Ethics 101 - Or Not
 

Check this out and draw your own conclusions.

Supporting Documents

I drew my conclusions a long time ago. Don't forget that there is an active investigation that NW consistently and intentionally underfunded pension contributions for the year leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The filing occurred one day before a $65 Million payment was due. :confused:

OOPS! I did forget. Maybe they should change the name to EnronAir :mad:

Questions for brighter minds -

Can Corporate Officers be criminally charged with Bankruptcy Fraud?

How does Sarbanes-Oxley play in all of this? or GLB for that matter?

CEO's and other corporate officers sell stock all the time, and certainly there are times when the timing looks fishy. It's quite obvious that these insiders have more information than Joe Public.

However, it is legal, but they're required to make the transaction public. They also use nice language like:
"the transactions are a "component of his overall tax and financial-planning strategy that is designed to provide enhanced diversification and liquidity"

Thanks but is there then a penalty for the late disclosure that happened here?

BTW I love your quote, Translated I think it means, "I'm getting what little bit of money I can before the stock totally tanks"

I dont know about bankruptcy fraud, but insider trading is a no no...Just ask Martha, maybe she will decorate his cell :eek:

This is just more fodder for future class action lawsuits. Unfortunately, they tend to enrich the lawyers more than the aggrieved shareholders!

AMEN to that!

This whole pension investigation, failure to disclose, ongoing labor issues, devaluation of FF program just makes me wonder if the place is going to be here next year at this time and if so what will it look like?
~slim~

Does that mean Roach Coach Choice is an "administratrive error" was well?

Nobody will ever accuse me of being a union sympathizer, but one thing that NW got the authorities to (some time ago) agree to was contributing Pinnacle stock in stead of cash to the pension plans. Now they are in the midst of (at least attempting to) pulling the rug out from under them too.

I'm not going to attempt to judge whether this was good or bad -- but at some point you start playing trivial pursuit.

From the data you provided, he sold a nominal 4,000 shares for about $4 each -- hardly a material transaction and what I couldn't find is what the capital loss/gain was. Now if the number of shares for this transaction goes up by a factor of 10 and the price does the same.....

The real question is at what point does this become a minor matter ---

Bob H

Well I happen to agree if you take it as a "Stand Alone" matter. However if you lump it in with some of the other things does it not create a pattern or perception of sleazy if not criminal behavior?

I always look to patterns of conduct and NWA has been consistent throughout its history IMO. Someone said in another thread that NWA is a finance company that masquerades as an airline and I don't disagree. If you look at the past the AMFA situation and its outcome were entirely predictable.

I'm frankly confused and just don't know what to make of this latest round of questionable financial activity.

The OP asked a question about "ethics." From an ethical standpoint, it doesn't matter if we are talking about 4,000 shares or 400,000. Nor does it matter whether the transaction provided a gain or loss. When an individual serves as a member of management or on a corporate board, there is no such thing as a "minor" ethical violation.

Insider trading where you are actually the insider (as opposed to Martha, where she was tipped off), is a slippery slope. It is very difficult for a CEO to not engage in insider trading, and therefore, the majority (at least of the CEO's I know) do either automatic (well... not exactly automatic, but automatic with the option of an override) value based transactions or time based transactions, where shares are sold when they reach a certain value, or after a certain amount of time has passed (this is the defense Martha claimed, that the sales were automatic based on a value. Notice she was never convicted of insider trading).

Insider trading in and of itself is not a crime. It is insider trading based on substantial non-public information that is a crime.

The notion that a couple of un-reported stock sales out of many dozens represents some sort of conspiracy is absolutely laughable. Sloppiness yes, conspiracy no.