Thursday, December 21, 2006

Podcast on Martha Stewart's Legal Trouble


Is the US really as pro-business as everyone says? It sure doesn't seem that way after talking to our two guests. Today, we are in the studio with law professors Joan Heminway and Ellen Podgor (by phone), who have a new book coming out entitled, Martha Stewart's Legal Troubles. They use the Martha Stewart case as a jumping-off point to talk about white collar crime, the buisness environment, and whether overcriminalization is hurting the US economy, and the problems with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Oh, and we talk about Christmas cookies.

You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file by clicking right here, and you can get a lo-fi version suitable for dialup, cellphones, etc. by going here and selecting the "lo-fi" version. And, of course, you can always subscribe via iTunes so that you'll never miss an episode. Plus, don't miss our show archives at GlennandHelenShow.com!


This podcast is sponsored by Volvo at volvocars.us.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather see pictures of you than Martha Stewart any day, Dr Helen.

11:57 AM, December 21, 2006  
Blogger tomcal said...

Glenn:

You are absolutely right, if they want to get you, you are toast. When you finish your study on the matter, put me on the list to be your first buyer.

To All:

There is an interesting editorial on this in today's (12-21) Wall Street Journal by Michael S. Malone. He points out that many larger companies are now lining up to oppose changes in SarbOx because the cost of compliance prevents start-up companies from entering the public markets. Why take the chance of failing because of the compliance costs, or worse, going to jail, because you broke a rule, when you can just sell out to Google?

For myself, I usually syndicate 2 or 3 real estate investment deals a year. In 2005 I did none, I spent the whole year reviewing our operations to make sure we weren't breaking any laws. This was great for the lawyers and accountants, but not very profitable for me. But at least I have more peace of mind.

1:04 PM, December 21, 2006  
Blogger Manos said...

I thought we had a bill of rights to protect us from over zealous prosecutors?

2:09 PM, December 21, 2006  
Blogger tomcal said...

We do, but like all rights and freedoms, someone will find a way to take them away from you unless you fight to keep them. That is one thing that will never change.

2:29 PM, December 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never paid much attention to the Martha Stewart case. (Swells in another world).However, when Eliot-the-little DA decided to run for Governer, then it occured to me that this had been one big "Dog & Pony Show" right from the beginning.

If Eliot had really cared about "JUSTICE" and "FAIRNESS" and all the other "Goody, Goody Two-shoes Political BS", he'd have indicted the little governement type who gave the intital "head's up" to the owner of the company, who then passed it along to his family and friends. Eliot is Self serving. Gee, another one.

3:15 PM, December 21, 2006  
Blogger Tom said...

Helen,

I'm a faithful listener to the Glenn and Helen podcasts--keep up the good work!!

Regarding Martha Stewart--I don't think she was targeted because she was a woman or a Democrat. I think it's extremely important to realize that Martha was on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange until she stepped down during the investigation.

(Supporting link here).

If prosecutors think a board member of the NYSE is guilty of insider trading, it seems to me that pursuing a case may well be the right thing to do.

Tom

4:17 PM, December 21, 2006  
Blogger tomcal said...

Tom is right, she was a Director of the NYSE and a holder of a (probably expired)Series 7 securities license, the license you need to be a stock broker. As such, there was a case to be made that she should have been held to a higher standard.

On the other hand, I still believe that had she not been famous, and for whatever reason created such a love-hate relationship with her audience, she would not have been targeted for such scrutiny and would not have gone to jail.

6:27 PM, December 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martha was a victim of bad timing (adelphia, worldcom, enron etc), and high profile. Regarding pixel's comment, there was never the slightest evidence any "government type" did anything wrong. There was no heads up, per se.

9:29 PM, December 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:35 PM, May 19, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home