This shouldn't come as a surprise, you can't work for any financial institution in Canada, if you have any type of criminal record, and you are explicitly barred from these jobs if you have any fraud charges.
So it's unsurprising that an agency overseeing publicly traded companies would put up these kinds of roadblocks.
I believe the only thing he was "convicted" of was taking boxes of records or documents out of his office in NYC. I don't think he was actually convicted of any financial or corporate wrong-doing.
I hear Black being interviewed about his books and knowledge of politics and politicians every once in a while by John Batchelor. Batchelor has 3-hour radio inverview show 5 or 6 days a week in the evenings (starting 10 or 11 pm). I listen to it on 760 WJR Detroit. From these interviews, Black has a very strong command of the english language, is highly intelligent and has great recall ability. He's written many op-ed pieces from his country-club jail in Florida. He could (and I think, should) have a higher profile as a public figure weighing in with explanations and opinions of current events in Canada and internationally.
He's still well connected regardless the seemingly kangaroo court he (and Martha Stewart) was subjected to by the US over financial crimes. And the US has yet to charge anyone with financial crimes that decimated the US economy in 2007/2008 - who's effects still linger on as we experience this fictional recovery going on 6 years now.
And the US has yet to charge anyone with financial crimes that decimated the US economy in 2007/2008 - whose effects still linger on as we experience this fictional recovery going on 6 years now.
Sub prime loans packaged up has AAA rated debt was one Selling "insurance" disguised as credit default swaps was another.
I've read a lot of books on this, the games they played and the downright fraud was beyond criminal, it bordered on treason(it wasn't only because it wasn't intentional, it was greed ).
I believe the only thing he was "convicted" of was taking boxes of records or documents out of his office in NYC. I don't think he was actually convicted of any financial or corporate wrong-doing.
The general argument is that had this occurred in Canada or anywhere else in the world, it would not have been a crime. The fact that the SCC struck down most of the laws that were used to prosecute him on his appeal sort of speaks to that. The obstruction of justice charge was therefore based on a false pretense of his actions being criminal to begin with, but it stuck. The guy might be - hell, we all know he is a huge dick, but I still don't believe he did anything illegal by any sane definition of the term and shouldn't have spent a day in jail.
From these interviews, Black has a very strong command of the english language, is highly intelligent and has great recall ability. He's written many op-ed pieces from his country-club jail in Florida. He could (and I think, should) have a higher profile as a public figure weighing in with explanations and opinions of current events in Canada and internationally.
Here's an example of his writing style from todays NP, worth reading IMHO
Jeremy Paxman is a douchebag extraordinaire in his own right, so it's amusing watching these two go head-to-head. As far as I'm concerned, Black ripped him to shreds. And he made some absolutely fantastic points about the US justice system and how - love him or hate him - his entire prosecution was a sham.
I believe the only thing he was "convicted" of was taking boxes of records or documents out of his office in NYC Toronto. I don't think he was actually convicted of any financial or corporate wrong-doing.
Fixed it for you.
He claims the boxes contained personal items. He told the Receiver that he was going to take personal items from his office, and heard nothing back from the Receiver - neither a yea or nay.
The prosecution offered no proof of what was in the boxes, yet the only charge that stuck at the end of the day after all the appeals was relating to this. It's called 'obstruction of justice'.
I've met Conrad a number of times over the years. He's a pompous ass, but he's brilliant and entertaining. Is he a criminal? Not sure that he is, but he sure has a sense of entitlement.
The obstruction charge should have been quashed when the rest of the laws he was convicted under were struck down by the SCC.
And yeah, there are plenty of assholes in this world. But just because you're an asshole does not mean you are a criminal. His assessment of the US justice system is one of the most brutally honest that anyone anywhere has ever given.
I have not studied this case in detail, nor do I believe the US justice system is anything close to perfect....
But AFAICT he was convicted of things besides taking boxes of records.
When he paid a noncompete (fee) to himself, not to compete with himself chutzpah comes to mind, said Herbert A. Denton, a shareholder activist who was involved in Mr. Blacks ouster and is now on the board of Sun-Times Media.
If they're going to prosecute powerful people for financial crimes, it would help if the things they were actually prosecuting were crimes. Things like management fees are paid all the time. I don't understand how paying a fee to yourself is illegal when the board of directors of the corporation approves it.
It was a smear job. Probably because they simply didn't like his arrogance.
When he paid a noncompete (fee) to himself, not to compete with himself chutzpah comes to mind, said Herbert A. Denton, a shareholder activist who was involved in Mr. Blacks ouster and is now on the board of Sun-Times Media.
The non-compete quote you posted is disengenious. He wasn't getting the fees to not compete with himself - they were to not compete with the interests of the corporation - a different legal entity entirely.
I'm not suggesting that this is commonplace, but certain persons are in positions to open businesses which MAY, at the periphery, compete with the interests of the 'employer'. Say you're working for a programming 'body shop'. Should you be enjoined from taking your own private customers after hours if there isn't a clause in your employment contract that forbids it? For greater certainty, for good & valuable consideration a payment ($1 - $10MM) might be made to you to induce you to not 'compete'. However, the US attorney decided to prosecute you even in the presence of said agreement.
Would I have such a clause in my employment agreement with my company - probably not. I'm not saying the non-compete agreement/ fees were fair or even justifiable, but they WERE voted on by the shareholders and approved.
Blame the shareholders for not holding him to account by defeating management proposals at the AGM's over the years.
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but consider:
Canada is a sovereign country. They don't have to follow the US actions.
Yet last year he was stripped of the Order of Canada, and removed from the Privy Council.
And now, the Ontario Securities Commission bans him.
Presumably these organizations made up their own minds---they are not beholden to the US.
So his recent punishments were done by his (former) fellow Canadians.
Further proof and illustration of this:
The UK allowed him to keep his title, "Lord Black of Crossharbour". They did not feel obligated to follow the US lead.
TL/DR: If the US actions were wrong then the Canadian federal authorities, and the Ontario Securities Commission, were free to ignore them, just as the UK did. But they didn't, which tends to back up the US actions....
Please note, I'm not trying to argue this, just seeking logical consistency.
Please note, I'm not trying to argue this, just seeking logical consistency.
Can't be done. Both our governments are masters of illogical actions.
The OSC are a bunch of sock-puppets. I've been involved in innumerable hearings with them over the years - as an observer, commentator, giving testimony. On many matters they take the expedient route rather than the thoughtful correct route.
"Oh, the US convicted him. Must be guilty even though our own laws back him up. Off with his head."
The obstruction charge should have been quashed when the rest of the laws he was convicted under were struck down by the SCC.
Maybe for him but not the rest of us. If the court imposes a restriction or obligation before a conviction it will still result in a breach regardless of the disposition of the originating charge. Cops use this all the time to gets convictions and jail time on restrictive covenants knowing the original charges are going to be tossed anyway.
Maybe for him but not the rest of us. If the court imposes a restriction or obligation before a conviction it will still result in a breach regardless of the disposition of the originating charge. Cops use this all the time to gets convictions and jail time on restrictive covenants knowing the original charges are going to be tossed anyway.
It is just as wrong to do it to anyone else as it is for them to do it to Conrad Black, which has been his entire rallying cry all along.