perle choker

* the other day i questioned why the nyt hadnt covered the fact that the SEC are looking to sue perle. they actually ran a truncated version (hidden in the 'MEDIA & ADVERTISING' section) of the bloomberg piece. compare and contrast.

* heres the bloomberg headline: "Perle, Ex-Pentagon Aide, May Face SEC Suit Over Hollinger Role"

* heres the nyt headline: "Hollinger Director Warned".

* curiously, a news.google of the nyt headline "Hollinger Director Warned" comes up empty.

* the nyt ends with this from halfway thru the bloomberg article: "Mr. Perle said that he never profited from the deals." (news.googling that phrase comes up empty as well)

* here are some of the bits from the bloomberg article from *below* where the nyt story stops:

"If the SEC takes action, it would be a ``significant stigma'' for someone who has built his post-government career on a wide network of business interests"
"The SEC could seek to bar Perle from serving as an officer or director of any public company".

[...]

"Perle received $3.1 million in undisclosed bonuses at Hollinger for running an Internet investment arm called Hollinger Digital".

[...]

"Perle and Gerald Hillman, a friend of Perle, convinced Black to put $2.5 million of company cash in Trireme Partners LP, a venture-capital fund that Perle and Hillman had set up"

[...]

"The Breeden report said of Perle: ``His executive committee performance falls squarely into the `head-in-the-sand' behavior that breaches a director's duty of good faith and renders him liable for damages"

[...]

"The SEC warning adds to the scrutiny of Perle's business affairs. In 2003, members of Congress, including John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, questioned why Perle set up an investment fund and took consulting jobs from other companies while serving as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under President Bush."

[...]

"At Hollinger, Perle was the only non-management member of the executive committee, which had wide authority to approve transactions. Perle approved deals that let Black and Radler buy Hollinger newspapers for themselves at below-market prices and loan money to companies they controlled, causing at least $10 million in losses"

[...]

"``It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant abdication of duty,'' the report said. ``Perle clearly had a motive to abdicate his fiduciary duties as an executive committee member so as to accommodate the persons responsible for his huge Hollinger compensation.''"

the nypost weighs in:

""It's a huge stigma," said Robert Zito, a partner at Schiff, Hardin who defends companies in securities fraud suits. "Anyone under an SEC investigation will be deemed a pariah.""

and

"Perle was blasted in an internal investigation by Hollinger that contends he enabled Black and his business associates to plunder the company to the tune of $400 million. Perle has maintained that Black duped him."

isnt that the failed ebbers defence? one could imagine that there's a story here somewhere.

the only good thing that can be said for the nyt's bastardization of this story is that the rest of the american media seems to be avoiding it as well.

to ignore or mislead? that is the eternal question...