3 ms·

Thanks for your comment, it explains how your initial comment relates to his conviction. This article helped too. [1] The basis of his conviction is that he ma

Thanks for your comment, it explains how your initial comment relates to his conviction. This article helped too. [1] The basis of his conviction is that he made a prediction that the court found to be false, and the court found that he should have known it would be false. If it's for say, predicting 2001/2002 revenue, he was convicted as lying to the SEC, it's possible that losing NSA/government contracts contributed. I don't know the dates and so don't know for which year(s) he was convicted for making a false prediction. If it was earlier than 2002 it is probably as you say, run of the mill lying to the SEC. His allegations are of retaliation, that he was given cruel and unusual attention because he refused to comply. As regards whether it was retaliation, his credibility is shot. I don't doubt that the meetings occurred, that qwest refused and that contracts were cancelled. In that regard even though he may be a liar, he did better than the CEO's of the other companies. I am sure if you subject any CEO to enough scrutiny you can convict them of something. Put it this way, I'd take a CEO who makes unrealistic predictions about revenue over one that silently allows warrantless wiretapping. [1] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO-plans-novel-defense-in-trading-probe.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO-pl...

001sky 13y ago
There's no way losing a couple NSA contacts sends a RBOC generating $4B of cash a year into a $2 stock and near bankruptcy. The way you do that, is you merge a massively unprofitable business into a blue chip one and pay the latter with massively inflated stock (viz: '99 internet bubble). After the bubble bursts, market wakes up, and the assets are found to be dogs. The $4B cash is now going to pay down the massive debts the combined entity took to finance the operating losses of the crappy side of the merger, but there is no growth in the supposedly high-growth part. The high-growth part was not a NSA/gov't driven biz plan, though. That would not have made sense or been credible plan on which to merge or raise capital (before 9/11 in particular). Much easier explanation. According to the SEC/Jury/SupremeCourt etc. Hope that helps.

001sky 13y ago

There's no way losing a couple NSA contacts sends a RBOC generating $4B of cash a year into a $2 stock and near bankruptcy. The way you do that, is you merge a massively unprofitable business into a blue chip one and pay the latter with massively inflated stock (viz: '99 internet bubble). After the bubble bursts, market wakes up, and the assets are found to be dogs. The $4B cash is now going to pay down the massive debts the combined entity took to finance the operating losses of the crappy side of the merger, but there is no growth in the supposedly high-growth part. The high-growth part was not a NSA/gov't driven biz plan, though. That would not have made sense or been credible plan on which to merge or raise capital (before 9/11 in particular). Much easier explanation. According to the SEC/Jury/SupremeCourt etc. Hope that helps.