Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. Message Board

  • lazy_but_focused lazy_but_focused Jun 26, 2002 4:25 PM Flag

    Obstruction of justice does not require

    speaking to the CEO. It merely means she knowingly traded on information not available to the public. It could have come from a member of Waksal's family through her broker (note both Martha Stewart and others in the CEO's family sold significant holdings on that same day). If her broker spoke to the family and received inside information, passed it onto Martha Stewart and she sold stock knowing that she had inside information, then she may be guilty. There are a lot of coincidences here: 1)stop loss was verbal, not in writing; 2) broker's assistant changed his story. Oops.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • In my opinion, she has slim to none chance of facing any charges whatsoever. Apparently, both Martha and her broker currently agree that she had a verbal stop loss order with the broker. Even if he changes his mind later, it requires a third party to a conversation to get a majority rule, otherwise it is just one persons word against anothers. Martha apparently only spoke to her broker. Martha did not get in a 3-way with the brokers assistant, thus no third and deciding vote, consequently Martha's statement of having requested a $60 stop loss cannot be disproved one way or the other. Between mid-November date when she discussed it and the end of December, Imclone never traded below $60 until about the time that Martha sold her shares. Furthermore, NO BROKER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET WOULD TELL A DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE THAT BASED ON INSIDER INFORMATION, THAT SHE SHOULD SELL IMCLONE NOW. In addition, Imclone had already broke below its uptrend channel over a week prior to her selling, and thus was already a SCREAMING SELL. It required only a background in technical analysis to understand that, which Martha has by virtue of a Brokers license. Her broker had already indicated in a message that he thought that Imclone would trade lower but apparently gave no reason for it. Otherwise, Martha would not have put in a call to Imclones CEO to try and find out the reason. The call was never returned from Imclones CEO. Martha apparently told her friend on the jet that she just sold her Imclone because her broker thought that it would trade lower. Her friend then told her ex-husband that Martha just sold, and then so did he. No crime there boys and girls. Teflon Martha skates on all allegations and investigations. Merril Lynch put their 2 brokers on leave in order to examine their records and distance themselves from a couple of incompetent employees who may have failed to record a stop loss requested by a very important client. No crimes commited by Martha there. Obstruction of justice award goes to the broker and his assistant who originally lied to the SEC (because the broker asked him too), in regards to having knowledge of a stop loss order.
      This will be reposted for as long as the HEDGE FUND BOILER ROOM CONTINUES TO POST ON THIS BOARD!

    • I feel sorry for you Banshius, I really do. You are a victim of this self-centered bitch. I wish there was some way I could get your money back. Perhaps you can get in on the inevitable class action suits coming against MSO and Martha Stewart. I hope you get your money back but if you are holding MSO hoping to regain what you have lost then you are in for a rude awakening.

    • In my opinion, she has slim to none chance of facing any charges whatsoever. Apparently, both Martha and her broker currently agree that she had a verbal stop loss order with the broker. Even if he changes his mind later, it requires a third party to a conversation to get a majority rule, otherwise it is just one persons word against anothers. Martha apparently only spoke to her broker. Martha did not get in a 3-way with the brokers assistant, thus no third and deciding vote, consequently Martha's statement of having requested a $60 stop loss cannot be disproved one way or the other. Between mid-November date when she discussed it and the end of December, Imclone never traded below $60 until about the time that Martha sold her shares. Furthermore, NO BROKER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET WOULD TELL A DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE THAT BASED ON INSIDER INFORMATION, THAT SHE SHOULD SELL IMCLONE NOW. In addition, Imclone had already broke below its uptrend channel over a week prior to her selling, and thus was already a SCREAMING SELL. It required only a background in technical analysis to understand that, which Martha has by virtue of a Brokers license. Her broker had already indicated in a message that he thought that Imclone would trade lower but apparently gave no reason for it. Otherwise, Martha would not have put in a call to Imclones CEO to try and find out the reason. The call was never returned from Imclones CEO. Martha apparently told her friend on the jet that she just sold her Imclone because her broker thought that it would trade lower. Her friend then told her ex-husband that Martha just sold, and then so did he. No crime there boys and girls. Teflon Martha skates on all allegations and investigations. Merril Lynch put their 2 brokers on leave in order to examine their records and distance themselves from a couple of incompetent employees who may have failed to record a stop loss requested by a very important client. No crimes commited by Martha there. Obstruction of justice award goes to the broker and his assistant who originally lied to the SEC (because the broker asked him too), in regards to having knowledge of a stop loss order.
      This will be reposted for as long as the HEDGE FUND BOILER ROOM CONTINUES TO POST ON THIS BOARD!

    • In my opinion, she has slim to none chance of facing any charges whatsoever. Apparently, both Martha and her broker currently agree that she had a verbal stop loss order with the broker. Even if he changes his mind later, it requires a third party to a conversation to get a majority rule, otherwise it is just one persons word against anothers. Martha apparently only spoke to her broker. Martha did not get in a 3-way with the brokers assistant, thus no third and deciding vote, consequently Martha's statement of having requested a $60 stop loss cannot be disproved one way or the other. Between mid-November date when she discussed it and the end of December, Imclone never traded below $60 until about the time that Martha sold her shares. Furthermore, NO BROKER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET WOULD TELL A DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE THAT BASED ON INSIDER INFORMATION, THAT SHE SHOULD SELL IMCLONE NOW. In addition, Imclone had already broke below its uptrend channel over a week prior to her selling, and thus was already a SCREAMING SELL. It required only a background in technical analysis to understand that, which Martha has by virtue of a Brokers license. Her broker had already indicated in a message that he thought that Imclone would trade lower but apparently gave no reason for it. Otherwise, Martha would not have put in a call to Imclones CEO to try and find out the reason. The call was never returned from Imclones CEO. Martha apparently told her friend on the jet that she just sold her Imclone because her broker thought that it would trade lower. Her friend then told her ex-husband that Martha just sold, and then so did he. No crime there boys and girls. Teflon Martha skates on all allegations and investigations. Merril Lynch put their 2 brokers on leave in order to examine their records and distance themselves from a couple of incompetent employees who may have failed to record a stop loss requested by a very important client. No crimes commited by Martha there. Obstruction of justice award goes to the broker and his assistant who originally lied to the SEC (because the broker asked him too), in regards to having knowledge of a stop loss order.
      This will be reposted for as long as the HEDGE FUND BOILER ROOM CONTINUES TO POST ON THIS BOARD!

    • The broker wouldn't tell Martha to sell on insider info - Waksal would. And the broker seemed to aid in her phony "sell stop" order.

    • In my opinion, she has slim to none chance of facing any charges whatsoever. Apparently, both Martha and her broker currently agree that she had a verbal stop loss order with the broker. Even if he changes his mind later, it requires a third party to a conversation to get a majority rule, otherwise it is just one persons word against anothers. Martha apparently only spoke to her broker. Martha did not get in a 3-way with the brokers assistant, thus no third and deciding vote, consequently Martha's statement of having requested a $60 stop loss cannot be disproved one way or the other. Between mid-November date when she discussed it and the end of December, Imclone never traded below $60 until about the time that Martha sold her shares. Furthermore, NO BROKER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET WOULD TELL A DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE THAT BASED ON INSIDER INFORMATION, THAT SHE SHOULD SELL IMCLONE NOW. In addition, Imclone had already broke below its uptrend channel over a week prior to her selling, and thus was already a SCREAMING SELL. It required only a background in technical analysis to understand that, which Martha has by virtue of a Brokers license. Her broker had already indicated in a message that he thought that Imclone would trade lower but apparently gave no reason for it. Otherwise, Martha would not have put in a call to Imclones CEO to try and find out the reason. The call was never returned from Imclones CEO. Martha apparently told her friend on the jet that she just sold her Imclone because her broker thought that it would trade lower. Her friend then told her ex-husband that Martha just sold, and then so did he. No crime there boys and girls. Teflon Martha skates on all allegations and investigations. Merril Lynch put their 2 brokers on leave in order to examine their records and distance themselves from a couple of incompetent employees who may have failed to record a stop loss requested by a very important client. No crimes commited by Martha there. Obstruction of justice award goes to the broker and his assistant who originally lied to the SEC (because the broker asked him too), in regards to having knowledge of a stop loss order.
      This will be reposted for as long as the HEDGE FUND BOILER ROOM CONTINUES TO POST ON THIS BOARD!

    • I just thought I should tell you the boys over at Justice thought this was the funniest MSO post of the day.

      LOL!

    • since she's a broker! she used this account as a tactic for abuse... she could have easly done this at her own home!!!! but "NO" this is a staged event....

    • Since IMCL traded for the very 1st time below $60 in the previous month, on December 26th, it appears that Martha's broker treated the stop loss order as an informal note stuck to his computer and a price alert keyed into his real time quote system. So on December 27th, he tries to contact Martha and ends up leaving a message that he expects IMCL to trade lower. This could be a simple misunderstanding between Martha and her Broker. Last time I checked, SIMPLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ARE NEITHER FELONIES NOR ARE THEY PROSECUTEABLE. NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, MARTHA IS INNOCENT BY VIRTUE OF EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING OR BY VIRTUE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITED.

    • your message is a classic case of denial. gee, the sale occured the same time as others with inside knowledge. verbal stop order? - check sec rules and regs.

      mso is toast

    • View More Messages
 
MSO
6.20-0.11(-1.74%)Jul 6 4:02 PMEDT