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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
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)