The case against Martha Stewart surrounded her sale of shares in ImClone Systems Inc., Had she acted responsibly?

Essay by maintainer6University, Bachelor'sA+, February 2006

download word file, 6 pages 0.0

Downloaded 121 times

The case against Martha Stewart surrounded her sale of 3,928 shares in ImClone Systems Inc., and whether she lied to investigators and her company's investors about it. On Dec. 27, 2001, Stewart cashed out her ImClone stake at an average price of $58.43, collecting about $229,500. After the market closed the following day, the Food and Drug Administration announced its refusal to review ImClone's application for Erbitux, a promising cancer drug. The next trading day, Dec. 31, ImClone's shares opened at $45.39 per share. That difference in price would have cost Stewart about $51,200 if she sold first thing that morning.

Had she acted responsibly? The obvious answer is no. But I defy anyone to ignore the possibility that they could lose a large some of money in a short time. Her actions after getting the news that she could lose thousands of dollars were a matter of self preservation.

For those that states it's all about the money; I ask, why then does a billionaire continue to buy low and sell high. It's clear they've reached a point of saturation a few million dollars ago. For some it's the thrill of the hunt not the kill that keeps them motivated; they've enough severed heads mounted within their mansions. Compared to the recent actions of others CEO's Kenneth Lay of Enron and L. Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, Martha Stewart told what amounted to a 'little white lie' - that aside, as a leader of any organization one is held to a higher standard. It's against that measuring stick that leads me to believe that she acted irresponsibly.

Martha Stewart, born in 1941 as Martha Kostyra, grew up in Nutley, New Jersey in a working-class family with six children. At an early age her mother taught her the basics...