Case study of Union carbide and Bhopal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Case study of Union carbide and Bhopal - Essay Example Most Americans considering its controversial nature overwhelmingly waited for the verdict on Martha Stewart’s case on 27th, December 2001.However, the question on whether Stewart committed the crime is open to question. Martha Stewart was found at fault for selling her ImClone shares. The US attorneys accused her of obstructing fairness and that she was deceitful to investigators. According to attorneys, Stewart was blameworthy of insider trading. I strongly do not accept as true that Stewart committed an insider trading crime given that she acted on her stockbroker’s knowledge. Sam Waksal, the ImClone CEO did not either clue-up Stewart or her stock brokers the defiance of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to appraise the untried cancer drug, Erbitux. Fascinatingly, Sam, on selling his shares, was just speculating on the decision that could be taken by FAD. He did not have the packed information and for that, could not reveal any to Stewart. Decisively, Martha did not commit insider-trading crime (Drew 707-708). Tight spot is whether the US Attorneys and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) used good decision in indicting Martha Stewart. Stewart, having been advised by Bacanovic who was her stockbroker to sell her shares if ImClon shares fall below $60 saved $ 45,673. Banacovic complained that his worksheet had been altered but was considered malice. Although, SEC filed a civil complaint against Stewart, the resolution arrived at in indicting her is doubtful. The issue was supposed to be inside trading but was twisted to conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the investigators. Martha overtly denied accusations against inside trading. Though she got a call that Sam was selling her shares and went ahead to sell her shares too before calling Sam, she was not a victim of inside trade. She just relied on her friend’s trustworthiness. Prosecutors must have had additional motive for pursuing the case. Instead of filling a suit of inside tr ade against Stewart, which was supposed to be a criminal case, the issue of inside trade was left and the suit was certainly turned to a civil case. The prosecutor must have had a motive of proving a point to the public that even celebrities cannot escape the rule of law. There was no enough evidence to rule the case. The government simply wanted to show that it was strict on business crime (Drew 708-710). I certainly do not concur with the jury that Martha was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How even in a nonprofessional’s language, can failure to provide evidence by an individual’s guilt be termed as obstruction of justice? Surprisingly, no one stood on the courtroom as a casualty of Stewart’s action. The fact that Stewart kept mum was not enough to declare her guilty. Stewart postulates that she acted upon receiving information that Sam was selling his stock. The information that she got was from a competent individual whom she solely depended on for guidance when it comes to stock matters. Upon hearing the information, she decided to sell her stock. Like any other individual, she could have not waited any further but to save her money before loss. In addition, Sam although he was the CEO of ImClone, did not receive any information from the Food and Drug Administration that their drug was going to be rejected. He further did not leak any information to Stewart that could make her gain inside knowledge about the