Martha Stewart na cadeia!
Não importa o que digam, esse é um momento trágico para o mundo feminino. Um mulher batalhadora, vitoriosa, empreendedora acabar, ou pelo menos ter de passar, numa situação dessas. O próprio processo me parece difícilimo de entender. No site da CNN não dizem coisa com coisa, não entendi xongas! Já num alemão, que nem lembro o nome, a explicação que foi alguma lucrubração dela com o Mercado de Ações. Um processo empresarial complexo que a levou aonde está... E ninguém nunca meteu o Bill Gates na cadeia pelo descarado monopólio da Microsoft no mundo da informática!!!!!!!!!! A própria Microsoft vai enfrentar um processo agora com a corte Européia, a qual exige a liberação do código do windows. Você sabe que ninguém vai fazer nada contra a empresa de Bill. Pois é....
March 1, 2004 Dow Jones WebReprint Serviceî
What a Fraud
Finally we have it from an authoritative source: The fraud charge against Martha Stewart is itself a fraud. That's the gist of a ruling Friday by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum. She dismissed the securities fraud count against Miss Stewart on the grounds that "no reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lied for the purpose of influencing the market for the securities of her company."
The dismissal is significant on two fronts. First, it was the most serious in the indictment against Miss Stewart. Second, it was always a legal stretch. The idea was that by protesting her innocence and giving her version of events of how she came to dump her ImClone shares, Miss Stewart's intent was to defraud her own (Martha Steward Living Omnimedia) shareholders. Judge Cedarbaum said before the trial that this was a "novel" application of the securities laws, and the prosecution's case only hardened those doubts.
The Stewart jury still has four other criminal counts before it: conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of lying to investigators. The essence of these charges is that Miss Stewart was not truthful to investigators, and that a prosecution is necessary to convey to CEOs the importance of telling the truth. Maybe. But we'd sure feel more comfortable if these charges were tethered to some underlying crime and if people had a better idea of what crimes they might be accused of.
With regard to the now-dismissed securities fraud charge, it's worth noting that ever since the feds intervened to "protect" Miss Stewart's shareholders, their stock has been languishing. On the news Friday that the albatross had been lifted, these holders watched their stock rise nearly 11%, closing at a level it hadn't seen since June 2002. Which begs the question: Who hurt the shareholders of Martha Stewart Living more: Martha, or the prosecuting U.S. Attorney? The market's already given its answer.
Não importa o que digam, esse é um momento trágico para o mundo feminino. Um mulher batalhadora, vitoriosa, empreendedora acabar, ou pelo menos ter de passar, numa situação dessas. O próprio processo me parece difícilimo de entender. No site da CNN não dizem coisa com coisa, não entendi xongas! Já num alemão, que nem lembro o nome, a explicação que foi alguma lucrubração dela com o Mercado de Ações. Um processo empresarial complexo que a levou aonde está... E ninguém nunca meteu o Bill Gates na cadeia pelo descarado monopólio da Microsoft no mundo da informática!!!!!!!!!! A própria Microsoft vai enfrentar um processo agora com a corte Européia, a qual exige a liberação do código do windows. Você sabe que ninguém vai fazer nada contra a empresa de Bill. Pois é....
March 1, 2004 Dow Jones WebReprint Serviceî
What a Fraud
Finally we have it from an authoritative source: The fraud charge against Martha Stewart is itself a fraud. That's the gist of a ruling Friday by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum. She dismissed the securities fraud count against Miss Stewart on the grounds that "no reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lied for the purpose of influencing the market for the securities of her company."
The dismissal is significant on two fronts. First, it was the most serious in the indictment against Miss Stewart. Second, it was always a legal stretch. The idea was that by protesting her innocence and giving her version of events of how she came to dump her ImClone shares, Miss Stewart's intent was to defraud her own (Martha Steward Living Omnimedia) shareholders. Judge Cedarbaum said before the trial that this was a "novel" application of the securities laws, and the prosecution's case only hardened those doubts.
The Stewart jury still has four other criminal counts before it: conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of lying to investigators. The essence of these charges is that Miss Stewart was not truthful to investigators, and that a prosecution is necessary to convey to CEOs the importance of telling the truth. Maybe. But we'd sure feel more comfortable if these charges were tethered to some underlying crime and if people had a better idea of what crimes they might be accused of.
With regard to the now-dismissed securities fraud charge, it's worth noting that ever since the feds intervened to "protect" Miss Stewart's shareholders, their stock has been languishing. On the news Friday that the albatross had been lifted, these holders watched their stock rise nearly 11%, closing at a level it hadn't seen since June 2002. Which begs the question: Who hurt the shareholders of Martha Stewart Living more: Martha, or the prosecuting U.S. Attorney? The market's already given its answer.
0 Comments:
Postar um comentário
<< Home