Case Assignment The Martha Stewart insider trading case was a high profile case filled with uncertainty. In order to say whether or not Stewart handled her indictment responsibly, it is necessary to start with an assumption regarding her guilt or innocence. For the purposes of this paper, based on the information I have read about the case, and based on the fact that she was found guilty of all counts (although not all specifications) in her stock conspiracy trial (with the exception of the security fraud charge which was thrown out), I will assume that she is guilty. (courttv.com) Based on that assumption, there are several reasons that Martha Stewart did not handle her indictment responsibly which can be summarized in a recap of the charges: she lied about receiving illegal information leading her to sell her stock, she lied about having a prearranged agreement to sell her stock when it fell below $60 per share, she tried to hamper the investigation by providing false information, and she worked with her broker to obstruct justice and make false statements regarding the scandal. (chicagotribune.com) As the CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO) and as a successful businesswoman motivated to protect her own personal interests, it might be easy to understand the temptation behind her decisions, but the discussion here will be based on whether or not her decisions were responsible. Martha Stewart was licensed to sell securities and worked as a securities broker for a period of time from about 1968 to 1975. From that experience, and from being a client of Merrill Lynch & Co., Stewart was familiar with the duties of trust and confidence owed to the clients of Merrill Lynch. It is known for sure that ImClone submitted a Biologics Licensing Application (BLA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) around 31 October 2001. It is also known that the FDA must make a decision on the BLA within 60 days per FDA regulations. It was public information that the FDA decision was expected by the end of December 2001. On the morning in question, 27 December 2001, Peter Bacanovic, Stewart’s broker, was informed that Samuel Waksal, the CEO of ImClone, was looking to sell all of the family’s ImClone shares held at Merrill Lynch. Without speculating as to the phone conversations that happened that day between all the
Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were indicted on criminal charges arising from Martha Stewarts December 27, 2001 sale of 3,928 shares of stock in ImClone Systems, Inc. ("ImClone"). ImClone is a biotechnology company whose then-chief executive officer, Samuel Waksal, was a friend of Stewart's and a client of Stewart's stockbroker at Merrill Lynch, defendant Peter Bacanovic. On December 25, 2001, ImClone learned that the Food and Drug Administration had rejected the company's application for approval of Erbitux, a cancer-fighting drug. On December 28, the day after Stewart sold her shares; ImClone publicly announced that the Erbitux application had been rejected. Shortly after ImClone's announcement, the Securities and Exchange Commission "SEC" and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York launched investigations into trading in ImClone stock in advance of the announcement to the public of the news about Erbitux.
Stewart unleashed a fury of intense and condemning questions upon Cramer. However, unfortunately for Cramer he functioned as a stand-in for the entire CNBC company and our entire corporatized news media. Stewart used multiple video clips of Cramer in 2006 to prove Cramer was well aware of the “shenanigans” that allowed investment returns to roll in at 30 percent per year, and major institutions leveraging at 35-to-1 for most of the 2000s. This leveraging, in effect, is the one thing that caused the fall of Wall Street and the decline of our retirement portfolios' value. Stewart made that point to Cramer and Cramer could not disagree. The crucial question Stewart asks and we will attempt to answer is, do shows like Cramer’s Mad Money and other CNBC reporters have an ethical responsibility to be critical, investigative journalists? We must first understand the actions taken by each party involved in the housing and banking collapse of 2009 in order to fully comprehend the ethical situation that unfolded. One must first understand the actions taken by each party prior to 2009. Bankers backed by investors, started lending mountains of excess cap...
Jordan Belfort is famous for his crooked way of earning his millions as a stockbroker on Wall Street. Even Belfort started at the bottom, on his first day in Wall Street he was told he was “lower than pond scum”(Belfort 1). After writing a book about his happenings on Wall Street, we’ve seen the
In other words, its buying and selling of securities that has obtained non-public material information, and in Martha’s case she was guilty of it. “However in an interesting legal technicality, Martha Stewart did not necessarily breach a fiduciary duty to the other investors, since she had no real obligations to inform other investors, which would be the case if she were an officer with company (US SEC, 2009). This being said, if she confessed her actions were wrong, she would not have been convicted of insider trading. Insider trading can be either legal or illegal due to the nature and the timeframe. This was not the road that Martha Stewart decided to take. ‘She instead chose to collide with her broker in an attempt to barricade a story about how there was a standing order for Ms. Stewart to sell her shares” (US SEC, 2009). Martha Stewart had knowledge on the ethics surrounding trading of stock having already been a CEO, she should have known what she was doing, but one can argue that due to her crazy work life, she simply did no think about it. It shows that she is not engaging in illegal behavior. “Martha Stewart displayed her morality lies when lying to the US authorities even thought this was obviously illegal and unethical; her action can also be analyzed through egoism philosophy where right or acceptable behavior defined in terms of consequences to the individual, regarding maximizing self0interest” (Carr, 2002). Martha Stewart thought she did everything right, but still did not bother to warn the shareholders. If insider trading had not taken place, it would be less of a crime, but her actions indicated unethical behavior and define lack of integrity, and lying to Federal investigators only made it
Many businesses that achieve great success become greedy and want more. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Turing, have been overpricing life-saving drugs since they’ve been discovered. Martin Shkreli, the CEO of the company that raised the price of the H.I.V medicine, was arrested because of wrongdoings involving his former hedge fund and a pharmaceutical company he previously headed. He has been charged with conspiracy to commit security fraud, wire fraud, and using his previous company to cover personal debts. U.S. Attorney Robert Capers says, “As alleged in the indictment, Shkreli essentially ran his companies like a Ponzi scheme, where he used each subsequent company to pay off the defrauded investors in the prior company” (Shkreli).
The best solution in the trading places for all parties is unethical, but in terms of practical it is in the best interest of the subject the people that got hurt throughout the movie had to come out on top. The bad would have been if the employees got caught with insider trading because they had done something illegal. The bad apple says managers should be looking for the bad apples from their employees, but does not state if the managers are the bad apples themselves. One of the Dukes Brothers who thought nurture is a controlling factor in a person’s success is only part of the equation they need nature because if not the individual can easily turn to a bad apple from just nurture from the fact that their environment has changed.
Bernard Madoff had full control of the organizational leadership of Bernard Madoff Investments Securities LLC. Madoff used charisma to convince his friends, members of elite groups, and his employees to believe in him. He tricked his clients into believing that they were investing in something special. He would often turn potential investors down, which helped Bernard in targeting the investors with more money to invest. Bernard Madoff created a system which promised high returns in the short term and was nothing but the Ponzi scheme. The system’s idea relied on funds from the new investors to pay misrepresented and extremely high returns to existing investors. He was doing this for years; convincing wealthy individuals and charities to invest billions of dollars into his hedge fund. And they did so because of the extremely high returns, which were promised by Madoff’s firm. If anyone would have looked deeply into the structure of his firm, it would have definitely shown that something is wrong. This is because nobody can make such big money in the market, especially if no one else could at the time. How could one person, Madoff, hold all of his clients’ assets, price them, and manage them? It is clearly a conflict of interest. His company was showing high profits year after year; despite most of the companies in the market having losses. In fact, Bernard Madoff’s case is absolutely stunning when you consider the range and number of investors who got caught up in it.
Sabino, Anthony Michael, and Michael A. Sabino. "From Chiarella to Cuban: The Continuing Evolution of the Law of Insider Trading." 2011.Web.
Jordan Belfort is the notorious 1990’s stockbroker who saw himself earning fifty million dollars a year operating a penny stock boiler room from his Stratton Oakmont, Inc. brokerage firm. Corrupted by drugs, money, and sexuality he went from being an innocent twenty – two year old on the fringe of a new life to manipulating the system in his infamous “pump and dump” scheme. As a stock swindler, he would motivate his young brokers through insane presentations to rile them up as they defrauded investors with duplicitous stock sales. Toward the end of this debauchery tale he was convicted for securities fraud and money laundering for which he was sentenced to twenty – two months in prison as well as recompensing two – hundred million in restitution to any swindled stock buyers of his brokerage firm (A&E Networks Television). Though his lavish spending and berserk party lifestyle was consumed by excessive greed, he displayed both positive and negative aspects of business communications.
Martha Stewart was charged with securities fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and civil charges. She had made false statements to F.B.I., SEC, and investors. She withhold information from these organizations about the selling of her stocks with in the company of ImClone. She was convicted and sentence to five months in prison, five months of house arrest, and a full two years of probation.
Martha Stewart made a kind of securities fraud known as "insider trading" which means using insider information to make a stock transaction. It is trading in the stock market, making improper use of inside information. This information, most of the time, is held by directors of listed companies and those who provide investment services or counseling.
This case study is not about Ms. Stewart direct participation with illegal insider trading as the media had steered the public to believe. To begin, Ms. Stewart received a phone call from Ann Armstrong, her assistant, stating that Peter Bacanovic, her stockbroker, “thinks ImClone is going to start trading down.” (Arnold, Beauchamp, Bowie, 2013, p. 390) Although Ms. Stewart was not able to get a hold of Peter, she talked to his assistance, Douglas Faneuil,
The stock market is an enigma to the average individual, as they cannot fathom or predict what the stock market will do. Due to this lack of knowledge, investors typically rely on a knowledgeable individual who inspires the confidence that they can turn their investments into a profit. This trust allowed Jordan Belfort to convince individuals to buy inferior stocks with the belief that they were going to make a fortune, all while he became wealthy instead. Jordan Belfort, the self-titled “Wolf of Wall Street”, at the helm of Stratton Oakmont was investigated and subsequently indicted with twenty-two counts of securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He went to prison at the age of 36 for defrauding an estimated 100 million dollars from investors through his company (Belfort, 2009). Analyzing his history of offences, how individual and environmental factors influenced his decision-making, and why he desisted from crime following his prison sentence can be explained through rational choice theory.
Insider trading has been a commonly discussed topic since Martha Stewart was accused, tried, convicted, and served a prison term for her involvement with the Inclon trading scandal. However, the definition of the term “insider trading” is not necessarily always connected with illegal activity. As a matter of fact, in some jurisdictions, “insider trading” is no crime. Traditionally, it has been an expected, and perfectly acceptable prerequisite for certain sorts of employment. ”(Insider Trading).
CEO Kenneth Lay’s ambition for ENRON a company he had helped form went beyond the business of piping gas. Enron went to become the largest natural gas merchant in North America and the United Kingdom. But the reality is, this company business model never worked. This was a company that was so desperate to win Wall Street 's respect that it kept it stocks shares prices going up despite the losses it was incurring in order for executives to keep lining their own pockets. Over the course of this Case Assignment, I will identify the examples of financial reporting misconduct, I will explain the deontological as well as a utilitarian ethical perspective and lastly I will identify the stakeholders likely to be affected by that misconduct.