Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Former Nortel Execs Await Corporate Fraud Ruling

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the day-of-reckoning dept.

Canada 59

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."

cancel ×

59 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One of the execs (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580339)

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.

Re:One of the execs (4, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580411)

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.

Re:One of the execs (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580497)

Yep, it's like the kid who kills their parents and says to the judge "Your honor, have mercy on me since I'm an orphan!" Why, shouldn't we be merciful to these poor unemployed high level execs since their company went kaput? The fact that their company went kaput because of their shenanigans and they played with the factors and manipulated things to extract so much money out before crashing and buring should have nothing to do with it!!! It's like Bain Capital. Why Mitt was just plain ol' smart coming in to these companies with lots of available credit and no outstanding loans, taking as much cash as possible while putting the companies in hock, and then taking the legal bankruptcy route to deny payment to creditors all while taking a nice healthy chunk of restructuring fees and consulting payments.... Just plain ol' smarts indeed. :>(

Re:One of the execs (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580593)

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 [youtube.com]

The Crimson Permanent Assurance sails again.

Re:One of the execs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580549)

You taking a page out of Mulroney's book?

Joke of the day: he got to *keep* the 30M.

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580717)

but, but the are creating jobs when they are in prision!

Re:One of the execs (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580781)

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.

It's our (the people, through its representatives) job to show that it was not a coincidence. The onus is, as it should be, on the accuser.

And yes, if we cannot do that, we should indeed compensate them for the ten years they've gone through, whether we think they did it or not, and no matter what our loathing is for money grabbing suits. We must not allow Justitia to uncover her eyes and become biased - it's never worth it.

I hope that everyone that's guilty is found guity, and given the appropriate sentences the law calls for. And that not a single innocent is caught in the dragnet of hatred for a crime. Prove the accused guilty, don't judge them because you feel they're guilty.

Balance of probabilities. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582241)

It is civil.

And you get a jury of your peers to assert whether the case is proven in a criminal case.

This is not a court, it is slashdot.

You may have gotten confused on the way in...

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42583707)

Why the FUCK would anyone 'compensate them for the ten years'??
When I have to go to court for a BS ticket and I win I don't get shit.
When the cops arrest another random brown person who is set free after a weekend at jail with no charges filed they don't get shit.
When someone is stopped because they walked down the wrong street after dark and taken into the station because they did not have ID on them, even though they don't NEED ID to walk down the street they don't get shit.

Where is this idea that if they somehow are not found guilty they should get $$ coming from?
It does not work like that for the rest of us. And we don't have millions of $$ to fall back on when our town ostracizes us even though we were not guilty. We were on page 3 of the local paper in the police blotter section so we must be guilty.

The rich really are not like the rest of us.

Re:One of the execs (4, Interesting)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580413)

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.

Re:One of the execs (3, Insightful)

coastwalker (307620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580433)

Shame about all the people who used to work for the company who lost their pensions too because it was mostly invested in Nortel stock.

Still you should be thankful as you live out your last years in a trailer that the problem of over regulation by the government is being valiantly fought over by Fox news and the WSJ.

Unfettered wealth creation by the super rich for the super rich should never be held back!

That was me :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580465)

The OP. Which is how I know about the sell-off.

What torques me is that I was waiting for the next report to see how many shares I had, sell off 1/2 - 1/3 of them to lock in any gains (depending on how many would realise the money I'd put in).

I'd also met someone at the gym who had worked there and had stock and advised him to sell off at least SOME stock on the way up, so that any further increase would be gravy extra, and not a risk. I hope he did it, because he was laid off from THAT job.

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580491)

Shame about all the people who used to work for the company who lost their pensions too because it was mostly invested in Nortel stock.

It's a shame for them but putting the majority of your savings into a single stock is an incredibly risky thing to do. It's rather like the Autonomy case - whether or not there was any massaging of the figures involved, which those responsible should answer for, it still was a stupid investment.

The Dot Com crash cost 1/3 of all pension savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580513)

But I guess you can't handle the fact that these shitheads have screwed with so many people, right, so HAVE to make some of it "their fault".

If you're on a pension for £10,000, you're not "well off" but you're secure. Knock 1/3 off that and you're not well off, but poor.

If you're on a pension for $1,000,000, you're well off. Knock 1/3 off that and you're STILL well off.

Re:The Dot Com crash cost 1/3 of all pension savin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580693)

But I guess you can't handle the fact that these shitheads have screwed with so many people, right, so HAVE to make some of it "their fault".

Only a complete asshat would take that from the parent's comment.

There's a reason why we have a very, very old saying: "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket". I guess YOU just can't handle the idea of diversifying your portfolio. Spare me the "don't blame the victim" bullshit. No, it's not your fault they cooked the books and lied, cheated, and stole. Just like it's not your fault you got mugged when carrying all your cash down a dark alley where robbers are known to hang out. Smart people think ahead, look at history, and takes steps to mitigate their risk. Stupid people risk everything for a chance of a big payout. You handed your cash to a bunch of strangers and trusted them blindly, and trusted the System blindly, to take care of you, and did nothing to take care of yourself. So while I don't excuse those dirty fuckbags, I'm not going to put up with you whining about being a sucker, either.

Re:The Dot Com crash cost 1/3 of all pension savin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582397)

No, only a complete asshat would try to make it someone else's fault.

Nortel didn't crash because someone spent all their savings in Nortel.

But apparently it's their fault for losing their money if they did.

And, as I noted, it didn't require much more to wipe out the bee workers' pension with the effects of the crash.

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580569)

Shame about all the people who used to work for the company who lost their pensions too because it was mostly invested in Nortel stock.

It's a shame for them but putting the majority of your savings into a single stock is an incredibly risky thing to do. It's rather like the Autonomy case - whether or not there was any massaging of the figures involved, which those responsible should answer for, it still was a stupid investment.

How is that even possible? On this side of the Atlantic (in countries with private pension funds) there are laws about mandatory minimum levels of risk management that pension funds have to follow and any fund who invested their entire money in one stock would be in some real trouble. The bar is pretty high, you cannot invest more than a very small percentage of a fund's total capital in any one company, it's subsidiaries or any other organisations the company has such heavy financial connections to that the bankruptcy of one would bankrupt the other.

Re:One of the execs (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580615)

How much weight do you really place in any protections such as this being followed, let alone prosecuted.

Re:One of the execs (3, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580699)

It's a shame for them but putting the majority of your savings into a single stock is an incredibly risky thing to do.

If you drive without your seatbelt on and someone crashes into you and you get seriously hurt, the guy may comfort himself all day long that he won't get all the blame for your injuries, but that won't let him off the hook completely anyway.

Re:One of the execs (4, Insightful)

rHBa (976986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580571)

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...

Re:One of the execs (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580773)

I don't know what the odds of this are in Canada, but in the U.S. the odds of corporate execs being held accountable are almost nil.

Re:One of the execs (1)

Thorodin (1999352) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580961)

Depends on how big a 'stink' the corp. exec causes. Enron and Global Crossings come to mind.

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42589679)

They got punished because they hurt other one percenters, not because they screwed over the 99'ers

Re:One of the execs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582023)

I don't know what the odds of this are in Canada, but in the U.S. the odds of corporate execs being held accountable are almost nil.

The odds are actually worse in Canada. See: this Nortel case taking an entire decade before it even came to trial. Or the various securities and similar ombudsmen in Canada that always accept a small fine instead of going to court (which could potentially land a businessperson in jail).

Re:One of the execs (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42589781)

I don't know what the odds of this are in Canada, but in the U.S. the odds of corporate execs being held accountable are almost nil.

Hello from the future. They were acquitted [ctvnews.ca] of all charges.

Re:One of the execs (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42582535)

A bit of good ol'-fashioned jail-time would be nice too. Unfortunately other things such as flogging etc aren't allowed these days.

Re:One of the execs (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42585145)

A bit of good ol'-fashioned jail-time would be nice too. Unfortunately other things such as flogging etc aren't allowed these days.

Bring back the stockades [knightsedge.com] !

Re:One of the execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580439)

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.

The only reason they got caught is that a bigger fish paid more to the presidential campaign.

Re:One of the execs (5, Interesting)

thebigmacd (545973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580647)

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.

Re:One of the execs (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580857)

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

Re:One of the execs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582211)

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

American elections law has teeth, though. In Canada if you robocall people illegally and get caught, Elections Canada will settle for $1000 (statutory max of $1000 per incident).

In America, if you robocall people illegally and get caught, you go to court, and the judge will hit you with $100 per incident. Times tens of thousand of illegal calls equals $1,000,000.

Some American states do have corrupt governors sometimes, but once the governors are out of office they tend to end up in prison.

Re:One of the execs (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42585181)

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

American elections law has teeth, though. In Canada if you robocall people illegally and get caught, Elections Canada will settle for $1000 (statutory max of $1000 per incident).

In America, if you robocall people illegally and get caught, you go to court, and the judge will hit you with $100 per incident. Times tens of thousand of illegal calls equals $1,000,000.

Some American states do have corrupt governors sometimes, but once the governors are out of office they tend to end up in prison.

Given the budget for campaigns, both punishments seem like not even a slap on the wrist. More along the lines of something they could bake into the campaign budget.

Re:One of the execs (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42585801)

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

American elections law has teeth, though. In Canada if you robocall people illegally and get caught, Elections Canada will settle for $1000 (statutory max of $1000 per incident).

In America, if you robocall people illegally and get caught, you go to court, and the judge will hit you with $100 per incident. Times tens of thousand of illegal calls equals $1,000,000.

Some American states do have corrupt governors sometimes, but once the governors are out of office they tend to end up in prison.

Meh. Not always. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal [wikipedia.org]

Re:One of the execs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582173)

The individual campaign contribution limit in Canada is $1000.

Unless you engage in one of the loopholes. Donations of less than $200 don't get reported, so just donate $200 in each of the 300+ ridings across the country. That's more than $1000 (though you don't get the generous tax deduction).

and all lobbyists must be registered as such.

Except when they aren't (which is sadly too often), especially when the lobbyist is a recent politician (which is supposed to be illegal). Worst case? The relevant commissioner has them write an apology letter. Boo-hoo.

Our Federal election campaigns are 6 weeks long and politicians go into debt to finance them.

Except political parties can advertise any time they feel like and at least one of them does, attack-ad style.

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.

Could, in theory? Yes. Actually going to happen? It is to laugh. Apology letters and small fines are the topic of the day.

A Canadian political party forged financial invoices to hide their massive overspending. Then they claimed that spending to get their ~50% rebate from Elections Canada. Elections Canada eventually caught on to the scam and we got a years-long court case to make the party pay back the rebated money, and also be punished for overspending.

The result was, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent fighting the case later, a plea bargain announced on Remembrance Day (when news stations were all busy covering the day's events). Nobody went to jail. Nobody accepted responsibility. And while there was a $50k fine, that's less than 3% interest made on the ill-gotten money over those years. The Conservative Party got into government (where they could do things like appoint key people Senator to protect them from subpeona), so their scheme worked.

Re:One of the execs (4, Interesting)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42582269)

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.

Re:One of the execs (2, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580599)

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.

Statistics tell us that it will happen by chance, every so often - depending on how many execs the company has, and how often they sell stock on average, this might be quite likely to happen by chance. For 100+ execs with an average sell-off time of ~2 years, it's more likely than not than it happens by chance to one of them right before a company tanks.

Sure, it's suspicious, but we don't convict people over that. What we need to do is prove that it was not chance.

And in far less time after the crime. When it takes half a generation and who knows how much money to get a verdict on whether one is guilty or not, I fully understand that this leads to a high suicide rate among all accused, and undue punishment of those who are innocent.

Anyhow, I don't like lynch mob mentality where people make up their minds based on their gut feelings and bad logic. It's barbaric. Every accused is innocent until found guilty, and our passing armchair judgment does not advance our society; rather the opposite.

When stock is rising, why sell ALL? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580633)

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".

Re:When stock is rising, why sell ALL? (0)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580727)

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

Nobody.

I've done that before. I'm sure many others here have too. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of waiting, sometimes you don't want the gamble, and sometimes you have to put in your sell order well in advance.

And if that is two days before the stock tanks?

So? Not all execs were privy to information that the stock would tank. This has to be shown before conclusions can be drawn. You see the effect and can only guess at the cause unless you have evidence. And we don't (or shouldn't) put people in prison based on our ability to guess.

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".

No, the odds are enormously higher for someone selling their stock at an inopportune time.

You're committing a logical fallacy here. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and a duck did it, that doesn't mean that if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you did it.
It's worth investigating to find out, but passing armchair judgments based on incomplete evidence and even more incomplete understanding of statistics and logic is for idiots.
Gut feelings are wrong often enough not to be trustworthy.

Re:When stock is rising, why sell ALL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582697)

simple solution: insiders may only liquidate evenly over a period of 5 years, or up to 1 million over 1 year. once an option is exercised, there is not way to stop.

their granted golden parachutes because their allegedly keeping long-term business in mind. they should then reap rewards in such a timescale.

Re:One of the execs (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580785)

The way that corporate execs (as a group) are manipulating the government and not being held accountable for their fraudulent activity, it would probably be HEALTHY for some people on the streets with torches and pitchforks. The fact we see NONE of that is more concerning than any concern about "mob mentality." If you don't see the corporate malfeasance we're living with right now then you're a CEO worshiper.

Re:One of the execs (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580861)

The way that corporate execs (as a group) are manipulating the government and not being held accountable for their fraudulent activity, it would probably be HEALTHY for some people on the streets with torches and pitchforks. The fact we see NONE of that is more concerning than any concern about "mob mentality." If you don't see the corporate malfeasance we're living with right now then you're a CEO worshiper.

So. MickyTheIdiot, not only do you advocate lynch mobs, but you want to pass judgment on me too?

For what it's worth, I'm a socialist, who thinks that the stock market and corporate system is inherently evil - not necessarily the individuals, but the system. If you pour blood into the bay, you get sharks. That isn't the sharks' fault, and amassing a mob to hunt them isn't going to solve the problem, only make you look like a tool.

Re:One of the execs (1)

rtaylor (70602) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580625)

Executive trades are typically public and large shareholders do watch them and will respond to them.

Re:One of the execs (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580811)

Executive trades also typically has to be put in a long time in advance, precisely to reduce suspicions that it was based on insider knowledge.

Re:One of the execs (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580841)

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

References? Nortel didn't "tank" in a single day, it happened over much of 2001. If an exec was in the habit of immediately exercising, then selling options as they vested, or before they expired, it might not be unusual for them to sell "all" of their stock holdings on a regular basis.

It went down from its peak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582277)

And never recovered.

The shares were sold two days before it started going down, the request would likely have been actioned one day before.

Re:It went down from its peak. (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42587179)

Still no references or specifics. "Two days before it started going down" displays an extreme ignorance of the market - it's normal for stocks to go up and down over time. There was a broad decline of the NT stock price starting around March 2001, but there were many days it was up.

More significant would be "two days before xxx was announced publicly."

Aaron Swartz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580657)

Aaron Swartz - now let us compare!

I was in Nortel (3, Interesting)

pbjones (315127) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580671)

They would not pay the staff bonuses, that would be bad for shareholders, but the bosses get their bonus, and jail time, I hope.

I await... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580749)

I await roman_mir or one of his sock puppets posting outraged comments over this "travesty" of justice and affront to "freedom" to perpetrate fraud. And mob rule, etc. etc.

Sympathy (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580963)

They should go to jail... but...

I used to know some people in this sort of situation. They business wasn't nearly as big, but they'd run into some financial trouble and if earnings were bellow some arbitrary number, it would trigger a wave of financial ruin on the company. In the case that I was parifrialy aware of (I had a family member working there) They were getting free water, sewer, etc from the city as long as their revenue was X amount. They were short by less than a tenth of a percent. There were also loans who's interest rates would go up. The end result was, if they published the numbers they had, the company was going down. I knew a lot of the people involved and they were very torn up about the whole thing. There were around 1000 people that would lose their jobs, the entire thing would be a mess. So they lied. The company went on to make it out of their financial troubles.

I don't agree with what happened. But there's a lot more to these stories than stock options and greed. Not a single person I knew in that situation was talking about any of that. They were talking about a single earnings number destroying their business and the welfare of the people that worked for them. The moral of my story isn't that you should do this sort of thing... it's that the motives of the people behind this stuff aren't always sharks trying to score money. Some of them really care about their business and the people working there. I don't know if that's the case here, but food for thought or something.

Re:Sympathy (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42584009)

Don't even start to defend these guys.

These guys were responsible for 90,000 people losing their jobs and there pensions through outright illegal practices running Nortel.

These are millionaires that tried to over-inflate the value of their company to get more money, not just some hard working guys doing what it took to keep the company profitable and afloat.

Don't pull the "lets put on their other guys shoes" empathetic bullshit here. You couldn't afford the shoes these guys were putting on their feat ripping off the 90,000 people who were just doing their jobs and the millions of investors the lost their shirts investing in what they though was a strongly performing company.

Re:Sympathy (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42586785)

When the other person has a different kind of shoes, that's the best time to try them on.

It's about the circling vultures (1)

jnowlan (618290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581483)

It's pretty clear that this case isn't so much about the three defendants as it is about the vultures circling wanting what is left of the Nortel carcass for themselves. To gorge on that carrion someone has to be shown to be guilty. The problem is even the judge is having problems seeing guilt when the accounting practices were accepted by the auditors.

What isn't clear to me, is how all this might affect the pensioners and former employees claims. They are the ones who really got screwed by this whole mess.

Not guilty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582165)

The virdict is in... Not guilty. Why am I not suprised

They're free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582587)

Free, yes they're free:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/former-nortel-execs-acquitted-in-multimillion-dollar-fraud-case-1.1112930

I worked at Nortel for 10 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582731)

I worked at Nortel for 10 years and all I got was this cardboard box...to put my belongs in, to go work at Ericsson!!!! who promptly laid off 1/5th of the department after buying Nortels GSM business....... I have a feel, and it is sad. My jimmies were rustled.

Just saw on TV all three found not guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42582967)

Hmmph.

It's official: Aquitted (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42585089)

Three top Nortel Networks Corp. executives accused of defrauding the company and its investors were acquitted in a Toronto courtroom today, making them free men.

On the CBC's site [www.cbc.ca] .

$12.8 million potential fraud? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42601261)

Unless I'm missing something, why would such a relatively small amount make any difference to a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?