| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stockman represents one of those cases where the allegations and the indictment get a huge amount of publicity and the acquittal, or in this case the decision not to go to court, slips out on tiptoes. What happened here? The original stories were relatively murky about why, after years of chasing Stockman, the feds backed off. Stockman and his attorney were adamant that he was innocent throughout, at one point hitting prosecutors with a 1221-page single-spaced defense, according to the AmLaw daily. At the very least, the complexities of this case -- it hinged on whether Stockman and three other execs inflated operating income by manipulating supplier rebates -- would challenge any jury. Stockman's attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, also told The New York Times that he blamed Sarbanes-Oxley for forcing independent directors to conduct a quick investigation and hasty judgment. A few days later, the blogosphere offered a few more fascinating wrinkles on what might have been happening behind the scenes. The Race to the Bottom blog suggested that the complexity of the case, with its 15 million documents, played a role, but also speculated that the "decision may have been influenced by a series of high-profile losses for the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Southern District." The Stockman case, the blog said, would consume resources just as the office was gearing up for Bernie Madoff. Add to this the fact that a new Democratic administration is taking power, the existing U.S. attorney, Michael Garcia, stepped down in December, and there's a general clearing of the decks. The lesson here is that these cases are difficult, complex, expensive and often as clear as mud. Many white-collar cases are propelled by a spirit of public outrage in one year, but begin to look riskier and more questionable in another. The fact that individuals that have been charged may spend vast amount of money on lawyers -- Stockman apparently pursued the case even after D&O insurance lapsed -- while undergoing the personal stress of investigation and indictment, belies the glib notion, which has erupted over the Madoff case, that white-collar defendants get away with murder. An apparently innocent Stockman paid the price for getting off. - Robert Teitelman Robert Teitelman is the editor in chief of The Deal. CategoriesComments
From: patcri,
No comment on Stockman's "innocence", but one of the defendant's in that case was innocent. He was the collateral damage of a flawed system. Anyone interested in the rights to this story ?? Let me know. A fascinating read or movie, and it is all true. It is my life. Finally, one miserable chapter closed.
Posted on:
January 14, 2009 9:46 PM
From: Anonymouse,
Hey Patcri (i.e., PB)- take your cut and paste job somewhere else :) they don't want your story. they want my story.
Posted on:
January 14, 2009 10:18 PM
From: patcri,
PB is out of the picture, I've already got takers, you ????
Posted on:
January 15, 2009 9:14 PM
From: dehner,
i'm glad everything came out okay for dave. they need to leave him alone now.
Posted on:
February 28, 2009 8:16 PM
From: David Stockman,
well, having worked at Collins & Aikman most of my life and loosing my shirt because of Stockboy, i may seem a little insensitive to patcri's sob story.
Posted on:
May 15, 2009 3:49 AM
 Deal Video
    Community
 Elsewhere on The Deal.comDealwatchThe Deal MagazineCorporate Dealmaker
The Deal VideoCategories
Blog roll
Archives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
We're playing catchup here. Last Friday, federal prosecutors announced they were dropping charges against David Stockman, the former Reagan budget czar turned buyout maven, whose auto parts rollup, Collins & Aikman, crashed and burned four years ago. Stockman has been under indictment since March 2007 for allegedly concealing Collins' problems from lenders and customers, charges that arose from an internal investigation by Davis Polk & Wardwell soon after the filing. We ran a feature on Collins & Aikman and Stockman in The Deal Nov. 16, 2007 (Pipeline subscribers can 
|
|
|
|
|
Uhmmm..."apparently innocent"? Where did that come from? As the author discussed, the prosecution dropped the case because 1) the public lost interest, 2) the prosecuters found a juicier case, and 3) the defense threw a ton of paperwork at the case. The result was that the prosecutors lost interest in the case - NOT that Stockman was innocent.