marcia, marsha, MARTHA!

[unblock]

ok, lemme get this straight:

martha stewart gets an unsolicited call from her broker, who is convinced he did nothing wrong in telling her that waskal sold all his stock.

so martha gets told something, by someone who is licensed and trained in such issues as what constitutes insider information, and who then suggests she should sell her stock as well.

stick a badge on the broker and this is entrapment. of course, he didn't have a badge, but the point is that martha didn't seek this out and wasn't told in whispers and in fact, all she was told was that waskal was selling.

waskal had plenty of access to insider information, so the mere fact that he was selling, even if based on the thought that the stock would go down, does not mean he himself was basing his selling on insider info, though of course it could have been and might very well have been in this case.

and, even if so, the mere fact that waskal was selling was, prior to release of the insider selling forms, material non-public information.

and martha, being an officer of her own company, has no excuse for not knowing the insider trading rules.

that being said, this is NOTHING like any other insider trading case to have hit the papers. there was no pattern of trades, it was a one-time thing. she was a passive recipient of information, which was presented as if perfectly legal and appropriate. she made a single quick decision to act.


were it not for the celebrity issue, the fine, if guilty, would be little more than returning the profit on the trade.

bottom line: martha is no boesky.

[bobbieinok]

1. or Ken Lay

a democrat, so 'fair game'

[mike1963]

2. Well, she's a Democrat. And we aren't allowed to talk about Harken...

:eyes:

[rfranklin]

3. Martha got her start as a broker on Wall Street...

She should have known that she was using insider information. And honestly, she didn't need that money.

That being said, it is definitely a politically motivated case. Because in the bigger picture her trade was just a pixel.

[Solomon]

4. First thing you have to understand is that the case is really not about

insider trading, but alledgedly lying about it. My problem with it, is that they are essentially saying, that when she said she was innocent, she misled her investors. It's remarkable in that to me it is testing the ground for saying you can be held for a crime for pleading not guilty. It's absurd. And I hope the jury nullifies.

[BillZBubb]

5. If ever there was a case for jury nullification this is it. n/t