Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Nortel Execs Await Corporate Fraud Ruling

Posted by samzenpus on from the day-of-reckoning dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Three former Nortel executives accused of orchestrating a widespread multimillion-dollar fraud will learn their fate in Toronto on Monday, nearly a year after one of the largest criminal trials in Canada's corporate history began. Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Marrocco is set to rule on whether ex-CEO Frank Dunn, ex-CFO Douglas Beatty and ex-controller Michael Gollogly manipulated financial statements at Nortel Networks Corp., between 2002-2003. The men, who each face two counts of fraud, are accused of participating in a book-cooking scheme designed to trigger $12.8 million in bonuses and stocks for themselves at the once powerful Canadian technology giant."

9 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. One of the execs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the execs got rid of ALL of their stock two days before it tanked.

    Now, if your daughter is going to start at an Ivy League school and you need a few hundred grand, that may just be co-incidence.

    But I don't think that happened.

    1. Re:One of the execs by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course its just coincidence.
      We should free these poor, innocent and, more importantly, rich men and pay them $450 million each of taxpayer money to compensate for the terrible suffering and stain of reputation that the legal system have wrought upon them.

    2. Re:One of the execs by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whatever penalty they end up with, it had better include a financial component covering their gains plus a substantial penalty on top as a minimum. I hold no faith in justice systems to impose a serious enough jail term for this.

    3. Re:One of the execs by rHBa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming they are found guilty they should be hit with massive fines AND jail sentences.

      If Aaron Swarts can be threatened with 30 years and massive fines for essentially a victimless crime...

    4. Re:One of the execs by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's amazing how Monty Python saw these blighters for exactly what they are more than a couple of decades ago. The modern day corporate pirates.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb3uCCjH9G0

      The Crimson Permanent Assurance sails again.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    5. Re:One of the execs by thebigmacd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Canada has a prime minister, last time I checked.

      The individual campaign contribution limit in Canada is $1000. Corporate and union campaign contributions are illegal, and all lobbyists must be registered as such. Transfers from trust funds etc are illegal.

      Our Federal election campaigns are 6 weeks long and politicians go into debt to finance them. Campaign spending is limited by law. If you spend more than the limit, you could have your seat taken from you and a by-election called.

    6. Re:One of the execs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As an American, that sounds like the best thing ever. More and more, Canada does seem like a nice alternative in many respects.

    7. Re:One of the execs by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It used to be even better than that before the Conservatives screwed things up.

      To somewhat offset the contribution limits, we had a program in place that rewarded federal political parties a subsidy of around $2 for every vote cast for one of their candidates during an election. Smaller parties in particular benefited from this (though there was some minimum-vote threshold, IIRC), and it meant your vote wasn't merely symbolic, but directly aided your preferred party even if they didn't win a seat.

      The Conservatives decided to kill this program, arguing that parties should only get money from fundraising efforts. This played well with the so-called fiscally responsible right-wing who complained that "their" tax dollars were being wasted. No subsidy meant a few million saved each election, right?

      Except campaign contributions are tax-deductable. If you donated the maximum $1000, you got around half of it back in tax deductions, so instead of $2 every 4-5 years of tax dollars I paid into subsidizing exactly who I want, $500 every year goes to subsidizing some rich bastard's tax deduction for contributing $1000 to a party I don't support.

      Political donations should not be tax-deductable at all. It should be a purely ideological choice, with zero financial incentives. And if you have enough money to waste on a political party, you obviously don't need the tax deduction.

  2. When stock is rising, why sell ALL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they'd sold 20% of their stock, then it would not be more than mildly suspicious.

    But when the market is rising, who sells ALL their stock?

    Nobody.

    And if that is two days before the stock tanks?

    It's rather like complaining "they could have died of a heart attack at the same time, so you can't label the 'shooting a gun at them' as anything more than suspicious".