downward.”
There was no mention of $60. Why did Bacanovic think ImClone would start trading downward? And why had both he and Stewart covered this up? Bacanovic had mentioned leaving a message with Stewart’s assistant, but nothing like this. Nor had Stewart said anything of the sort. The discovery only heightened the significance of Stewart’s second interview. Schachter and the other lawyers from the earlier interview were on the conference call, along with FBI agent Catherine Farmer and Laurent Sacharoff, the other SEC lawyer on the investigation. Stewart was again represented by John Savarese from Wachtell.
The government lawyers focused on the revelations in the two phone logs, starting with the one from Bacanovic. Stewart said “she didn’t recall seeing it, or that wasn’t the message that she recalled getting,” according to Helene Glotzer’s notes. “She said that she merely recalled Ms. Armstrong telling her that Mr. Bacanovic had called and wanted to speak with her before the end of the day.” Stewart then reiterated her earlier story about their conversation and her decision to sell when the stock dropped below $60.
Schachter asked specifically if Stewart knew that the Waksals were selling their shares. “Did you hear that any of the Waksals were selling their stock?”
“No, I have no recollection of being told that,” she replied.
“Do you have any recollection of calling and leaving a message for Sam Waksal?”
“No, but when I saw the message I realized I was calling him just to see how he was doing and make sure everything was okay.”
Schachter asked Stewart if she’d discussed the sale with anyone else on the trip to Mexico–either Pasternak or Sharkey–and she said she might have told Pasternak. She didn’t think she’d mentioned it to Sharkey.
Given the opportunity to correct earlier testimony and set the record straight, Stewart had dug herself in even deeper. But why? What were she and Bacanovic hiding? The government lawyers still lacked any direct evidence that Stewart had been tipped by Bacanovic. The government lawyers agreed to continue the investigation by interviewing Armstrong and Pasternak. In the meantime, the Waksal branch of the investigation was heating up.
O n April 18, little more than a week after Stewart’s second interview, Sam Waksal arrived at the SEC’s New York offices for questioning. He’d been issued a subpoena, and was sworn to tell the truth. Earlier, his father, Jack Waksal, and his daughter, Aliza, had testified that neither had discussed ImClone shares with him. On March 5, Aliza maintained that she hadn’t spoken to her father on December 26 or 27 before placing her order to sell ImClone shares, hadn’t discussed any investment issues with him during her vacation in Sun Valley, and had interrupted her vacation (not to mention her sleep) to sell when she did because she needed $1.7 million for an apartment she was buying in Manhattan.
Also under oath, Waksal’s father insisted that he hadn’t talked at all to his son on December 26, “never had a conversation about stock” with him, and “never spoke” to him “about ImClone.”
The phone records produced to the SEC told another story: Sam Waksal and his father exchanged five phone calls between 9:52 p.m. and 11:11 p.m. the night of December 26. The next morning, there were four calls between Waksal and Aliza between 6:27 a.m. and 7:46 a.m. (mountain time). Aliza called Merrill Lynch at 7:01 a.m. and 7:49 a.m., in both cases just minutes after hanging up with her father.
The SEC lawyers as well as Schachter at the U.S. Attorney’s office recognized that both the senior Waksal and Waksal’s daughter had likely committed perjury. Would Waksal himself, already deeply enmeshed in the insider trading scheme, now compound his difficulties by also lying under oath?
Glotzer handled the questioning.
“Dr. Waksal, I’m handing you what’s just been marked as Exhibit 114. Have
There was no mention of $60. Why did Bacanovic think ImClone would start trading downward? And why had both he and Stewart covered this up? Bacanovic had mentioned leaving a message with Stewart’s assistant, but nothing like this. Nor had Stewart said anything of the sort. The discovery only heightened the significance of Stewart’s second interview. Schachter and the other lawyers from the earlier interview were on the conference call, along with FBI agent Catherine Farmer and Laurent Sacharoff, the other SEC lawyer on the investigation. Stewart was again represented by John Savarese from Wachtell.
The government lawyers focused on the revelations in the two phone logs, starting with the one from Bacanovic. Stewart said “she didn’t recall seeing it, or that wasn’t the message that she recalled getting,” according to Helene Glotzer’s notes. “She said that she merely recalled Ms. Armstrong telling her that Mr. Bacanovic had called and wanted to speak with her before the end of the day.” Stewart then reiterated her earlier story about their conversation and her decision to sell when the stock dropped below $60.
Schachter asked specifically if Stewart knew that the Waksals were selling their shares. “Did you hear that any of the Waksals were selling their stock?”
“No, I have no recollection of being told that,” she replied.
“Do you have any recollection of calling and leaving a message for Sam Waksal?”
“No, but when I saw the message I realized I was calling him just to see how he was doing and make sure everything was okay.”
Schachter asked Stewart if she’d discussed the sale with anyone else on the trip to Mexico–either Pasternak or Sharkey–and she said she might have told Pasternak. She didn’t think she’d mentioned it to Sharkey.
Given the opportunity to correct earlier testimony and set the record straight, Stewart had dug herself in even deeper. But why? What were she and Bacanovic hiding? The government lawyers still lacked any direct evidence that Stewart had been tipped by Bacanovic. The government lawyers agreed to continue the investigation by interviewing Armstrong and Pasternak. In the meantime, the Waksal branch of the investigation was heating up.
O n April 18, little more than a week after Stewart’s second interview, Sam Waksal arrived at the SEC’s New York offices for questioning. He’d been issued a subpoena, and was sworn to tell the truth. Earlier, his father, Jack Waksal, and his daughter, Aliza, had testified that neither had discussed ImClone shares with him. On March 5, Aliza maintained that she hadn’t spoken to her father on December 26 or 27 before placing her order to sell ImClone shares, hadn’t discussed any investment issues with him during her vacation in Sun Valley, and had interrupted her vacation (not to mention her sleep) to sell when she did because she needed $1.7 million for an apartment she was buying in Manhattan.
Also under oath, Waksal’s father insisted that he hadn’t talked at all to his son on December 26, “never had a conversation about stock” with him, and “never spoke” to him “about ImClone.”
The phone records produced to the SEC told another story: Sam Waksal and his father exchanged five phone calls between 9:52 p.m. and 11:11 p.m. the night of December 26. The next morning, there were four calls between Waksal and Aliza between 6:27 a.m. and 7:46 a.m. (mountain time). Aliza called Merrill Lynch at 7:01 a.m. and 7:49 a.m., in both cases just minutes after hanging up with her father.
The SEC lawyers as well as Schachter at the U.S. Attorney’s office recognized that both the senior Waksal and Waksal’s daughter had likely committed perjury. Would Waksal himself, already deeply enmeshed in the insider trading scheme, now compound his difficulties by also lying under oath?
Glotzer handled the questioning.
“Dr. Waksal, I’m handing you what’s just been marked as Exhibit 114. Have
Similar Books
