Fred Z June 20, 2007 at 11:25 a.m.

mr. Martin:

Black got 2 or 3 percent of the sale prices. This is not a big deal, Realtors get more, nor is it greed. I'm tired of hearing it so characterized.

As for whether he deserved it, he took a nothing company, built it, then sold parts of for huge sums, probably way more than they were worth. Of course he deserved it. I am astonished he took so little.

The world is full of takers, fakers and makers. Makers are in very short supply and get well paid.

vnm June 20, 2007 at 11:58 a.m.

Fred Z: the reason they didn't put Black on the stand is that they were worried he say stuff like that, and get himself convicted on all counts.

Fintan June 20, 2007 at 12:05 p.m.

Far be it from me to question Mr. Martin's expertise in relation to executive compensation, but I would have thought that it must be decided by someone or some body other than an executive himself. Let's say I'm one of the big bosses of Nokia and I pull off a billion-euro deal with some or other country or corporation and decide I deserve a big chunk of the proceeds for my inspired work, structure the contract in such a way that a few million goes to a bank account of mine or a company, separate from Nokia, which I control, and bury this in some obscure corner of the paperwork, is this OK in Mr. Martin's view?

Surely the question of compensation is covered by my employment contract and/or whatever system of rewards and incentives the company has in place.

If I just grab a load of loot, questions will be raised when the company's transparent accounts are examined by the outside auditors and in all probability I will find myself having to account for myself to a court or - an even more daunting prospect - to the tax authorities. I can just imagine myself telling them that I took it because I'm worth it. The L'Oreal Fintan would be off to the calaboose, make no mistake about it.

That's the European way, and even if Black gets off, the closing of legal loopholes and improvements in audit and corporate governance practices that are bound to be made in the USA will make it very hard for any shyster - including Black - to pull off a similar stunt in future. Hopefully it will also make many people ask how it is morally defensible for people to have so much wealth and so much conspicuous consumption in a world where so many lack even the basic requisites for a life of human dignity.

I do recognise and applaud the likes of Bill Gates, who has given tens of billions of dollars (yes, really!) to good causes. Others, like Black, just consume and wouldn't give the poor the steam off their piss on a frosty morning.

vnm June 20, 2007 at 12:11 p.m.

I think Greenspan blew it bigtime. the "govt is using radler, who used black, to use radler .." or whatever the heck that confused moebius strip of languge was, a really botched tag line, trying to be too clever by half.

Then telling the jury everyone else a liar, including the former governor, celebrated ambassador, and dazzling society economist ... who were entirely consistent in establishing that they have better things to do than read fine print, sign stuff they don't read, like everyone else on the planet, without any idea of what might be in the print, big or small.

granted, he has an impossible job, and for $3 million is it?, he has to say something.

On the Contrary June 20, 2007 at 12:11 p.m.

Good point Fred Z. I keep hearing the words of the alternate juror who sounded eerily self-confident, nonplussed, and dismissive, similar to the accused, that the case was easy to understand and that the deals were simply "sloppy" not criminal. Get ready for not guilty. Genson demolished the real estate estate and obstruct charges this morning.

On the Contrary June 20, 2007 at 12:23 p.m.

I am always amazed at what you find in people's thinking. It often falls back on some kind of personal psychodrama. Fintan wants us to feel good about a Black conviction because of some kind of personal anger with conspicuous wealth and a notion that Black hasn't done anything personally to stop the world's economic inequality (do we know this for sure?). What a weird discussion to imagine in the jury chambers. Yesterday, Donna gave us some truly bizarre insight into how proud Ruder's father must be of her and that it was mean spirited to think otherwise, er uh, projection and association? Thank God it is St Eve's job to instruct the jury to ignore this kind of thinking and focus on the law, the facts, and reasonable doubt.

Lucas Taylor June 20, 2007 at 12:32 p.m.

"Others, like Black, just consume and wouldn't give the poor the steam off their piss on a frosty morning."

Absolute, slanderous nonsense. Black has contributed money to many charitable causes in the past and even one Toronto hospital has a wing named after his family name. In fact, as recently as last year he donated $500,000 to the Opera House.

Fintan June 20, 2007 at 12:52 p.m.

On the Contrary writes: "Fintan wants us to feel good about a Black conviction because of some kind of personal anger with conspicuous wealth and a notion that Black hasn't done anything personally to stop the world's economic inequality (do we know this for sure?)."

Let's start at the end. Believe me, if Black and the Missus had been into charitable giving, we'd have heard about it - from them. They may well have given to the elite arts - an absolute must-do when you're into social mountaineering- but I just can't see Babs mincing down Sudder Street in her Manuelo Blackasses on her way to Mother Teresa's place.

I mean, when a cinema in London or Toronto is too full of smelly people for her to bear ...

I do not have "personal anger" at "conspicuous wealth", but I do have a serious objection in principle to conspicuous consumption on the scale that the Blacks practise(d) it. In many jurisdictions, including where I live, it is a criminal offence to fail to render assistance to a person whose life is endangered. It is equally criminal, in my view, when those who have the power and the abilities to do so allow millions to live without even access to clean drinking water. You can educate a child in Nepal for €50 a year. What could you do with the $2.4 million that went on a rock for Babs' finger?

As for not doing anything to stop the world's economic inequality, Black has long and loudly championed social and economic policies that can only increase it.

Finally, what I am discussing is not the jury chamber, but the probably ripple effects of this trial, whatever its outcome, whether that outcome is just or not from the perspective of some, and looking forward to the public discourse that will certainly mean changes in the way they do things in corporate America

Donna June 20, 2007 at 1:01 p.m.

To |Lucas Taylor -

Rushing but couldn't leave without saying this to you - apparently Black and family donated all these millions or whatever with Hollinger cash and then had his and family names inserted on mastheads. Radler did similarly with Queens University or some Ontario university where he received his MBA ( look it up ) which returned his money, as did a university or some other organization in Israel - again, look it up. All true. Both men are simply too cheap to donate their own money, as Julie Ruder emphasized on Monday. As to On The Contrary's comments about my " bizarre " remarks re Ruder's dad being so proud of his daughter, it is not difficult to understand, based upon your posts, exactly why you would come to this conclusion. My case, er, rests.

Nala June 20, 2007 at 1:05 p.m.

VNM...the actual quote was......"The government wants you to rely on David Radler to convict Conrad Black for having relied on David Radler," Mr. Greenspan summed up. "If Conrad Black takes David Radler's word, it's a crime. If the government's takes David Radler's word, it's called justice."

Your comment, or whatever the heck that confused moebius strip of languge was, a really botched tag line, trying to be too clever by half, beautifully illustrates how well you are understanding this case.

vnm June 20, 2007 at 1:14 p.m.

"Hopefully it will also make many people ask how it is morally defensible for people to have so much wealth and so much conspicuous consumption in a world where so many lack even the basic requisites for a life of human dignity."

Geez, I'm gonna cry! Of course you are absolutely right.

But those Black of heart don't care about stuff like that, it's irrelevant.

Fred Z June 20, 2007 at 1:16 p.m.

Children in Nepal? Black mistreats children in Nepal? Who knew. What a swine. Burn him, he's a witch, hanging is too good.

vnm June 20, 2007 at 1:29 p.m.

"...the actual quote was..."

Nala: Of course! How could anyone forget that catchy, consise, non quip, non joke? Let me try again:

"The government wants David Radler to rely on Conrad, ... no wait a minute ... wants David Black to rely on the government, no, damn, ... what was that again ... what are we even doing here in Chicago?"

Wow June 20, 2007 at 1:31 p.m.

Do you realize that almost every poster (Donna, Fintan etc.) that wants to see Conrad Black hung, drawn, and quartered wants to do it because he is "greedy." So, let's lock him up! I suspect that Donna and Fintan have never given a penny to anyone (but have frequently demanded that government pay for whatever they want!) Newsflash for you, Donna and Fintan...the rich have made their money and can spend it any bloody way they want!

J. Hill June 20, 2007 at 1:39 p.m.

It seems that the offence of fraud is quite simple: as a result of a falsehood (i.e. a lie) someone (who had a duty not to lie or to be forthright) got a benefit (i.e. money) he was otherwise not entitled to.

David Radler did it. Conrad Black did it. If the shareholders had been told the truth, would they have willingly parted with the money?

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 1:42 p.m.

VNM,

To overlook the liklihood that the so called Board did not find the NC's because they were "buried somewhere", is indicative of a few possibilities :

1: Black and Co just intuitively knew( after all, his intelligence is just at another level all together !) that the Board would be inactive, unprepared or interested.

This, despite their active and thorough participations past. So, Black knew he had a hypothetical solid legal defense if the NC's became an issue,or,

This man,this mind...he should not be sent to jail. He should be used to figure out the Middle East issues. He could draft a peace agreement, pass it along to the relative parties and , at the right time,in the right place and,of course, using his other wordly intuition, rely on many important aspects to go unread.

After all, in all of ourlives, the most meaningful things that we sign oare largely ignored,unread documents. ie: our marriage licenses, our morgage documents, our various contracts etc etc.

ahum...

2: The Board read it but it is not in their interest to say so now. Or,

3: The Board did exactly what they now said they had done. They skimmed it and overlooked the 6 or so places that noted the NC's in detail.

If you decide based on whatever rational you wish to apply, that #1 applies, I would suggest it is just paranoia.

I'll assume for amoment you share Black's ability to read minds..so your premise accepted.

OK, Black was inclined to think that it would slip past the Board. There is no factual way he could categorically know. The mere fact that it was written in, in detail ( in undisputable fact ) 6 or so times should be enough to find him ONLY negligent at best but not fraudulant. That's it.

Providing the ostrich ,which should be shot and eaten, opens the door to those comparable PHSYIC - MENSA(TM) types who share your stunning,intuitive insight...to tell they rest of us....

" we just knew...trust us on this one...we see things you can't in the real world".

Further, if #'s 2 or 3 fit with one's thinking, he justly gets off.

It is truly pitiful that this aspect of the case exists. What more could one do than have the NC's written in, ask of the Board to do their job.

Assuming, particularly from past Board participation, that they would do THEIR job.,

So, it moves forward with the Board's blessing.

Unbelievably arrogant prosecution, which will lead us down this path, towards actions that will likely result in some prison time...obstruction being the likliest area.

aka...Martha Stewart, the original charges proved , well, unprovable, but she fibbed somewhere along the way...so GET HER.

Having one's life at stake unjustly,makes one paranoid enough to believe one better take some action to further reduce an unjust result...

oh my...I'm sorry...Black should have known about that too...seeing how he foresee things that we can't, so effectively.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 1:43 p.m.

JHILL

The Board represents the shareholders, or at least is supposed to. The NC's were written in many times. The Board signed off. It was oked. End of story.

Fred June 20, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.

The Board saw the do not competes. Did they approve them? You would be left with that impression based on the testimony of Pat Ryan from KPMG. What did they aprove though? Were they told all of the information relating to the do not competes? Were they told that the buyers requested them? Were that told that they paid do not competes to Radler and Black to not compete with Bradford which was partly owned by Radler and Black? Were they told that the deals between related parties were at FMV? That they were indpendently valued? That there were no other buyers? That it was a good deal for Hollinger?

There are the questions regarding fraud and mispresentation and self dealing etc that the jury will have to think about The AC did approve the do not competes. It is in the proxy statements etc. But what were they told they were approving? Are they suppose to assume that management is acting in the best interests of the company or the best interests of management?

J. Hill June 20, 2007 at 2:01 p.m.

You cannot be defrauded unless you are equally willing to turn a blind eye to the process. Just because the Board members were less than prudent does not make the actions of Radler and Black any less dishonest.

MB June 20, 2007 at 2:03 p.m.

VMN Said <i>" including the former governor, celebrated ambassador, and dazzling society economist ... who were entirely consistent in establishing that they have better things to do than read fine print, sign stuff they don't read, like everyone else on the planet, without any idea of what might be in the print, big or small."</i>

The basic premise of corporate governance is for the Board to look out for the interests of the shareholders in a dilligent fashion as if it was their own money at stake (which it often is). For those above who have justified that the Hollinger 'board members' didn't have enough time to read the small print then you have no idea of how a board should work and probably are far from qualified to even comment on the subject.

One of the basic things you learn in the school of law is that you never sign a legal document without reading it. If you do sign and then later find out you approved and/or committed yourself some type of liability - to bad - thats ignorance on your part. And you have no right to subsequently claim to the court that because you didn't read it - yet signed off on it - then a certain clause was overlooked and therefore are not bound to or responsible for it.

This is exactly the premise the USDOJ wants you to believe - that because the three board members were to busy to perform their fictuary duties of governance and quickly 'skimmed' the documents without paying attention to the details - then the board members should be able to claim ignorance to the fact that they approved payments which they now say were not approved. This defense would never stand up in contract-law court and I see no reason why it should stand up in this trial.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:08 p.m.

Fred,

Great thoughts. I can't help but wonder if that was fact and that they read, BUT signed off assuming the non competes meant something other than what was written, it would enhance the Pros arguments.

It would likely have been the tact the Pros took and had urged the 3 Pros witnesses to consider, apposed to the 'skimming' position.

It would have leant quite alot of credability to the Pros case, as it would have...WOULD have, shown the jury that 3 upstanding citizens actually did their job and read everything, but signed off based on a different understanding of what the written word meant...all based on what they were told.

3 established, seemingly credible people expressing that they were told the NC'smeant something else, seems more palatable over 3 blind mice.

But, that isn't the case. This case, as it exisits, is just nasty.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:13 p.m.

"Black and Co just intuitively knew( after all, his intelligence is just at another level all together !) that the Board would be inactive, unprepared or interested."

Black had nothing to lose in trying. For that kind of money, it's worth a shot the AC will overlook the whole thing. The worst that can happen is the AC calls you on it, and you don't get the money. At that stage, your're only guilty of asking.

Hardly a scheme of breathtaking genius.

vnm June 20, 2007 at 2:14 p.m.

oops, sorry, above wrongly attributed to wave99.
he's not actually THAT conflicted

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:16 p.m.

VNM,

Great news for you and the Pros strongest adovcate here...just chatted with the Board,and we are now ready to pay you to not compete in this forum going forward.

What's the price ? ! lol

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:33 p.m.

VNM,

One can't logically take the position that Black felt the Board will see the documents and thus suggest, 'nothing ventured nothing gained', if they don't get signed off.

And yet at the sametime, assume that Black knew the Board did not see the NC's because they were hidden so effectively.

We know factually the NC's were noted in the docs, as it turns out, some 12 times. If you want to create a more logical argument against Black, based on your first premise ( nothing ventured etc) the position I would surmise is that Black would be better off detailing the NC's in as many areas as possible and relevant.

In doing that, Black would feel he would surely be covered against any legal actions(intent). As there were 12 notations on the NC's, clearly quite available and detailed, you could surmise ( again using one's other-worldly intuitive skills) that he picked the right spot for the Board to be 'lazy' and ran.

It could even be true, but even that would not matter based on the evidence given in this case. They have not remotely been able to prove it and will rely on that out-stretched Ostrich neck, to ask the jury to conceive of it and overlook the Board , everything else.

The cake the Pros wants to have and eat as well, is dropping all over the floor !

Daniel M. Ryan June 20, 2007 at 2:34 p.m.

@wave99:

You've just introduced equilibrium. The unintended consequence of independent governing boards is more shameless CEOs, as they can justify pushing things by saying, "if I'm out of line, the oversight body will shoot me down."

vnm June 20, 2007 at 2:41 p.m.

Hey Fintan/Donna:

I do believe Black's supporters are now actually saying that based on this tragic miscarriage of justice, America is in danger of becoming a country where you can go to jail just for being greedy!

A commie hotbed, that's what it is!

On the Contrary June 20, 2007 at 2:41 p.m.

Everyone seems to be caught up on the concept of "skimming".
Skimming seems to imply plausability and "oh anyone could slip up doing that" and "Black could easily have slipped something in here without telling because he knew the board was lazy". This is clearly not the case - did you catch the testimony of hostile defence witness Ryan - a Wall Street securities lawyer no less - Thompson approved the non-competes and the amounts. He didn't "skim" them, he acknowledged them and approved them - 11 times for heaven's sake.

J Hill, "You cannot be defrauded unless you are equally willing to turn a blind eye to the process. Just because the Board members were less than prudent does not make the actions of Radler and Black any less dishonest". I am afraid you are wrong here. Black could say to the board that he wanted $100M (in non competes, bonus, or salary) and if it is approved there isn't any dishonesty and that's what's being argued - and proved here. The concept is reasonable when applied to the use of a jet for personal purposes, the NY party, or the apartment swap.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:48 p.m.

VNM,

I would suggest the vast majority of what you call "Black supporters" are infact supporters of justice, as ugly as it can be.

Where as the language used amoung those apposed to Black is tainted consistently with commentary more about the person than the alleged crimes.

To an outside observer ,say from Australia,and whom could really care little, bias would undoubtedly be placed almost entirely (within this blog I speak ) on your side of the table.

Pass the peas please.

DH June 20, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.

Roger Martin states: "So in the end, I am less scandalized by Black than are many of my friends. I am more scandalized by the majority of the class of large-firm CEOs in general."

Does that make Conrad Black less guilty? I think not. Does that mean the Unites States government should go after more CEOs? Absolutely. Anybody who has lost a portion of their hard-earned money to corporations like JDSUniphase, Nortel, etc. will sign up to have the men who ran these corporations go through the same grilling Conrad Black is going through.

I say, don't let Conrad Black off the hook because there are so many CEOs that are crooks. I say, charge them all.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.

DH,

Having read what you wrote, I'd just like to say, in a very nervous but completely sincere and polite way.

" Nice to meet you...got to run...take care....have a good life...bye now ".

Fred Z June 20, 2007 at 3:13 p.m.

DH: Hollinger made money under Black. Tons of money. Hollinger lost its shirt after Black was ousted and control given to his critics. The situation is not remotely like JDS Uniphase or Nortel.

Mr. Ryan: Why is a CEO shameless for merely asking for a 2% bonus on the sale of assets that took years to build up?

vnm June 20, 2007 at 3:20 p.m.

wave99,

Of course one can only speculate about what the AC knew or didn't know. i agree, legally for the Pros, it's a mess, the AC signed docs, but now say they didn't know what they signed.

Fintan June 20, 2007 at 3:21 p.m.

Fred Z asks Mr. Ryan: "Why is a CEO shameless for merely asking for a 2% bonus on the sale of assets that took years to build up?"

I'll leave Mr. Ryan to answer that himself, but would like to comment that the CEO in question didn't actually ASK for anything. He just TOOk it. That's why he's in the dock and that's why he's hopefully off to the slammer.

Now it's bedtime, so good night all!

Lucas Taylor June 20, 2007 at 3:27 p.m.

Fred said:

"The Board saw the do not competes. Did they approve them? You would be left with that impression based on the testimony of Pat Ryan from KPMG. What did they aprove though? Were they told all of the information relating to the do not competes? Were they told that the buyers requested them? Were that told that they paid do not competes to Radler and Black to not compete with Bradford which was partly owned by Radler and Black? Were they told that the deals between related parties were at FMV? That they were indpendently valued? That there were no other buyers? That it was a good deal for Hollinger?"

To answer your question - is there something that the board did not approve? The thing is, all the transactions had non-compete clauses that the buyers were more than happy to sign, and top it off, the AC approved every single payment to Black & Co. When KPMG raised this issue with Thompson he just politely nodded and didn't object. Why did he do that? Is it because the amounts were OK? Is it because non-competes are legal? If the buyers felt uncomfortable with the non-competes but proceeded anyway shouldn't they be charged with fraud as well - after all, weren't they willfully blind by giving money to Black instead of Hollinger shareholders in exchange for a lower price of the newspaper properties in question? Surely the ostrich would apply in this case as well, no?

DH June 20, 2007 at 3:31 p.m.

Don't be nervous Wave99, unless you are one of the unscrupulous CEOs Roger Martin discusses. You have, obviously, not been burned in investment scams.

America relies largely on their capital market system. If people around the globe begin to lose faith in this system, they are cooked. Don't be surprised that the US government will come down hard on corporations that abuse shareholders. I just wish Canada had the backbone to do the same. Only so many CEOs can scam their investors before the free-market system is on shaky ground.

I don't buy the argument that Roger Martin lays out that Black should not be found guilty because there are so many bad CEOs out there who haven't been charged. This is a very weak argument usually seen by one's own teenager trying to inform you that 'everyone is doing it'. That doesn't make it right and Roger Martin should know this. Should Conrad Black be made an example? I don't know. Where should the US government start? All I know, as a small investor being told by the government that I have to save for my pension, the system better not be rigged. I don't want to see greedy CEOs and I don't want to see crony boards doing the bidding of the CEO. Is this too much to ask?

As more and more employees are being asked to invest for their own retirement, there has to be faith in the system. If the system is compromised by unscrupulous companies in the stock market, where can they turn?

I can only assume the people who had invested in Hollinger were not making money back in 2003. Obviously, Wave99 was not one of them. I have to assume that Conrad Black ticked off some big investors to get the reaction he did. Little investors, like myself, have to swim without help from the justice system.

Ian June 20, 2007 at 3:55 p.m.

To DH:
There is no stealing of money from the shareholders!

How much would you pay in commission for these deals that B&R did? 2-3% seems mighty low. Do you think these guys are going to do this for nothing? (remember, they got $0 in salary from Hollinger)
Hollinger could have taken all of the money from the sales and then paid B&R a 2-3% commission.
Or, Hollinger could have said, “Because Canada does not tax NCs, why don’t you guys take the money that way - it makes no difference to our bottom line either way?”
Do you see any of Hollinger’s shareholders on the stand? No, because they understand this fairly basic concept!

N.Y. Etskram June 20, 2007 at 4:05 p.m.

It's quite a wrench for me to admit this, but the delectable Ms. Ruder is doing a great job. Sad, but true, Black gave a lot of people a lot of ropes and now one of them is being greased for him.

Donna June 20, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

Eloquently stated, DH, and I wholeheartedly concur. You state that Black must have " ticked off some big investors to get the reaction he did. Little investors, like myself, have to swim without help from the justice system. " Right on the money! Moreover, a USJD does not go after who it deems the masterminds behind the alleged frauds against Hollinger shareholders unless it thinks it has a winneable case. And, despite all the blowhards particularly on this blog and on other blogs in support of Black, et.al, this jury, as Julie Ruder begged them to do, will look at the " cover story " put forth by Black, et.al and see it for the fruad that it is; will look beyond and behind and on the bottom of the awful smokescreens established by defense argument and clear away the smoke to clearly view the alleged fruads - perks, non competes, obstruction of justice. Jury will ask itself WHY did the corporate honchos at Hollinger not disclose the reason for their non compete payments to AC and Board - why did they withold the vital and crucial motivating factors herein? Furthermore, jury will ask itself why Radler pleaded guilty if there was no crime committed and why suddenly, the brilliant, erudite, educated Black was suddenly duped and continued to be duped by the guilty Radler while simultaneously receiving all those millions and never once asking, let alone wondering, why he was getting them and where they were coming from. To claim that Black trusted Radler is the same as the AC and Board ostensibly trusting the inherent honesty in Black and Radler. What is good for the ( golden ) goose is good for the gander - no?

Perplexed June 20, 2007 at 4:21 p.m.

To VNM:

"Hopefully it will also make many people ask how it is morally defensible for people to have so much wealth and so much conspicuous consumption in a world where so many lack even the basic requisites for a life of human dignity."

Geez, I'm gonna cry! Of course you are absolutely right.

But those Black of heart don't care about stuff like that, its irrelevant."

Followed by:

"I do believe Black's supporters are now actually saying that based on this tragic miscarriage of justice, America is in danger of becoming a country where you can go to jail just for being greedy!

A commie hotbed, that's what it is!"

I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning. The prosecution does not criminalize greed but sending a message to those who are is justification in itself for this proceeding?

And is it possible that some of us find the apparent level of greed distasteful but are also concerned about the distortion and misuse of the criminal justice system? Does it bother you at all, that in a case alleging dishonesty, the prosecutors have been caught time and again misstating the facts to the jury? Is it possible that the prosecutions motivations are not entirely noble? That perhaps these are just very ambitious people who are out to make a name for themselves and have clothed themselves in faux indignation for that purpose?

The SEC has more than enough power to protect shareholders and impose sanctions on miscreants. At what point does this become just "piling on"?

Lucas Taylor June 20, 2007 at 4:24 p.m.

"You state that Black must have " ticked off some big investors to get the reaction he did. Little investors, like myself, have to swim without help from the justice system. "

Didn't Greenspan play a tape yesterday of the second largest institutional investor claiming that Black & Co. were the best managers in the business? But if all these other investors were so ticked off why didn't they visit the courtroom to air their grievances? Surely an in-person victim impact statements would have been very useful for the prosecution.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 4:35 p.m.

DH,

Fair comments. I empathize with those who were burned by illegal activities in any way. So,I agree.

This case...is not about our views on hypotheticals or even comparable possible scenarios.

This is about a blown chance. A much stronger case could have been forwarded. This case, is about the evidence presented in this case only.

And the evidence in this case shows that this case is weak and that far too many holes can be poked into this case.

This case has nothing to do with any other scenario or case. It's about...you guessed it...this case.

It does fascinate me when people weld so much personal baggage into their views and decision making. I hope, for justice sake, that the jury only evaluates this case.

Donna June 20, 2007 at 4:43 p.m.

Bottom line to all you blowhards here in support of Black and his mish mash of a defense that is obscured behind massive, confusing, rediculous smokescreens - prosecution has last say after last defense argument put forward and I am betting it will not only be a doozy but will shoot holes into everything stated in defense dissertations. Jury will be rightly left with the words of prosecution ringing in its honest, logical, reasonable ears. Black, I am betting, will not walk on everything. Not possible for logical, honest minds to accept and if he does, you can bet that there will be some major changes to the ways public companies are structured in the future as well as the privileges assumed by controlling shareholders, etc. These alterations will occur with or without a conviction of Black.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 5:07 p.m.

Someone has just lost it...just lost it. Locked in dogma. Unable to see clearly. Sad.

Daniel M. Ryan June 20, 2007 at 5:08 p.m.

@Fred Z:

I'm making a general point...perhaps a forecast. The post that we're commenting on here referred in part to CEO compensation in general. That's the part I was commenting on earlier.

Fred June 20, 2007 at 5:11 p.m.

Lucas, while I agree with you that the Board did approve the payments and that the buyers signed contracts with do not competes, I still have a problem with suggesting that Black and Radler are absolved from what they have done by virtue of these approvals. The Board relies on management to look after the best interests of the Company. I think that having do not competes signed by buyers was not in the best interest of the Company? I think that having Black buy the apratment at something less than real FMV is not in the best interests of the Company. Black would have said look at this letter from Healy - see FMV. Should the Board have said let me see the valuations. Let us engage someone independent to management.

The same applies to the do not competes. Board: "Conrad why are we signing these do not competes with payments going to you and David"? Black: "Because the buyers have requested them. Have a look at the agreements". Does this mean that the Board was obligated to go to the buyers and verify that? Or should the buyers have said no we refuse to give this do not compete, even though it make no financial difference to us. Is this fraud on the part of Black and Radler? I think it is. Mispresentation for sure. Lies - yeah sure seems like it.

DH June 20, 2007 at 5:18 p.m.

To Ian:

You don't see any Hollinger shareholders on the stand because they don't know what the hell is going on. Most small shareholders are like that.

I didn't own any shares in Hollinger but I have owned shares in JDS and Nortel and did feel totally flattened by their collapse. Most small shareholders are not going to show up in a court in Chicago accusing a corporation of wrongdoing. That doesn't mean something wrong or illegal didn't occur.

What happened at Hollinger may be found guilty in a court of law or not. The bottom line is that the heart of stock exchanges around the world are built on small investors like myself. If they believe the system is flawed they will not invest in it.

Conrad Black may be a scapegoat to all the irregularities on the US stock exchange, but he is a small fish in a huge system trying to keep the American dream alive. People have to believe that they can make money in the market or they might as well buy into a Marxist theory.

I personally don't care if the people running the corporations I buy stocks in have diamonds dripping from every appendage on their body bought at stockholders' expense in the company. I just want at least a decent yield on my investment. Just don't be buying any diamonds if I'm losing money!

vnm June 20, 2007 at 5:59 p.m.

"Does it bother you at all, that in a case alleging dishonesty, the prosecutors have been caught time and again misstating the facts to the jury?"

I think we have to leave that one up to the US courts to determine. If it's true, you can bet Black's lawyers will be all over it on appeal. The more mistakes they make, the better his chances.

Personally I think virtually all of this all should have been resolved in civil court. When the scandal erupted, the disputed contracts and payments should have been put on the table and hammered out with the relevant parties.

Crazy, but here we are. And now that we are here, I think Black should be convicted on the NYC apartment purchase. What's the penalty for that in US?

As for the rest, ... feed him to the shareholders.

Bob C June 20, 2007 at 6:04 p.m.

Lucas Taylor said, "But if all these other investors were so ticked off why didn't they visit the courtroom to air their grievances? Surely an in-person victim impact statements would have been very useful for the prosecution."

It's been a long day so forgive me, but since you can't seriously be wondering whether there really are upset shareholders out there, am I right in assuming your point is that the jury will draw some inference from their non-appearance? Like they'll wonder whether there really are any?

If so, I seriously doubt it. I took me about two seconds to figure out that you can't have a 3 month trial, fairly extensively covered by the press, in which none of the pleased-as-punch shareholders wouldn't have dropped a quarter by now. The jury probably did it in half the time.

As far as a victim impact statement is concerned, the prosecution has been pretty thorough in spelling out 60 million for NC's etc etc. I figure the jury has pretty much got that by now.

Perplexed June 20, 2007 at 6:09 p.m.

I agree vnm, civil court is where this belongs.

wave99 June 20, 2007 at 6:49 p.m.

vnm, perplexed.

I also agree...civil court is the place.

Perplexed June 20, 2007 at 7:11 p.m.

To Daniel M. Ryan

I thought that was a very nice point about the unintended and self defeating consequences of a well intentioned regulatory scheme.

mark June 20, 2007 at 7:18 p.m.

Re Audit committee and NC

Mr. Thompson was on the audit committee, a former prosecutor, governor of Illinois and Chairman of the 800 lawyer blue-chip law firm Winston & Strawn. He "is one of the most extraordinary lawyers in the history of this city,"

see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...

There are only two plausible scenarios for the NC approvals by Mr Thompson

A) He completely understood the implications of related part transactions and approved them at the time as proper business transactions.

B) He is actually a very incompetent lawyer and fooled the voters of Illinois and all 800 lawyers at his firm for a very long time and was never caught. He knew from past experience that written contracts are pointless - you merely have to say that although you signed them you didn't read them.

Which scenario seems most probable?

vnm June 20, 2007 at 9:12 p.m.

"There are only two plausible scenarios for the NC approvals by Mr Thompson"

A) is not remotely plausible.

B) is not remotely plausible

which leaves C) he signed without reading and/or comprehending.

Lucas Taylor June 20, 2007 at 9:32 p.m.

"It's been a long day so forgive me, but since you can't seriously be wondering whether there really are upset shareholders out there, am I right in assuming your point is that the jury will draw some inference from their non-appearance? Like they'll wonder whether there really are any?"

Of course they'll wonder why Tweedy Browne et al didn't show up to court. Trust me, if the prosecution could drag a victim to court they certainly would. Turns out nobody wanted to testify on behalf of prosecution.

callaghan June 21, 2007 at 2 a.m.

[This comment has been removed.]

callaghan June 21, 2007 at 2:02 a.m.

Conrad Black should be jailed for attempting to butcher the English language, and for cluttering book stalls with vacuous biographies. It is rather touching, though, that this string begins with a fan of his who argues that CEO theft is common. It has certainly been common in Conrad's life. As a lad at UCC our budding entrepreneur stole the final exams to sell them to his classmates. He was not jailed (they don't do that at UCC). But a more disciplined institution could have had him jailed for the public good. A decade or so later his light fingers walked off with the surplus funds from the Dominion Stores Pension Fund. The Supreme Court of Ontario had to order him to replace every penny or face jail. He came clean. There has always been a smell to his deals. It is still not clear how he got control of Bud MacDougals's Argus fortune. But what followed was a set of disasters for those companies. And earlier in this string some older gentleman claimed Black built a great success, I say older for he has forgotten that after Black rapidly expanded the publishing empire to England he ran out of financing, his own included. He was way over his head in debt and had to sell assets. His bubble had burst. Word swept the markets that all was up for grabs in a fire sale.

It is because of this sleazy history that Black has attracted critics who want to see him put away. Not because he is rich, or a success, but because he is a failure. In the big picture he looks small and mean. This is a man who tried to buy a political party in Canada, and tried to buy international political influence. It is embarrassing, really. The exit isn't enough for him, he'll have to take the egress.

But his is not the only fall, my countrymen.Observers report that the two Eddy's gave a poor show. A bad choice of lawyers, too. Just a lot of bad judgments, that's all.

mbc June 21, 2007 at 3:08 a.m.

If I give a side of pork to a butcher and tell him it is a side of beef, and he stamps in blue "Grade A Beef" it is still a side of pork. And kosher is not transubstantiation.

Bob C June 21, 2007 at 6:15 a.m.

Lucas, the prosecution can drag anyone they like into court, whether or not they want to appear. That's what subpoenas are for. What on earth makes you think they can't? Try another theory.

Daniel M. Ryan June 21, 2007 at 9:26 a.m.

@Perplexed:

Thanks for the comment. I'm trying to think beyond the trial itself.

To this end, I've discerned a pattern, pertaining to issues of fact, of divvying up businesses by prosecutors for this kind of alleged crime:

1. Business that the prosecutorial circuit are already familiar with;

2. Business that are easy for them to understand the workings of;

3. Businesses than fit into neither of the above two categories, which thus appear suspicious to prosecutors because it isn't easy to figure out how they tick.

Conrad Black may have been hauled into criminal court because his business style is too idiosyncratic, and because little was known by the prosecutor's office about the newspaper industry at the outset. Remember all those notes in the media reports on the trial which have disclosed that non-compete agreements are a normal part of the industry? It's a solid bet that the prosecutors didn't know that at the time they decided to press charges.

Needless to say, businesses that fit into category #3 are the most at risk for facing an untoward prosecution.

Lucas Taylor June 21, 2007 at 9:37 a.m.

Bob, obviously I didn't mean it in the legal sense as you're implying. Of course they could have subpeoned Tweedy and the others, but they didn't, and the reason they didn't is because the shareholders feel they were victimized by the prosecution a lot more than Black. Maybe you ought to try a different theory as to why they weren't called to the stand.

Daniel M. Ryan June 21, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.

[Followup to my 9:26 AM post:]

By a happy coincidence, I came across a report on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that imposes strict conditions on any securities-fraud lawsuit, which any such suit must meet or else it gets thrown out of court:

http://www.680news.com/news/business/art...

The securities industry, evidently, has little to fear from the U.S. legal system as of now.

One more note: the cyncial skein in my earlier comment comes from reading, from time to time, stories of prosecutorial abuse heaped upon people that we wouldn't give the time of day to, let alone Conrad Black doing so. Ever since the close of the 1980s, there have been people who have had their assets impounded by the U.S. government for being 'guilty' of nothing more than being hustlers with a dislike for paperwork. Some of them have been African-American.

Bob C June 21, 2007 at 4:09 p.m.

To Lucas Taylor, didn't Radler promise to pay back close to 100 million to shareholders? Aren't there lawsuits in the hundreds of millions floating around? Didn't the prosecution show videotapes of upset shareholders raising their concerns? Didn't the judge rule that one shareholder in particular who called Black a thief couldn't be shown to the jury?

Did I just dream all this?

Jones June 27, 2007 at 11:41 a.m.

All you people on this site have yapped about smoke. Simple fact, to pay oneself to not compete against yourself is wrong. To remove boxes from the offices after being ordered by the Ontario Courts not to is obstruction of justice. As far as taxes I am at a loss. I do not know the evidence and laws. Notwithstanding the man is guilty as a man of the above. Forget who it is his wealth his lifestyle and every other detail. If I was on the jury he would be found guilty of what I have stated. I might add I am as blue collar as they come.