I didn't intend to blog again about Conrad Black, since he's not so much a Canadian entrepreneur as an anti-preneur. But Toronto Life's stalwart Black-watcher, Doug Bell, has a scoop of sorts in his blog: a series of email conversations with a talkative juror from the Black trial.
Among Jean Kelly's comments:
On the lawyers in the case: "Greenspan was the worst by far, just as arrogant as Mr. Black. I would have to say that other than Ron Safer, Patricia Holmes and Julie Ruder, nobody really impressed me. "
On the non-compete clauses: "Non-competes are a common practice in the industry. We saw many similar cases involving executives from a defense witness...
"Don’t get me wrong: I do believe Mr. Black did wrong by the shareholders. The transactions he was acquitted on had proof that they were approved and disclosed. Although late and vague, the “paper trail” was there. There was also the issue of a signed, legal, binding document. Nobody forced the buyers to sign the papers at closing. I think this should be a civil case, and from what I’ve read, it is. I hope they get some of their money back."
On Conrad himself: "I believe Mr. Black thought it was his company, he made all the money for the shareholders and thought he deserved some for himself. I truly believe he thought he had every right to take that money and, with the committees he assembled, had a green light all the way."
On the "obstruction of justice" conviction: "Defense tried to say that Black wasn’t aware of the court order at 10 Toronto Street. That’s just bogus. Pointing at the cameras was bad enough; actually carrying out the boxes himself was what did it for me."
Lots of other good stuff - but read the "comments" that follow that article at your own risk. A lot of people who followed this trial should be spending more time outdoors...
Click here for Doug Bell's full article.