The overnight media reports on yesterday's testimony in the Conrad Black trial focused almost exclusively on the testimony of William "Bud" Rogers, as he proved to be the only witness capable of discussing the technical details of the non-compete payments at the heart of the trial in such a way that the jurors' interest was held.
1. From the Chicago Tribune, a brief summary of the testimony of Csr. Rogers.
2. The Ottawa Citizen has webbed Peter Brieger's latest report, which notes that Csr. Rogers may have been the most popular witness in the courtroom so far. The defense tried to undercut Csr. Roger's testimony under direct examination in this manner: "Between the battling law firms were Kipnis, a real estate lawyer before he joined Hollinger, and Atkinson, a Canadian lawyer with almost no knowledge of U.S. securities law, the defence argued."
3. The New York Times also has a brief summary of Csr. Rogers' testimony.
4. From 570 News, a note that today's testimony will be from Beth DeMerchant, and it will be from a tape.
5. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail begins his first report with the 'possessed cell phone' incident and then covers the testimony of Csr. Rogers. "Mr. Rogers proved to be a sharp witness for the prosecution. He explained complicated business terms better than any other witness so far and many jurors took extensive notes as he spoke." The report also implies that the prosecution's disclosure detour is, presumably, proof that the defendants "lied to shareholders about their actions." Mr. Waldie concludes that Csr. Rogers did all right as a prosecution witness, on his own. (Many of the previous witnesses for the prosecution haven't.)
6. Mr. Waldie's second report of the day centres on Beth DeMerchant, the second lawyer from Torys LLP to testify. (She's now retired.) Her testimony so far, a half-hour's worth of direct from yesterday, has been guarded.
7. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star reports that the heart of Csr. Rogers' testimony was the lack of disclosures of the non-compete payments to individuals that resulted from the CanWest purchase of Hollinger Int'l assets. This included lack of written disclosure of them to the board: "While the audit committee was told that non-compete payments were included as a part of each sale, Cramer pointed out the document failed to disclose that any company executives would personally receive money."
----------
Peter Brieger has another write-up, posted on the "Black Board," which relays two verbal gaffes made during cross-examination yesterday by two different defense counsels. He ends by offering congratulations to Csr. Rogers "for his modesty."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Verdict's Still Concentrating On The Massacre
Because of the public impact of the Virginia Tech massacre, tonight's entire episode of The Verdict was devoted to it, just as last night's was. Instead of a write-up, I present some interesting opinions from various blogs:
1. Larry E. Ribstein, at "Ideoblog" has a discussion of the same article commented on earlier by Toronto Life blogger Douglas Bell: "Free Agents" by James Surowiecki. It discusses the line between simple, if sometimes deplorable, costs of using agency and criminal fraud. He concludes that the best line to draw between criminal fraud and those costs is the tried-and-true standard of mens rea. (Mr. Surowiecki's article has also been webbed by the Free Market News.)
2. "Yank In London" relays the news that Conrad Black's appeal to keep Ravelston's compensation private had been denied by an Ontario court, with this parting shot added: "Too bad Blackie!"
3. "21st Century Vision" has posted an article by Jackie Ashley of the Guardian, in which she pegs Mr. Black as being under the sway of "displacement." She put "Scooter" Libby in the same category too.
4. Finally, Steve Skurka's The Crime Sheet has a thoughtful report on the trial's progress, which includes speculation about whether or not the prosecution will undertake witness culling. Csr. Skurka is presently watching the trial in the courtroom.
1. Larry E. Ribstein, at "Ideoblog" has a discussion of the same article commented on earlier by Toronto Life blogger Douglas Bell: "Free Agents" by James Surowiecki. It discusses the line between simple, if sometimes deplorable, costs of using agency and criminal fraud. He concludes that the best line to draw between criminal fraud and those costs is the tried-and-true standard of mens rea. (Mr. Surowiecki's article has also been webbed by the Free Market News.)
2. "Yank In London" relays the news that Conrad Black's appeal to keep Ravelston's compensation private had been denied by an Ontario court, with this parting shot added: "Too bad Blackie!"
3. "21st Century Vision" has posted an article by Jackie Ashley of the Guardian, in which she pegs Mr. Black as being under the sway of "displacement." She put "Scooter" Libby in the same category too.
4. Finally, Steve Skurka's The Crime Sheet has a thoughtful report on the trial's progress, which includes speculation about whether or not the prosecution will undertake witness culling. Csr. Skurka is presently watching the trial in the courtroom.
Tuesday Disclosures
The Edmonton Sun has a report on today's testimony so far, starting off with a fact unearthed during cross-examination of William Rogers by Peter Atkinson's lawyer, Michael Schachter: Csr. Rogers was asked in by Mr Atkinson, to deliver a second opinion on the disclosure advice given earlier by Torys LLP. (This report has also been webbed by 1130 News.)
[An updated version of the same report, also written by Romina Maurino, has more details on the day's events; it includes a humourous anecdote about Ron Safer's trouble with a recalcitrant easel. It also mentions that non-compete agreements are being challenged in court as of now, although she doesn't mention whether or not these challenges are civil lawsuits.
[The latest updated version of that same report relays the first thirty minutes of Beth DeMerchant's testimony. Ms. DeMerchant testified that both Mr. Atkinson and Jack Boultbee were '"sophisticated clients' and 'savvy people' who quickly understood corporate deals." In particular, Mr. Atkinson struck her as a quick learner of complex points; she assessed Mr. Boultbee as a master negotiator. The report also includes the fact that she agreed to testify as part of a settlement agreement between Torys and Hollinger Int'l, so the direct examination may be a little less chummy than the others were, with the possible exception of Darren Sukonick's.]
Paul Waldie's report starts off with an anecdote about defense counsel Patrick Tuite' errant cell phone. On a later BNN interview, aired at approx. 1:55 PM ET, he mentioned that Csr. Rogers is "key" to the prosecution's case, because he objected to the non-disclosure of the individual non-compete agreements. He's also an important cross-examination witness for the defense, because Torys was Hollinger Int'l counsel, not the firm that Csr. Rogers is with. This part of the trial may seem like a byway, because none of the defendants are charged with any securities violations.
Bloomberg's Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris include, in their own report, that Mr. Atkinson had written Csr. Rogers a thank-you letter for "'agreeing to advise on 10Q and related items,'... in an e-mail May 11, 2001, four days before the company's quarterly financial statement, or 10Q, had to be submitted to the U.S. regulators."
Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, centres on what seems an off-the-cuff speech by Eric Sussman, spoken while the jury had been sent out of the courtroom, which sounds like a warm-up for his closing argument. (The context of the "exchange" with Peter Atkinson's lawyers, though not explicitly identified as such, seems to have been prompted by a motion to dismiss the charges against Mr. Atkinson, or something akin to it.)
WQAD.com of Moline, Illinois has an abridged summary-report from the Associated Press. A more detailed AP report has been webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat; it links the first part of Ms. DeMerchant's testimony to the prosecution's attempt to show that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Kipnis weren't exactly taken advantage of during the time when the suspicious transactions were put together. (This linking seems to be part of an overall prosecutors' theory that the four defendants plus David Radler were the dupers, that the directors testifying for the prosecution were the only dupees, and that Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee were both too smart, knowledgable and quick-thinking to be fooled by Mr. Radler.)
United Press is also on the story now; a short summary of this day's events, which reports that a "war of words" got two counsels in Judge St. Eve's chambers, has been webbed by Monsters and Critics. It didn't indicate that this chambers conference was the "exchange" referred to in the Reuter's report linked to above.
(If it were, then Csr. Sussman was practicing a kind of closing address on the Reuters reporter.)
----------
Another defense counsel, Michael Schachter, gets a tip of the hat from Peter Brieger at the "Black Board" for a zinger he came up with during his cross-examination of Darren Sukonick.
[An updated version of the same report, also written by Romina Maurino, has more details on the day's events; it includes a humourous anecdote about Ron Safer's trouble with a recalcitrant easel. It also mentions that non-compete agreements are being challenged in court as of now, although she doesn't mention whether or not these challenges are civil lawsuits.
[The latest updated version of that same report relays the first thirty minutes of Beth DeMerchant's testimony. Ms. DeMerchant testified that both Mr. Atkinson and Jack Boultbee were '"sophisticated clients' and 'savvy people' who quickly understood corporate deals." In particular, Mr. Atkinson struck her as a quick learner of complex points; she assessed Mr. Boultbee as a master negotiator. The report also includes the fact that she agreed to testify as part of a settlement agreement between Torys and Hollinger Int'l, so the direct examination may be a little less chummy than the others were, with the possible exception of Darren Sukonick's.]
Paul Waldie's report starts off with an anecdote about defense counsel Patrick Tuite' errant cell phone. On a later BNN interview, aired at approx. 1:55 PM ET, he mentioned that Csr. Rogers is "key" to the prosecution's case, because he objected to the non-disclosure of the individual non-compete agreements. He's also an important cross-examination witness for the defense, because Torys was Hollinger Int'l counsel, not the firm that Csr. Rogers is with. This part of the trial may seem like a byway, because none of the defendants are charged with any securities violations.
Bloomberg's Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris include, in their own report, that Mr. Atkinson had written Csr. Rogers a thank-you letter for "'agreeing to advise on 10Q and related items,'... in an e-mail May 11, 2001, four days before the company's quarterly financial statement, or 10Q, had to be submitted to the U.S. regulators."
Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, centres on what seems an off-the-cuff speech by Eric Sussman, spoken while the jury had been sent out of the courtroom, which sounds like a warm-up for his closing argument. (The context of the "exchange" with Peter Atkinson's lawyers, though not explicitly identified as such, seems to have been prompted by a motion to dismiss the charges against Mr. Atkinson, or something akin to it.)
WQAD.com of Moline, Illinois has an abridged summary-report from the Associated Press. A more detailed AP report has been webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat; it links the first part of Ms. DeMerchant's testimony to the prosecution's attempt to show that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Kipnis weren't exactly taken advantage of during the time when the suspicious transactions were put together. (This linking seems to be part of an overall prosecutors' theory that the four defendants plus David Radler were the dupers, that the directors testifying for the prosecution were the only dupees, and that Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee were both too smart, knowledgable and quick-thinking to be fooled by Mr. Radler.)
United Press is also on the story now; a short summary of this day's events, which reports that a "war of words" got two counsels in Judge St. Eve's chambers, has been webbed by Monsters and Critics. It didn't indicate that this chambers conference was the "exchange" referred to in the Reuter's report linked to above.
(If it were, then Csr. Sussman was practicing a kind of closing address on the Reuters reporter.)
----------
Another defense counsel, Michael Schachter, gets a tip of the hat from Peter Brieger at the "Black Board" for a zinger he came up with during his cross-examination of Darren Sukonick.
Media Roundup: Clash of the Advisors
The reports on the Conrad Black trial, which have been posted overnight, all zeroed in on the clash between one lawyer's advice and another's:
1. From the Hamilton Spectator, in the "Business Briefs" section, a recap of yesterday's testimony in the second-last item. Mentions that William "Bud" Rogers testified that he never really dealt with either Conrad Black or David Radler.
2. Canadian Business has webbed a forecast that cross-examination of Csr. Rogers will commence today, and another Cravath, Swaine and Moore lawyer, Paul Saunders, will testify later this week.
3. From Peter Brieger and webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, an article that focuses upon the objections that Csr. Rogers had made to Darren Sukonick's disclosure advice. It also notes that the Hollinger Int'l executives he talked to had docilely went along with his opinion, but Beth DeMerchant, Csr. Sukonick's then-boss, defended the interpretation of her then-underling. The Regina Leader-Post has a slightly modified version of this report, which omits Csr. De Merchant and adds that Csr. Rogers had reacted to a memo written by Csr. Sukonick on Apr. 19, 2001. The latter report, posted more recently, also contains a quote from Csr. Rogers' objection letter, sent to Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee. That quotation ends with: "'Mr. Sukonick did not copy us on the e-mail... We were not at all aware cash payments were made to individual executives and Ravelston.'"
4. The same theme has been taken up by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie. His report notes that Csr. Rogers felt misunderstood when he learned that "Mr. Sukonick had also suggested that Mr. Rogers agreed with Torys conclusion." He objected to Torys' line of reasoning on the basis of his more cautious, perhaps less cavalier, interpretation of U.S. securities legislation. Mr. Waldie also notes that "one of the lawyers who worked with Mr. Rogers said he found the payments 'weird' and added that they looked like a 'trick' to get money to executives."
5. This morning's report from Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star opens with a recount of the objections defense lawyers made about Jeffrey Cramer's questioning. It also mentions that Csr. Rogers testified that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Boultbee had led him to believe that CanWest had insisted that the individual non-competes be signed as part of the deal. "That was not the case, the jury has heard."
6. Janet Whitman of the New York Post is back on the trial beat, with a write-up on Conrad Black's opening remarks from made yesterday morning.
7. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski continues her own coverage of the trial, which ends with a note that the "bickering" between defense and prosecution counselors is verging on the personal.
8. In another article, Mr. Waldie of the Globe points out that the Park Avenue apartment that Mr. Black bought from Hollinger International, which is mentioned in Count 10 of the indictment, is now being introduced into evidence by the prosecution.
1. From the Hamilton Spectator, in the "Business Briefs" section, a recap of yesterday's testimony in the second-last item. Mentions that William "Bud" Rogers testified that he never really dealt with either Conrad Black or David Radler.
2. Canadian Business has webbed a forecast that cross-examination of Csr. Rogers will commence today, and another Cravath, Swaine and Moore lawyer, Paul Saunders, will testify later this week.
3. From Peter Brieger and webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, an article that focuses upon the objections that Csr. Rogers had made to Darren Sukonick's disclosure advice. It also notes that the Hollinger Int'l executives he talked to had docilely went along with his opinion, but Beth DeMerchant, Csr. Sukonick's then-boss, defended the interpretation of her then-underling. The Regina Leader-Post has a slightly modified version of this report, which omits Csr. De Merchant and adds that Csr. Rogers had reacted to a memo written by Csr. Sukonick on Apr. 19, 2001. The latter report, posted more recently, also contains a quote from Csr. Rogers' objection letter, sent to Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee. That quotation ends with: "'Mr. Sukonick did not copy us on the e-mail... We were not at all aware cash payments were made to individual executives and Ravelston.'"
4. The same theme has been taken up by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie. His report notes that Csr. Rogers felt misunderstood when he learned that "Mr. Sukonick had also suggested that Mr. Rogers agreed with Torys conclusion." He objected to Torys' line of reasoning on the basis of his more cautious, perhaps less cavalier, interpretation of U.S. securities legislation. Mr. Waldie also notes that "one of the lawyers who worked with Mr. Rogers said he found the payments 'weird' and added that they looked like a 'trick' to get money to executives."
5. This morning's report from Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star opens with a recount of the objections defense lawyers made about Jeffrey Cramer's questioning. It also mentions that Csr. Rogers testified that both Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Boultbee had led him to believe that CanWest had insisted that the individual non-competes be signed as part of the deal. "That was not the case, the jury has heard."
6. Janet Whitman of the New York Post is back on the trial beat, with a write-up on Conrad Black's opening remarks from made yesterday morning.
7. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski continues her own coverage of the trial, which ends with a note that the "bickering" between defense and prosecution counselors is verging on the personal.
8. In another article, Mr. Waldie of the Globe points out that the Park Avenue apartment that Mr. Black bought from Hollinger International, which is mentioned in Count 10 of the indictment, is now being introduced into evidence by the prosecution.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Verdict Discusses A Topic More Fundamental
For a reason that you've probably guessed already, The Verdict focused upon a single topic tonight, one far removed from the Conrad Black trial.
A recent entry in Toronto Life's trial blog, by Douglas Bell, tries to bring a sense of perspective to the recent woes of the prosecution, and the gleeful coverage of Mark Steyn, Peter Worthington, et. al., by noting that the witnesses who have not been all that credible were called merely to lay a foundation for David Radler's own testimony. Ironically, Mr. Bell's entry was posted on the same day that a poll (there since the trial began) that asks "Based on today's evidence, I think Conrad Black is: Guilty/NotGuilty," showed, for the first time I've seen there, a solid majority for "Not Guilty." Normally for this blog's poll, "Guilty" secures a daily majority. (The poll can be found on the blog's index page.)
(Mr. Steyn's latest post is gleeful indeed, mostly at the expense of "Vitally Important Paperwork." Agree with him or not, it's interestingly populist.)
A recent entry in Toronto Life's trial blog, by Douglas Bell, tries to bring a sense of perspective to the recent woes of the prosecution, and the gleeful coverage of Mark Steyn, Peter Worthington, et. al., by noting that the witnesses who have not been all that credible were called merely to lay a foundation for David Radler's own testimony. Ironically, Mr. Bell's entry was posted on the same day that a poll (there since the trial began) that asks "Based on today's evidence, I think Conrad Black is: Guilty/NotGuilty," showed, for the first time I've seen there, a solid majority for "Not Guilty." Normally for this blog's poll, "Guilty" secures a daily majority. (The poll can be found on the blog's index page.)
(Mr. Steyn's latest post is gleeful indeed, mostly at the expense of "Vitally Important Paperwork." Agree with him or not, it's interestingly populist.)
Monday At The Trial
570 News has webbed a story by Romina Maurino, with opening quotes from Conrad Black: "Conrad Black says his confidence that the U.S. government has no case against him remains unshaken and he does not understand 'what any of us are doing here,... I've always said they had no case and nothing has changed,' Black told The Canadian Press on Monday as he headed into a Chicago court with his daughter Alana Black for the beginning of his trial's fifth week." The rest of the report adds details, and background. [Editor and Publisher has an excerpt of it here.]
Paul Waldie, of the Globe and Mail, has reported that the cross-examination of Darryl Sukonick is getting exciting, thanks to some questions asked by Peter Atkinson's lawyer, Michael Schachter. Csr. Sukonick stuck to his earlier testimony through them. Mr. Waldie's report ends with: "Under a final round of questioning, prosecutor Julie Ruder indicated that [other defendant Jack] Boultbee had not read a non-compete agreement in another Hollinger deal that included him and that he did not even know who the agreement was with."
On a BNN interview, aired at about 1:55 PM ET, Mr. Waldie added that the Sukonick videotape ended this morning. He added that a lot of the testimony on the videotape is losing the jurors' attention, but some are writing copious notes, and concluded that he was "reasonably impressed" with the attention paid by them to the tape, all things considered."
Reuters has a report of its own, written by Andrew Stern, which has one of the questions that Csr. Schachter asked of Csr. Sukonick regarding his refusal to leave Canada to testify, after the jurisdiction issue was made clear: "'You did not want to be the next honest lawyer to be charged with a crime for doing something absolutely legal, did you?'." Near the top of page 2, it relays the corresponding redirect question: "prosecutor Judy Ruder asked Sukonick if he would have risked his law license to provide phony documentation for the payments... 'No, of course not,' he replied. "I would never do anything like that.'"
Bloomberg's report, written by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, is webbed too. It mentions that the non-compete agreements at the heart of the trial were designed to be enforceable contracts, and not 'wash agreements' that were merely bonuses in disguise. It adds an item about Csr. Sukonick himself: "Sukonick said that at his own request, he is not currently dealing directly with any of the firm's clients."
The updated version of the same report has details on the testimony of the next witness, William "Bud'' Rogers, a lawyer with Cravath, Swaine and Moore. On direct examination, Csr. Rogers testified that he was convinced that Csr. Sukonick has given bad advice to Hollinger International: "'I was shocked to hear'" what Sukonick had advised, he said. The report also mentions that Csr. Rogers was involoved in a refinancing that Hollinger Int'l was pursuing, a point that is bound to come up during cross-examination.
Ms. Maurino's report has been updated too. It re-caps Csr. Sukonick's testimony, with an evaluation that he wasn't that effective as a prosecution witness. It also mentions that the jury became more attentive when Csr. Rogers took the stand, and that he appeared "friendly and confident" when prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer began questioning him. "Rogers became involved with [Hollinger] International when Atkinson hired him to deal with the sale of American Trucker, a free periodical available at U.S. truck and rest stops, to Primedia Inc."
The Belleville Times-Democrat has webbed the Associated Press wrap-up of today's testimony, which covers all of it. The testimony of Csr. Rogers is reported in some detail: he testified that disclosure of the non-compete payments was obligatory, and that failing to do so would put the company at risk of a being liable for a civil judgment in its shareholders' favour. "'Those payments were required to be disclosed,' he added, saying he told Kipnis that 'this (disclosing the non-competes) is not a close call.'"
----------
A trivia item: Argus Corp, the holding company that Conrad Black took over in 1978, still has preferred shares trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yahoo! Finance Canada has pages on all three of them: the Argus Corp. Ltd. Class "A" $2.50 preferred, the Argus Class "A" $2.60 preferred, and the Class "B" preferred.
On those listings, all of the three have "N/A" in the dividend-and-yield box...not good for preferred shares, whose value primarily comes from the their dividends.
Paul Waldie, of the Globe and Mail, has reported that the cross-examination of Darryl Sukonick is getting exciting, thanks to some questions asked by Peter Atkinson's lawyer, Michael Schachter. Csr. Sukonick stuck to his earlier testimony through them. Mr. Waldie's report ends with: "Under a final round of questioning, prosecutor Julie Ruder indicated that [other defendant Jack] Boultbee had not read a non-compete agreement in another Hollinger deal that included him and that he did not even know who the agreement was with."
On a BNN interview, aired at about 1:55 PM ET, Mr. Waldie added that the Sukonick videotape ended this morning. He added that a lot of the testimony on the videotape is losing the jurors' attention, but some are writing copious notes, and concluded that he was "reasonably impressed" with the attention paid by them to the tape, all things considered."
Reuters has a report of its own, written by Andrew Stern, which has one of the questions that Csr. Schachter asked of Csr. Sukonick regarding his refusal to leave Canada to testify, after the jurisdiction issue was made clear: "'You did not want to be the next honest lawyer to be charged with a crime for doing something absolutely legal, did you?'." Near the top of page 2, it relays the corresponding redirect question: "prosecutor Judy Ruder asked Sukonick if he would have risked his law license to provide phony documentation for the payments... 'No, of course not,' he replied. "I would never do anything like that.'"
Bloomberg's report, written by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, is webbed too. It mentions that the non-compete agreements at the heart of the trial were designed to be enforceable contracts, and not 'wash agreements' that were merely bonuses in disguise. It adds an item about Csr. Sukonick himself: "Sukonick said that at his own request, he is not currently dealing directly with any of the firm's clients."
The updated version of the same report has details on the testimony of the next witness, William "Bud'' Rogers, a lawyer with Cravath, Swaine and Moore. On direct examination, Csr. Rogers testified that he was convinced that Csr. Sukonick has given bad advice to Hollinger International: "'I was shocked to hear'" what Sukonick had advised, he said. The report also mentions that Csr. Rogers was involoved in a refinancing that Hollinger Int'l was pursuing, a point that is bound to come up during cross-examination.
Ms. Maurino's report has been updated too. It re-caps Csr. Sukonick's testimony, with an evaluation that he wasn't that effective as a prosecution witness. It also mentions that the jury became more attentive when Csr. Rogers took the stand, and that he appeared "friendly and confident" when prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer began questioning him. "Rogers became involved with [Hollinger] International when Atkinson hired him to deal with the sale of American Trucker, a free periodical available at U.S. truck and rest stops, to Primedia Inc."
The Belleville Times-Democrat has webbed the Associated Press wrap-up of today's testimony, which covers all of it. The testimony of Csr. Rogers is reported in some detail: he testified that disclosure of the non-compete payments was obligatory, and that failing to do so would put the company at risk of a being liable for a civil judgment in its shareholders' favour. "'Those payments were required to be disclosed,' he added, saying he told Kipnis that 'this (disclosing the non-competes) is not a close call.'"
----------
A trivia item: Argus Corp, the holding company that Conrad Black took over in 1978, still has preferred shares trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yahoo! Finance Canada has pages on all three of them: the Argus Corp. Ltd. Class "A" $2.50 preferred, the Argus Class "A" $2.60 preferred, and the Class "B" preferred.
On those listings, all of the three have "N/A" in the dividend-and-yield box...not good for preferred shares, whose value primarily comes from the their dividends.
Media Roundup: Furrowed Brains
As week five of the Conrad Black trial is about to begin, three stories on where the trial's turning have been webbed overnight, as well as a critical look at one of the agencies currently after Mr. Black and a few others, the Ontario Securities Commission:
1. From the Hamilton Spectator's "Business Briefs," an observation that the prosecutors may be close to throwing the trial through boring the jury.
2. 1130 News has webbed a 170-or-so word forecast giving signposts showing who to expect on the stand this week: the end of Darryl Sukonick's cross-examination, William (Bud) Rogers, Paul Saunders, and pre-recorded testimony from Beth De Merchant. The last was videotaped in lieu of her packing her bags and testifying in Chicago, as was the case with Csr. Sukonick.
3. The OSC, an agency that is also pursuing action against Mr. Black, at the civil level, is the subject of a critical look at its workings, as webbed by Investment News.
4. The Chicago Tribune's "Top 5" business stories to watch this week has the trial in spot 4; it notes that the man to watch for is Csr. Saunders, Henry Kissinger's former lawyer.
Also: an article in the New Yorker discusses whether or not the "war on white-collar crime" should be regarded with the skepticism, if not the cynicism, of the war-weary.
1. From the Hamilton Spectator's "Business Briefs," an observation that the prosecutors may be close to throwing the trial through boring the jury.
2. 1130 News has webbed a 170-or-so word forecast giving signposts showing who to expect on the stand this week: the end of Darryl Sukonick's cross-examination, William (Bud) Rogers, Paul Saunders, and pre-recorded testimony from Beth De Merchant. The last was videotaped in lieu of her packing her bags and testifying in Chicago, as was the case with Csr. Sukonick.
3. The OSC, an agency that is also pursuing action against Mr. Black, at the civil level, is the subject of a critical look at its workings, as webbed by Investment News.
4. The Chicago Tribune's "Top 5" business stories to watch this week has the trial in spot 4; it notes that the man to watch for is Csr. Saunders, Henry Kissinger's former lawyer.
Also: an article in the New Yorker discusses whether or not the "war on white-collar crime" should be regarded with the skepticism, if not the cynicism, of the war-weary.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Verdict: Re-Visit Of Bora Bora
Tonight's episode of The Verdict was, as customary for Sundays, a re-cap issue. This week, the segment on the Bora Bora trip was highlighted: you'll find a write-up on it here.
As is also customary, this episode of The Verdict should be available in broadband as of 11:30 PM or so, until it is replaced by the next one.
----------
Here's a trivia item with regard to the 1986 Dominion Stores pension scandal, brought up by Sid Ryan in his March 24th column. As noted near the bottom of this entry, Mr. Black had gotten in serious trouble, with respect to the civil law, for treating the Dominion Stores employees' pension fund as a "pay as you go" system by withdrawing a surplus from it. This withdrawal was part of legal, and not that abnormal, business practice at the time in Ontario (but not shortly thereafter.) Six years beforehand, according to this quote from Peter C. Newman's The Establishment Man, p. 163:
Words that came back to haunt? It's hard to say. At the time he issued that quote, Mr. Black was lobbying for a government bailout of Massey-Ferguson, with Argus also kicking in some cash provided that the bailout was effected by the federal government.
As is also customary, this episode of The Verdict should be available in broadband as of 11:30 PM or so, until it is replaced by the next one.
----------
Here's a trivia item with regard to the 1986 Dominion Stores pension scandal, brought up by Sid Ryan in his March 24th column. As noted near the bottom of this entry, Mr. Black had gotten in serious trouble, with respect to the civil law, for treating the Dominion Stores employees' pension fund as a "pay as you go" system by withdrawing a surplus from it. This withdrawal was part of legal, and not that abnormal, business practice at the time in Ontario (but not shortly thereafter.) Six years beforehand, according to this quote from Peter C. Newman's The Establishment Man, p. 163:
When [Financial Times reporter Deborah McGregor] asked about a rumour that [then-]Argus-owned Dominion stores was about to sell off its Quebec stores and funnel the proceeds into cash-starved Massey [as it was back in 1980], Black shot back, "That's absolute horseshit. It's hysterical to suggest that we would steal money from Dominion and hurl it at Massey."
Words that came back to haunt? It's hard to say. At the time he issued that quote, Mr. Black was lobbying for a government bailout of Massey-Ferguson, with Argus also kicking in some cash provided that the bailout was effected by the federal government.
Media Roundup: Just A Paper Sum
There's only two stories on the Conrad Black trial from overnight and today:
1. Peter Worthington's latest column, which starts off by discussing the frequent use of plea bargains. Mr. Worthington then recounts that Mr. Black "has adamantly and angrily rejected a seven-year plea bargain sentence, and preferred to risk 101 years in jail if found guilty by a Chicago jury." He concludes that the only way Conrad Black will get jail is if he has been found to lie.
2. Another regular writer on the trial, Romina Maurino, starts off with the wall-of-boredom theme, which may lead to Conrad Black walking in a technical snooze-off. Introduction of travels to another land only seem to humanize Mr. Black to the jury. He's already "musing before one session last week that prosecutors have yet to show they have a case." Ms. Maurino's write-up ends with a plausible fallback strategy for the prosecution: hoping that the enormity of the case will put the jurors in the state of mind for deciding that Conrad Black must be culpable of something.
Also, Mark Steyn's latest blog post tells of a prosecutor who tries, but misunderstands what a genuine crime is. Peter Brieger's earlier suggestion that the Blacks would have had a relatively better time in Wasaga Beach adds a harmony to the aftermath of the Bora Bora frenzy, and Toronto Life's Alan Gold speculates on the real reason why the two Torys lawyers who were absolutely taped in Toronto preferred their testimony to be edited through videotape.
----------
J. Richard Finlay has posted a rebuttal to an earlier Toronto Life blog posting by Roger Martin in his own blog, "Finlay ON Governance." In it, Mr. Finlay argues that Mr. Martin's claim, that current corporate-governance advocates should have their own conduct examined, comes close to advocating criminalization of soon-to-be-normal business practice.
1. Peter Worthington's latest column, which starts off by discussing the frequent use of plea bargains. Mr. Worthington then recounts that Mr. Black "has adamantly and angrily rejected a seven-year plea bargain sentence, and preferred to risk 101 years in jail if found guilty by a Chicago jury." He concludes that the only way Conrad Black will get jail is if he has been found to lie.
2. Another regular writer on the trial, Romina Maurino, starts off with the wall-of-boredom theme, which may lead to Conrad Black walking in a technical snooze-off. Introduction of travels to another land only seem to humanize Mr. Black to the jury. He's already "musing before one session last week that prosecutors have yet to show they have a case." Ms. Maurino's write-up ends with a plausible fallback strategy for the prosecution: hoping that the enormity of the case will put the jurors in the state of mind for deciding that Conrad Black must be culpable of something.
Also, Mark Steyn's latest blog post tells of a prosecutor who tries, but misunderstands what a genuine crime is. Peter Brieger's earlier suggestion that the Blacks would have had a relatively better time in Wasaga Beach adds a harmony to the aftermath of the Bora Bora frenzy, and Toronto Life's Alan Gold speculates on the real reason why the two Torys lawyers who were absolutely taped in Toronto preferred their testimony to be edited through videotape.
----------
J. Richard Finlay has posted a rebuttal to an earlier Toronto Life blog posting by Roger Martin in his own blog, "Finlay ON Governance." In it, Mr. Finlay argues that Mr. Martin's claim, that current corporate-governance advocates should have their own conduct examined, comes close to advocating criminalization of soon-to-be-normal business practice.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Media Roundup: A Little Lifetime, Sitting...
It's been a month since the Conrad Black trial started, and the media reports have slowed down for another weekend, when nothing is new:
1. From the Pictou County News, an article wondering out loud why there's so much coverage of the trial.
2. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead notes that the recent testimony by Darryl Sukonick isn't likely to impact Torys LLC's position as a market leader in the Canadian corporate-legal industry. (Excerpted by LawFuel.com.)
3. Also from the Star, a column by Jim Coyle that uses the Bora Bora trip as a springboard for complaints about reaching old age. It contains relevant quotes from a few modern American authors. (Cameron Smith mentions the trial in passing, in a column discussing a recent plan by Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to allow fast-tracked building of incinerators.)
4. The Toronto Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's assessment of the prosecution's performance so far, which ends with: "At this stage, it's hard to envy the prosecutors' role."
5. Theresa Tedesco of the National Post has a feature-length article that re-caps the entire month of the trial, under the title "No suspense, but plenty of comedy." It even works in Elmer Fudd...
----------
CBC News has thoughtfully posted a guide to the documentation that the prosecution has introduced into evidence. They don't mention any "smoking gun" in it, though; if you want to try your hand at finding one yourself, the direct link to the prosecution's "Trial Documents" is here. (I got the last link from the guide itself.)
1. From the Pictou County News, an article wondering out loud why there's so much coverage of the trial.
2. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead notes that the recent testimony by Darryl Sukonick isn't likely to impact Torys LLC's position as a market leader in the Canadian corporate-legal industry. (Excerpted by LawFuel.com.)
3. Also from the Star, a column by Jim Coyle that uses the Bora Bora trip as a springboard for complaints about reaching old age. It contains relevant quotes from a few modern American authors. (Cameron Smith mentions the trial in passing, in a column discussing a recent plan by Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to allow fast-tracked building of incinerators.)
4. The Toronto Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's assessment of the prosecution's performance so far, which ends with: "At this stage, it's hard to envy the prosecutors' role."
5. Theresa Tedesco of the National Post has a feature-length article that re-caps the entire month of the trial, under the title "No suspense, but plenty of comedy." It even works in Elmer Fudd...
----------
CBC News has thoughtfully posted a guide to the documentation that the prosecution has introduced into evidence. They don't mention any "smoking gun" in it, though; if you want to try your hand at finding one yourself, the direct link to the prosecution's "Trial Documents" is here. (I got the last link from the guide itself.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)