United States Vs Marthat Stewart

We have many premium term papers and essays on United States Vs Marthat Stewart. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.

United States Vs Marthat Stewart

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.

During the investigation each defendant was questioned twice. Martha Stewart was interviewed at the office of the United States Attorney on February 4, 2002 and by telephone on April 10, 2002. Among those present during Stewart's interviews were Special Agent Catherine Farmer of the FBI and Helene Glotzer, a lawyer with the SEC's Enforcement Division. Peter Bacanovic was interviewed by telephone on January 7, 2002. Present at that interview were Glotzer and another SEC attorney, Jill Slansky, as well as David Marcus, a Merrill Lynch attorney. On February 13, 2002, Peter Bacanovic testified under oath before the SEC. He was questioned by three SEC attorneys: Glotzer, Slansky, and Laurent Sacharoff. His testimony was tape recorded.

The jury convicted Stewart of making false statements to investigators during her February 4 interview, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The jury found Stewart guilty of making the following false statements, each of which was a specification in Count Three of the Indictment. Martha Stewart...
read full essay

Already a Member? Login Now »

This essay and over 180,000 other essays are available now on OPPapers.com.

  • Submitted by: creamycolombian
  • Date Submitted: 11/22/2005 04:32 PM
  • Category: Business
  • Words: 1199
  • Pages: 5
  • Views: 457
  • Rank: 103151
read full essay

Already a Member? Login Now »

Saved Papers

Save papers so you can find them more easily!

Join Now

Get instant access to over 180,000 papers.

Join Now