose out of. Unlike the more recent biographies of Mr. Black, Mr. Newman credits him with keeping a firm, if not often visible, hand on the companies he ran. No wonder the same man declared, shortly after the trial began, that he thought Conrad Black was guilty.
One anecdote that stuck in my mind was the story of how Conrad’s father, George Black, had gotten himself marked down as a deserter. After donning a Royal Canadian Air Force uniform for the Canadian war effort, he was told by Walter Macdonald that he was more valuable to it as his assistant, a civilian position. He went with Mr. Macdonald instead of to basic training. After six months’ work later, he found out that he had been listed as having deserted. (p. 22)
The picture portrayed of Conrad Black in this biography is the second son, of a businessman known as a mental whiz for prodigious feats of arithmetical calculation, who was trained to be a whiz himself, only with words and facts. His elder brother, Monte, was pushed into financial-statement interpretation. Young Conrad was something of a rebel, but found himself through buying a small Quebec newspaper, the Knowlton (later, the Eastern Townships) Advertiser, which his partner, Peter White, had gotten for a dollar. He made it profitable; this turnaround was a trial run for his more known takeover and turnaround of the Sherbrooke Record, his first Sterling paper. It was Peter White who had introduced him to F. David Radler, his partner until recently.
Sterling Newspapers had grown like a rocket, under his and Mr. Radler’s management. Like his dad with Canadian Breweries, Conrad Black proved to be able to grow a business, with a less than sixty-hour work week for the head honcho. Mr. Newman mentions that famous pro-LBJ editorial, as well as the interview with Nguyen Van Thieu, which was picked up by the New York Times and some European press services. Also recounted are the controversies Conrad Black found himself in as a political figure and writer, including the one surrounding his Duplessis book, Render Unto Caesar : The Life And Legacy Of Maurice Duplessis (titled, simply, Duplessis when first issued in 1977.)
The centerpiece of the book, though, is devoted to Conrad Black’s takeover of Argus Corporation, after its previous head, Bud McDougald, had died. Argus was a dividend stock, and its top management characteristically showed an indifference to the price of its shares: if the price dropped, then all that signified was it becoming a better bargain because the current yield rose. The prime responsibility of Argus' top management was to keep the dividend safe. (An American may find it odd that the head of such a company would be such a colourful Torontonian, as Mr. Macdougald was, but a Briton would understand.) This policy, though, did lead to one of Argus’ holdings, Massey-Ferguson, descending into serious trouble in the 1970s, because it had been treated as Argus’ cash cow for too long. Newman’s recounting of the takeover itself is sufficiently detailed to include not only descriptions of all the players involved, but also some revealing side anecdotes. One of them featured then-Black ally Nelson Davis, after he was called a “double-crossing rat” by Mr. McDougald’s widow when speaking to his wife, threatening a $100 million defamation suit, which he never followed through upon (p. 134.) The book does reveal a “duels with writs” custom in the Toronto business Establishment back then. Conrad Black, of course, was one of them.
The rest of the book is devoted to Mr. Black’s moves while heading up Argus, including details of his notorious asset shuffles. It also discusses the legal troubles he encountered while making a run at the American company, Hanna Inc., which climaxed with the revelation of that notorious Norcen director’s resolution. It said that Norcen "ultimately" aimed to take Hanna over, which, according to the judgement, belied its SEC filing made two months later. The latter had said that Norcen's increase of its holdings in Hanna to 8.8 % was made "for investment purposes." Newman notes that Black laughed off the “racketeering” language in the Hanna-instigated legal action against him (an injunction blocking Norcen from buying more Hanna shares) when it was over, one that seemed unusual for the stridency of the language from Hanna in it; Hanna won its case. Mr. Black later signed an SEC consent decree, but there’s a hint that he regarded it as a kind of payoff, and that he still believed that he had gotten in trouble for doing nothing more than seizing an opportunity when the opportune moment fortuitously had arrived. (Other people have, of course, interpreted the word "ultimate" differently.) Despite one of Argus' asset shuffles raising the stock price after its announcement, Mr. Newman mentions a contemporaneous suspicion that Mr. Black’s conduct showed that he considered the smaller shareholders of the companies he controlled to be merely along for the ride. He also mentions the early-1982 criminal investigation of Black and Argus in the chapter that recounts the Hanna takeover attempt.
The Establishment Man will be an absorbing book for anyone who wants to see what business and social milieu Conrad Black rose out of. Unlike the more recent biographies of Mr. Black, Mr. Newman credits him with keeping a firm, if not often visible, hand on the companies he ran. No wonder the same man declared, shortly after the trial began, that he thought Conrad Black was guilty.
Media Roundup: Mostly Re-Runs, One Forecast
Since neither the Conrad Black trial nor Mr. Black himself have generated any news, the write-ups are still relatively sparse:
1. The end of Dennis Robaugh's column in the Daily Southtown mentions the BetUS.com odds on the outcome of the trial; there's been no change in them since the original write-ups appeared. [See item #7 of this entry.]
[UPDATE on #1: BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category. That's where the Conrad Black bet lines were found.]
2. The Daily Herald has published an abridged version of Andrew Harris' profiles of the "lead" trial lawyers, which spotlights the prosecution team. [Original found here.]
3. The Detroit Free Press notes that the trial resumes Monday.
4. Romina Maurino is back on the beat, with an analysis/forecast posted by 570 News. Her report names the likely witnesses in this week's part of the trial; none of them are expected to be either famous names or bearers of exciting testimony. The trial will commence with the resumption of the cross-examination of two witnesses, whose cross-examination has already been started: David Paxton and Craig Holick. The report also mentions that the trial will not take place on Tuesday, for observance of Passover and Easter.
There's a forecast of a different sort, passed through GlobalResearch.ca, which mixes the Conrad Black trial in with what could be a much bigger story: "Israeli Press Report: US Will Strike Iran on Good Friday." That's the call from the formerly-Hollinger-owned Jerusalem Post, accoring to Michael Carmichael.
1. The end of Dennis Robaugh's column in the Daily Southtown mentions the BetUS.com odds on the outcome of the trial; there's been no change in them since the original write-ups appeared. [See item #7 of this entry.]
[UPDATE on #1: BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category. That's where the Conrad Black bet lines were found.]
2. The Daily Herald has published an abridged version of Andrew Harris' profiles of the "lead" trial lawyers, which spotlights the prosecution team. [Original found here.]
3. The Detroit Free Press notes that the trial resumes Monday.
4. Romina Maurino is back on the beat, with an analysis/forecast posted by 570 News. Her report names the likely witnesses in this week's part of the trial; none of them are expected to be either famous names or bearers of exciting testimony. The trial will commence with the resumption of the cross-examination of two witnesses, whose cross-examination has already been started: David Paxton and Craig Holick. The report also mentions that the trial will not take place on Tuesday, for observance of Passover and Easter.
There's a forecast of a different sort, passed through GlobalResearch.ca, which mixes the Conrad Black trial in with what could be a much bigger story: "Israeli Press Report: US Will Strike Iran on Good Friday." That's the call from the formerly-Hollinger-owned Jerusalem Post, accoring to Michael Carmichael.
Another Conrad Black Trial watch site
It's called "Blacks Justice." With a more custom design than this one, it contains a recent item that I myself missed: the name of an upcoming witness in the trial, Larry Green. It has a category, "Behind the Scenes," which includes two early posts of first-hand observations about the courtroom coverage, with a few factoids from the trial itself as it happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)