[Soya]

[ QUOTE ]

Scenario #1 - Baconovic told Stewart only that Waksal was selling, and Waksal did not tell Bacanovic to tell Stewart. Bacanovic had a fiduciary duty to Waksal, violated it by telling Stewart, Stewart knew he violated it because she's a former broker. Misappropriation theory insider trading.

Scenario #2 - It's not a coincidence that Bacanovic told Stewart, a good friend of Waksal, immediately after speaking to Waksal, Waksal must have instructed Bacanovic to tell Stewart. If Stewart didn't have actual knowledge that Waksal was selling based on inside information, she was willfully blind to that fact (especially as a former stockbroker). Classic tipper/tippee insider trading through an intermediary.

In presenting either or both scenarios, and in the absence of a witness as to exactly which happened I'd present both (if Waksal didn't tell Bacanovic to pass the information along, she's guilty under #1, if he did, she's guilty under #2) use her after-the-fact lies as as consciousness of guilt evidence. Not a slam dunk, but a very winnable case.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not clear what Bacanovic conveyed to Stewart. He left her a voicemail, which, according to her, stated that there was heavy trading in ImClone. She called back and spoke to Bacanovic's assistant and, at the end of that phone call, directed the trade. It's a plausible story that the assistant confirmed the heavy selling of ImClone and she decided to sell. It is also plausible that one of them told her of the insider selling, but there is certainly some room for reasonable doubt. It would be a big risk to try the case, but it was winnable.