Conrad Black - Criminal ?

[Craig Read]

Conrad who used a $50 mn load provided by his father using Argus Inc [investments] as collateral, to start buying newspapers and create an empire, is undoubted a talented, very intelligent, politically conservative and unabashed defender of orthodox liberalism.

Canada needs more Conrads.

Unfortunately we don't need more men who deceive shareholders, ignore Board directors, and use their business assets as personal ATM machines.

Black it looks like stole hundreds of millions from his firms.

Conrad should have his assets frozen, be forced to pay off this appropriations and even perhaps do some jail time.

Men like Black, give Capitalism a Black eye.

Newspaper magnate Conrad Black owns a chair that once belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte. He owns a 1953 Rolls Royce and an 11-bedroom townhouse near London's Kensington Palace.

But figuring out who has been footing the bill for some of Lord Black's other luxuries is proving frustrating for the lawyers and accountants scouring the tangled finances of Hollinger International Inc., his troubled newspaper company.

Company investigators want to know whether shareholders have paid for Lord Black's lavish lifestyle, and their global treasure hunt has led them to two jets, three luxury homes, a staff of servants in Britain and an $8 million collection of photos, letters and memos that belonged to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The search is part of Hollinger International's effort to clean house in the wake of Lord Black's hasty departure as CEO of the company that publishes the Chicago Sun-Times, London's Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post. Lord Black, an imperious newspaper proprietor who climbed as high as the U.K.'s House of Lords, resigned as Hollinger International's chief executive last week after a board committee disclosed that he and other top officials received unauthorized payments totaling $32.2 million.

These payments came on top of $180 million in various kinds of management and other fees the company paid Lord Black and other executives in recent years -- all from an operation valued at less than $1.5 billion

WSJ Nov 27

[Michael Hardner]

This is the man who, through his organ the National Post, helped push Stockwell Day to the forefront of the Canadian imagination for a short period of time in 2000.

Black, and men like him, have the power to influence public discourse in a way that will directly benefit them, at a cost to the public good.

A real capitalist innovates, invests and creates. A silver spoon capitalist like Black tries to squeeze more for himself out of working Canadians by lobbying government for lower taxes, and for concessions on workers' rights.

[Craig Read]

Black was a builder, though it is questionable how much money his papers made . He was innovative in competing against the Cdn media bias in favor of sappy post modern socialism. I give him full credit for his business efforts, he innovated, developed, hired people, paid taxes and created a conservative organ that challenged Cdn orthodoxy.

This however does not give him a license to steal from shareholders or from investors [market investors that is]. Black broke the law and defrauded investors and this is the issue.

Legality must be enforced and the SEC in the US has a problem with enforcing its civil regulations. We need criminal regulations to deal with corporate fraudsters.

Black falls into this group.

[August1991]

So, was he?

[Vancouver King]

...and unabashed defender of orthodox liberalism.

Defender of orthodox liberalism? This is the first time I've seen the word liberalism occupy the same sentence as Conrad Black. The legions of unwashed, particularly his laid off employees, had him pegged politically as somewhat to the right of Vlad the Impaler. He undoubtedly wore such antipathy as a badge of honor.

[betsy]

Is the trial over???

[August1991]

Here's a good quote from Mark Steyn:

In the wake of Enron, Congress passed the characteristically slapdash corporate governance bill known as “Sarbanes-Oxley”. The costs to the average American public company of complying with Sarbanes-Oxley are said to be around $16 million per annum. For a small company with revenues of $50 million, Sox compliance costs about $2 million – or four per cent. On revenues in excess of four billion dollars, Conrad Black and co are accused of stealing $60 million. In other words, the government regulatory regime introduced to stop the likes of Conrad bilking shareholders has cost shareholders far more money than his “thefts” ever did.

Is that a “fad”? Judging from the collapse in IPOs in the United States over the last five years and the simultaneous rise of companies choosing to list in London, Hong Kong and elsewhere, American capitalism better hope it is.

[geoffrey]

This is nonsense, a bunch of people tarnished by Enron, ect., trying to understand corporate governance is essientially without any experience in the matter, is why Conrad is in that trial today.

This is all from my understanding of the facts at hand, and there may be more I haven't came across and I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion on the matter if I saw other evidence. As well, don't go sell your newspapers and pocket non-competes because I think it's legal, go talk to you lawyer (disclaimer).

What Conrad did was take non-compete payments from those buying his newspapers. This is absolutely normal, if I sold you my paper, you'd want to know I wasn't going to open another paper tomorrow, steal all your employees and bring all the business to my new paper. The value of these non-compete payments is strictly in the hands of the purchasers, they set the price they are willing to pay to buy Conrad out of the market forever.

Now, the issue was some of the shareholders think that they should have got the money as a company, and not Conrad as an individual. I disagree. If I was buying Conrads papers, I'd ensure that the agreement was with him personally, as signing a deal with his company would allow him to open up another corporate entity (something he did many times) and operate in the market again. Signing with Conrad, prevents both him and the companies he controls from entering my market. It's a much better deal for me.

So I give a few million to Conrad to bugger off. Conrad reported these payments to the board the first time that his legal experts questioned the ethical basis of the payments... I dispute the fact that he ever should have been required to do so.

This has nothing to do with Enron and SOX, this is not an accounting scandal. No books were tampered with, no creative mark to market accounting is used... bottom line no shareholders were stripped of wealth they would have ever received as individuals. SOX would have done nothing in this case, nothing.

And from this reasoning, I can't find any possible reason to decide that Conrad is guilty of the crimes he is charged with. The obstruction of justice we could talk about (though there isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt' evidence there), but the rest is pure nonsense.

[Higgly]

Is the trial over???

+1.

[madmax]

This is nonsense, a bunch of people tarnished by Enron, ect., trying to understand corporate governance is essientially without any experience in the matter, is why Conrad is in that trial today.

And from this reasoning, I can't find any possible reason to decide that Conrad is guilty of the crimes he is charged with. The obstruction of justice we could talk about (though there isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt' evidence there), but the rest is pure nonsense.

You have me in stitches. You may be right about the trial, I haven't followed it. But I do not need a trial to form an opinion of Conrad Black, based on many other actions. Conrad Black just may be able to use his pompous attitude of priveledge to his advantage.

I couldn't be more pleased that he is no longer a Canadian citizen. He attempted to steal other peoples money in the past to use for his own purposes. He destroyed companies with no regrets, and managed to walk away from the wrecks he created.

There are a number of cities in which Conrad Black would not receive a warm welcome.

[runningdog]

I'm not sure that it was "hundreds of millions" or not, but if true (ie Radler is correct), then Black will do federal prison time. Yes, this does give capitalism a bad name, but to add some context, this case, which is being tried in Chicago, has almost no attention being paid to it. The reason is because this case is considered tiny in comparison to some of the corporate fraud trials that are going on. I would love to see any corporate ceo or executive who is found guilty of stealing from his company publicly whipped and the assets of his family taken away. I'm all for a pure market economy but we have not had one in MANY years. Let's get these criminal CEOs doing HARD time in a violent prison.

[geoffrey]

You have me in stitches. You may be right about the trial, I haven't followed it. But I do not need a trial to form an opinion of Conrad Black, based on many other actions. Conrad Black just may be able to use his pompous attitude of priveledge to his advantage.

I couldn't be more pleased that he is no longer a Canadian citizen. He attempted to steal other peoples money in the past to use for his own purposes. He destroyed companies with no regrets, and managed to walk away from the wrecks he created.

There are a number of cities in which Conrad Black would not receive a warm welcome.

That's understandable that you dislike his personality, but he's been a highly successful businessman. He knows how to play the game, and has done so well, and legally.

I would love to see any corporate ceo or executive who is found guilty of stealing from his company publicly whipped and the assets of his family taken away.

Sounds fun, but too bad Conrad isn't even accused of stealing from his company. He's being accused of not reporting payments to the BoD. Something he shouldn't have had to do IMO. Let people fight it out in civil court if they think something is a breach of contract... nothing criminal happened surely.

[August1991]

What Conrad did was take non-compete payments from those buying his newspapers. This is absolutely normal, if I sold you my paper, you'd want to know I wasn't going to open another paper tomorrow, steal all your employees and bring all the business to my new paper. The value of these non-compete payments is strictly in the hands of the purchasers, they set the price they are willing to pay to buy Conrad out of the market forever.

Now, the issue was some of the shareholders think that they should have got the money as a company, and not Conrad as an individual. I disagree. If I was buying Conrads papers, I'd ensure that the agreement was with him personally, as signing a deal with his company would allow him to open up another corporate entity (something he did many times) and operate in the market again. Signing with Conrad, prevents both him and the companies he controls from entering my market. It's a much better deal for me.

Thank you Geoff for succinctly putting in two paragraphs the basic issue here. (This forum sometimes works!)

I haven't followed this court case closely and most articles seem to focus on innuendo or personality, only mentioning in passing the genuine stakes. (BTW, I'm not so sure that Conrad's shareholders don't have a case but your post at least makes clear what the question is.)

[gc1765]

This has nothing to do with Enron and SOX, this is not an accounting scandal. No books were tampered with, no creative mark to market accounting is used... bottom line no shareholders were stripped of wealth they would have ever received as individuals. SOX would have done nothing in this case, nothing.

And from this reasoning, I can't find any possible reason to decide that Conrad is guilty of the crimes he is charged with.

I don't know much about this case...does that mean Radler is not guilty either?

[runningdog]

This has nothing to do with Enron and SOX, this is not an accounting scandal. No books were tampered with, no creative mark to market accounting is used... bottom line no shareholders were stripped of wealth they would have ever received as individuals. SOX would have done nothing in this case, nothing.

And from this reasoning, I can't find any possible reason to decide that Conrad is guilty of the crimes he is charged with.

I don't know much about this case...does that mean Radler is not guilty either?

very good question.

[guyser]

I don't know much about this case...does that mean Radler is not guilty either?

Radler has already pled guilty and IIRC he has been sentenced to 29 months , to be served in Canada at Fenbrook , the prison everyone wants to get into as they have cattle raising, golf course or driving range, in other words it is the Club Fed of prisons.

Conrad is also trying desperately to regain his Canadian citizenship so that if he is convicted he can serve time in Canada. I doubt they will convict him

Oh and Radler is likely to serve 6 months of his 29 months sentence.

[FTA Lawyer]

What Conrad did was take non-compete payments from those buying his newspapers. This is absolutely normal, if I sold you my paper, you'd want to know I wasn't going to open another paper tomorrow, steal all your employees and bring all the business to my new paper. The value of these non-compete payments is strictly in the hands of the purchasers, they set the price they are willing to pay to buy Conrad out of the market forever.

Now, the issue was some of the shareholders think that they should have got the money as a company, and not Conrad as an individual. I disagree. If I was buying Conrads papers, I'd ensure that the agreement was with him personally, as signing a deal with his company would allow him to open up another corporate entity (something he did many times) and operate in the market again. Signing with Conrad, prevents both him and the companies he controls from entering my market. It's a much better deal for me.

Thank you Geoff for succinctly putting in two paragraphs the basic issue here. (This forum sometimes works!)

I haven't followed this court case closely and most articles seem to focus on innuendo or personality, only mentioning in passing the genuine stakes. (BTW, I'm not so sure that Conrad's shareholders don't have a case but your post at least makes clear what the question is.)

I think you have left out one particularly important element Geoffrey...As I understand it, the main complaint is not with the concept of non-compete payments, but rather, with the concept of Hollinger Int'l making non-compete payments to its own corporate subsidiary, Hollinger Inc. (owned by Black).

That is, millions of dollars going into Conrad Black's pocket directly in exchange for his promise that Hollinger won't compete with Hollinger. In his position as a fiduciary to both of the companies, Black could not legally and ethically compete with those businesses, so why pay him to not compete when he's already obligated to not compete?

That all being said, I think he's going to be acquitted...from what I've seen, Radler's deal was simply too sweet, and he's called himself a liar about 50 times under cross-examination...the jury is going to be confused by all the non-compete stuff and suspicious of Radler...likely means Conrad goes home at the end of the day.

FTA

[runningdog]

FTA, good info, thanks.

[Remiel]

From what you describe, geoffrey, it sounds like those non-compete payments are paving the way for a future conflict of interest. If Conrad Black gets paid to not compete, then what of the other shareholders of the companies he cant use to compete? If competing was in the best interest of the company, but Black was paid not to, then what redress do the other shareholders have that Black is effectively cheating them because of the non-competition agreement?

[geoffrey]

I think you have left out one particularly important element Geoffrey...As I understand it, the main complaint is not with the concept of non-compete payments, but rather, with the concept of Hollinger Int'l making non-compete payments to its own corporate subsidiary, Hollinger Inc. (owned by Black).

That is, millions of dollars going into Conrad Black's pocket directly in exchange for his promise that Hollinger won't compete with Hollinger. In his position as a fiduciary to both of the companies, Black could not legally and ethically compete with those businesses, so why pay him to not compete when he's already obligated to not compete?

That all being said, I think he's going to be acquitted...from what I've seen, Radler's deal was simply too sweet, and he's called himself a liar about 50 times under cross-examination...the jury is going to be confused by all the non-compete stuff and suspicious of Radler...likely means Conrad goes home at the end of the day.

FTA

Are we not still dealing with a civil matter though? A breach of fiduciary duty is a tort, not a crime.

Your right that he couldn't compete TODAY, but is there not some reasonable opinion that he may eventually not be in a directing position at Hollinger and want to compete? Most executives have a non-competition agreement in their contracts from day one (for a certain period past their termination). I don't see how Hollinger paying Black to not enter markets they were in is any different.

From what you describe, geoffrey, it sounds like those non-compete payments are paving the way for a future conflict of interest. If Conrad Black gets paid to not compete, then what of the other shareholders of the companies he cant use to compete? If competing was in the best interest of the company, but Black was paid not to, then what redress do the other shareholders have that Black is effectively cheating them because of the non-competition agreement?

I haven't heard it put that way, interesting line of thinking. I suppose they could fire him if his outside agreements conflicted with the objectives of the company.

Still, I have not heard an argument for criminal charges (your argument included). This is purely a civil matter... just the US justice system is on a bit of a roll on prosecuting everyone like Black right now.

Interestingly, I heard someone today (a clerk in our accounting department, you'd expect them to know something), refer to Black and Enron in the same sentance.

If anything does him in, it's the ignorance of the situation by the general public (of which the jury is made up of, "unbaised" or not). People think everything is an accounting scandal, where this is completely not. This is someone feeling they got ripped off, if that's the case, they should settle the matter privately.

[madmax]

Conrad Black is ready to sue anyone who has "slandered" him during these proceedings.

So, will he be able to sue, or will he be convicted?

[Mad_Michael]

Conrad Black is ready to sue anyone who has "slandered" him during these proceedings.

So, will he be able to sue, or will he be convicted?

Wouldn't it be better to just wait a week or so and then find out what the jury says rather than pure speculation at this point?

[guyser]

Wouldn't it be better to just wait a week or so and then find out what the jury says rather than pure speculation at this point?

Sure, but thats no fun.

My guess, I dont think he will be convicted. But that "ostrich" defense or lack of, may bite big time.

And if not convicted, Radler will slap his own forehead and say "why why why did I plead guilty"

But you are right, pure spec right now.

[Michael Bluth]

Sure, but thats no fun.

My guess, I dont think he will be convicted. But that "ostrich" defense or lack of, may bite big time.

And if not convicted, Radler will slap his own forehead and say "why why why did I plead guilty"

But you are right, pure spec right now.

Black's been charged with a long list of offences. My guess is he will be found not guilty on most of them, but will still be convicted of a few of them.

[gc1765]

Black's been charged with a long list of offences. My guess is he will be found not guilty on most of them, but will still be convicted of a few of them.

At the very least "obstruction of justice", I would think.