Qwest's early signs of trouble.
Lawyers for the defense claim Nacchio's case could expose secret government contracts that might have compensated for some of the shortfall, but federal prosecutors argued in separate, recently unsealed documents that Nacchio should not be allowed to call upon laws governing national secrets as part of his defense. They contended that there was no need for the court to know what government agencies had contracts with Qwest, only what their values were.
In addition, "Even if Qwest had material federal classified contract prospects that might offset the pervasive weakness in its commercial business, the defendant would still be under a duty to disclose or abstain and would be guilty of the crime of insider trading," declared U.S. attorney William Leone in the government's brief. Defense lawyers indicated in court documents that the government must prove that securities fraud was indeed occurring at Qwest with Nacchio's knowledge before he sold off his company stock.
Source: New York Times
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Risk Reporter|
|Article Type:||Brief article|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Insurers vs. terrorists.|
|Next Article:||Bleeding green.|