Breaking Update: Court Unseals Potentially Devastating Testimony-Romney Said Stocks Sold at 1/10th

[kpete]

Source: Boston Globe

Breaking Update: Court Unseals Potentially Devastating Testimony -- Romney Said Stocks Sold at 1/10th of Eventual Value Was 'Good Price'
Romney does appear to have covered for his friend.
October 25, 2012 |


Editor's Update: The Boston Globe reports: "Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple’s 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples’ stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later. At the time the Stembergs split, Romney suggested, there was little indication that Staples’ value would soon skyrocket. Romney’s testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit brought in 1990 by Sullivan Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday in Norfolk Probate and Family Court at the Globe’s request. Sullivan Stemberg sued unsuccessfully to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and closed its first day of trading at $22.50 per share, 10 times the value she had received."

According to the Globe, Sullivan Stemberg sold 175,000 shares of Staples stock at $2.25 per share, and sold 80,000 shares at $2.48 a few months later. “In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney testified. "But on April 28, 1989, barely a year after Sullivan Stemberg sold more than half of her shares on the premise that they were worth less than $2.50 apiece, the company made its initial public offering at $19 per share and ended its first day at $22.50, the Globe reports.

Read more: http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-vouched-for-low-price-staples-stock-that-traded-times-higher-year-later/zO60zp3qcdviHqvHZ2pDpJ/story.html

---

Romney does appear to have covered for his friend.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/breaking-update-court-unseals-potentially-devastating-testimony-romney-said-stocks
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-vouched-for-low-price-staples-stock-that-traded-times-higher-year-later/1xtJ1tgH9EisZBdsQ8nXPM/story.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/10/it-look-like-mitt-romney-lied-under-oath-on-the-witness-stand-about-a-material-fact.html

[trotsky]

1. I wish the average voter gave even the slightest shit about this.

Rmoney should be lucky to be polling 20%. He is the privileged, powerful class. The one that f'ed us over during the Bush years, screwed up the mortgage market, tanked the stock market, and stuck us with the bill. How, at this point, he can even be within 10 points of Obama is a depressing sign.

[heaven05]

15. exactly

[valerief]

28. He not only has friends who own sports teams. He also has friends who own polling

businesses and mass media businesses.

[mountain grammy]

92. I think if the headline read "Romney really is a serial killer"

the next day the polls would say: Romney loses one point, in statistical tie with Obama. Nothing sticks to this man (?)

[mzmolly]

2. I hope this gets appropriate attention.

What a slime-ball.

[crunch60]

63. Romney's a skank...

[Hugabear]

3. Did Romney perjure himself?

And if so, could he be prosecuted for this?

[DrToast]

8. Not likely

He offered an opinion. Unless there is evidence he knew what he was saying was wrong, it's pretty hard to prove perjury for an opinion.

[BlueStreak]

49. Exactly. This is a waste of time.

[msanthrope]

51. Unless he knew an IPO was in the works. nt

[WinkyDink]

95. He DID.

[JDPriestly]

65. But, the information he provided to qualify himself as an expert might

contain false information. I'm not saying it did because I have no idea what information he provided. Also, he might have provided some information about the company that did not agree with information he filed elsewhere. There are lots of possibilities for problems. Everything might be just fine, but you never know. Gloria Allred may not have been seeking anything that would show that Romney lied. The point may have been to show that Romney's friend was a skinflint and mean with his wife. Allred is representing the friend's wife and that may have very little to do with Romney.

Lots of explanations are possible for Allred's interest in this case.

[MADem]

71. What's interesting about his "opinion" is how WRONG it was.

Thus, he was not a GOOD businessman, he was simply a lucky one.

He can't have it both ways--this testimony shows that he doesn't have decent capabilities of prognostication when it comes to the viability of a business or the economic climate downstream, OR he's a fucking liar!

So...incompetent tool...or liar? Which label might Mittsy prefer?

[plethoro]

93. Right. An attorney who posts on this board and another one I go to explained

how doubtful that this would come to anything. Part of it is the timing. There is also the chance of a backfire.

[formercia]

10. Statute of Limitations on Perjury

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-statute-of-limitations-for-perjury.htm

That's why the Court Records were sealed and a Gag Order issued. After 3 Years, Mitt was free and clear.

[leftyohiolib]

20. somewhere a parade is being rained on

[naaman fletcher]

25. No.

It's not a factual statement. It can be neither proven nor disproven.

[hrmjustin]

4. He is a slime. I understand Gloria Allred is filing a new motion to have the gag order lifted.

I hope it amounts to something.

[formercia]

5. I wonder who bought the shares

Bain eventually bought Staples.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it was Bain?

[Squinch]

46. This is only really a story if Bain bought them or if the ex-husband bought them back and told her

that the shares were worth less than they really were at the time. Otherwise, she is just unlucky.

So I think your question is the central one.

[hrmjustin]

6. Will tv pick it up soon?

[Orrex]

54. I'm confident that it will be the lead story

On November 7th.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Frame the meme: "Romney lied to a woman to help her ex make a fat profit". People understand that.

Use language to shape the memes. The Republicans have been using it for decades after they ran a bunch of think tanks on it.

That's why they always talk about "death taxes" and "death panels" and "tax and spend" (when really Republicans are actually "borrow and spend" which is worse).

[Kolesar]

14. And cheat his former spouse in the divorce proceedings! eom

[pasto76]

9. I dont see what the issue is here

what is groundbreaking about this? havent we all known romney was a dick for years now? Im getting the implication is that romney somehow knew those stocks were worth more....but were in fact? I dont know. Or is there another angle to this?

[TBF]

13. Maybe you don't know -

and it would be hard to argue against his "opinion". But we'll see what else comes out ... this is definitely not great news for him.

[groundloop]

18. I somewhat agree, possibly not as much an issue as we'd like to think

LEGALLY, I believe all he did was give an opinion.

MORALLY, I believe he's a slimeball and lied to help his buddy. HOWEVER, there's a lot of wiggle room with the value of stock before it goes public. I HOPE that some sharp reporters will come up with evidence that rMoney knew the stock was going to appreciate as much as it did, maybe a Bain statement to prospective investors or something like that. Without some sort of additional evidence I'm not seeing this as the blockbuster we were hoping for.

[mzmolly]

21. The assertion is that Romney mislead the courts in a divorce case,

so that his friend wouldn't have to pay the wife a fair settlement.

[underthematrix]

11. mittnocchio is a piece of shit

he has no absolutely moral compass. Who the hell would do some shit like that to a woman, suffering from MS and a bout of cancer. I didn't think I could dislike him any more than I already do but this . . . LOW LOW LOW

[MichDem10]

23. Mittnocchio!!

[chuckstevens]

12. Pathological Liar

One of two conclusions:

A. The has a psychological problem and he simple cannot stop lying.
B. He is devoid of having a moral compass and deliberately lies about everything to get what he wants.

Does anyone really want the President of the United States to process either of these qualities?

If Barack Obama was white, this would be a landslide like LBJ and Goldwater in 1964. Shame on you America!

[naaman fletcher]

26. I think it's B. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

34. C. Both A and B.

[texasmomof3]

16. Not much here

There is nothing here that will stick and this is why: Let's assume that Romney lied about the worth of the stock. She still got almost as many shares as Mr. Staples...he held on to 580,000 or so. His testimony at trial didn't make the price of the stock lower or keep it from going public. She still had almost as much as he did and she sold them...too early. Again, how is this Romney's fault? I still don't see it. How would this lie help his friend? She still made out like a bandit! At the end of the day, you can't fix stupid and clearly she didn't have any sense to be trading stocks on her own.

The real kicker is that it is very possible that if Romney had valued Staples at $30 a share she would have gotten less shares. Now, let's say that he said $30 per share was fair. She has her 500,000 shares and goes out to sell them and finds the market value is only $2.45. Would she also not be crying LIAR LIAR now? She would have been screwed. As it is with this testimony she only stood to make money because he under valued it, not lose it had she not been foolish enough to sell when she did. The only loss came from her actions.

Why did she not put on her own expert to talk about what the company was worth? If she thought it was worth more why settle? Didn't her attorney know better?

Beyond my feelings for Romney I think what has turned me off the most about this is that she has gone back to court every few years to change the agreement. Move on already! How much has she spent on attorney fees over the years? Sadly it is that history that makes her look bitter and clingy and in the eyes of many that hear this story they will dismiss her as that and forget about Romney entirely!

[hrmjustin]

31. Do you think that Romney is clean on this?

[defacto7]

32. Yes, this is what I think..

Nothing to see, move along....

[tbennett76]

40. I Really

don't trust a new user who titles herself using the Texas Mommy card. The prozac generation of "Mommies" is a thorn in my side. So I think I know exactly what you are.

[bitchkitty]

69. Are you kidding?

ALL mothers from Texas are secret Republican trolls? Is that what you mean?

If that were true, what would be the point in labeling herself as such?

[texasmomof3]

74. You are the reason

that I have lurked here over 18 months and have never posted until now. I am from Texas and proud of it AND included it as my name just so there would be no assumption like you just made. The best thing in my world are my children and I am so proud of being a mom and one who is DRUG FREE thank you. Your bitterness and assumption only reflects on you and your issues. I am a proud Texas mom of 3 amazing kids. I find it amazing that for someone who is such an open minded enlightened liberal you sure have a closed mind and small box that you just put me in. Aren't we the party of letting people have their own views and not shutting them down because they differ from our own. This post really makes you sound like a Republican. Might want to get that checked.

I don't care if you trust me or not actually. I don't have your life in my hands or your money. I just have an opinion that is equally as valuable as yours. Not even sure what you need to trust me about.

Thank you to all the other great people here who have welcomed an opinion that may be different than yours and for giving me other points to consider. I'm glad to finally have the courage to post after hanging out silently for so long.

[fleur-de-lisa]

85. writes the guy with 16 posts - eom

[democrattotheend]

90. "Prozac Generation of 'Mommies'"?

Care to clarify what you mean by that?

[riverwalker]

42. So?

He still lied under oath, don't care about what she coulda shoulda done, she didn't. Don't give a rats patooty about the rich ex-wife, it's irrelevent. This is about revealing Romney lies.
He lied and it exposes the real Romney.

[Squinch]

47. It's only a story if Bain bought the shares, or if the wife sold the shares back to the husband.

If neither Romney or his friend benefitted from his lie, there is no reason to assume it WAS a lie.

If either did benefit, however, that's baaaaaaaaaad for Romney.

[texasmomof3]

76. I agree

Im not taking Romney's side at all. My explanation was just to show why most people will not connect the dots to this and this story will be swept under the rug. If this got any legs at all under it this is the thinking of the media and most people who are either pro- Romney or just don't care. Really makes me angry that people aren't shouting from the roof tops to get to the bottom of this.

[aquart]

48. Wow. That sounds so...professional.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. You are in no position to have any idea what this material indicates. Nor am I.

Unless you can provide me records of Bain meetings and other places where Mittens stated the same 'opinion' about the shares worth....my guess is that he's on record telling others the value was much, much higher, telling others to hold on for the coming spike. That's my guess. Just a guess, but it is as good as yours. Well, better because you are not even thinking about other counter statements, the context of Mitt's comments elsewhere. And those are key elements.
And understand this,. The plantiff in this case is righteous to attempt to get justice. Lying to the court is vile and unamerican. Any bastard liar who wants to be President and carries his affairs like this needs to be spotlighted. Mitt a bad citizen, plantiff a patriot.

[renate]

81. I was wondering about all of that too

It seems that if Romney had really been trying to hurt her in the settlement, he'd have lied to make them seem more valuable, not less, in order to her to be awarded fewer shares.

And yes, if she'd held on to them, she'd be sitting pretty.

So I have to think that if there really is a scandal here, it's that Romney lied to drive down the price (but this was sealed testimony, so how would that have worked?) and enable Bain to buy them for dirt cheap (but even then, Bain wouldn't have bought them directly from her). I don't get what all the fuss is about, unless it's just that this is confirmation that Romney lies about everything. So, what else is new?



And welcome to DU!

[lexw]

17. It just does not end with this liar

[bayareamike]

19. The obvious question lies in the discrepancy between Romney's value for Staples

and what its IPO was valued at nearly a year later. Why? I see three options:

1) He lied about the value.

2) He was WRONG about the value, indicative of a lack of business sense.

3) He's an incredible businessman who turned around a company worth 2.00 to a company worth 22 dollars a year later (I think this is obviously the least likely of the bunch)

Thoughts?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. If you're liked by him, he'll lie for you. If you aren't liked by him, you're screwed.

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[DonCoquixote]

24. Hey Trump

THIS is how you do an October Surprise.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Nah. They only hate it when they cam pin it on a Dem.

[libdem4life]

29. One thing is for sure, Staples isn't appreciating the publicity and it's bound to influence

current stock prices. Stockholders are not amused, either, I dare say.

[liberalmuse]

30. Romney is a fucking liar, and so far, this doesn't seem to be news.

So, he lied and fucked another human being over. That is what he DOES. Only liberals seem to care that this man will blow anyone if it will get him one step closer to the presidency.

[fascisthunter]

50. because our corporate media benefits from amoral folks like Romney

Soviet Union had a different form of censorship, but it's end result is the same. Totalitarian communism or capitalism turned fascism is no different. Same whack jobs trying to control the world.

[Paddy Ryan]

33. Thanks for sharing this! n/t

[hrmjustin]

35. Welcome to DU

[Paddy Ryan]

45. Thank you!

[riverwalker]

36. Perjury

Perjury! Shout it from the rooftops. Forget the delicate term "vouched" or he was "untruthful". He intentionally lied.
He lied under oath.

[sellitman]

38. Anything to distract from Obama's record....

That's all the turds on the right will say about this.

Only we care.

It's like we share the planet with fucking aliens.

[TeeYiYi]

66. "It's like we share the planet with fucking aliens."...

... Honest to gawd, that sentence describes EXACTLY how I feel.

TYY

[caseymoz]

39. You can't be shocked Romney lied.

Lies are to Romney what gaffes were to George W. Bush. If he's elected, we're going to be treated to a whopper a week.

Like Dubya, the Republicans and the MSM are doing their damndest to grin and pretend there's nothing wrong with the guy. If he's elected, it's going to be just as bad as Bush, but in worse way.

I know the Repubs can't field a good candidate. Their ideology is causing that. But can't they find one who's not an obvious specimen of abnormal psychology? That Romney has ever, for one moment, been taken seriously for the nation's highest office embarrasses me about my country.

[Cherchez la Femme]

41. What's a little lie between friends?

And by that I mean in a Republican court

--and what court isn't nowadays?

[tinrobot]

43. So, she got shares and not cash as part of the settlement.

When I first heard this, I thought she received a cash settlement based on company value. The fact that she held actual stock makes it a slightly different story.

This makes the story not as cut and dried as some would like. The woman has to assume at least part of the responsibility for selling the shares early and not waiting for the IPO.

[texasmomof3]

75. totally agree

That is the part that will make this a non story for most people. They won't hear the part about Romney's lie just the part of how she benefitted but chose to sell anyway. Too bad. This could have been big

[riverwalker]

44. #perjury

keep using it on Twitter, maybe it will trend.
Something, someday has to stick to this guy.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Unfortunately, not a smoking gun

Romney will just claim to have made a mistake.

[tinrobot]

53. Probably a tax dodge by Romney

IPOs are usually undervalued before they hit the market. It's a way to game the tax system.

When you undervalue a stock, you can issue stock as payment and have low income taxes for the recipient. Stocks are taxed as income on the face value of the stock. When the stock shoots up, the resulting profits are taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

Romney probably wasn't helping his friend, rather he was probably helping himself - to a tax break. I suspect he was also reporting that low valuation on his never-to-be-seen tax returns as well.

If he had given a higher value for the stock in family court, he would have had to give the same value to the IRS, and pay more taxes.

Not saying it's right, but it is what it is.... and a lot of companies do it.

[wordpix]

58. my guess, too---Tax Dodge Mitt does it again, what he's a REAL expert at

[demgrrrll]

55. I have the feeling that this is just the beginning.

[DeSwiss]

56. K&R

[wordpix]

57. someone certainly made lots of $ with a stock zooming from $2.25 to $22.50 in a year.

My guess is it was R$, or he was lying as usual for some tax gain.

[onenote]

62. One person that made a lot of money was Ms Stemberg

who still had around half of her stock at the time of the IPO. The value of that stock was over $5.5 million; if she hadn't sold the other half, she'd have cleared another $5 million, but I doubt the average person is going to cry a lot of tears or care very much how the rich screw each other.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. So you do not feel she had right to a fair and equitable distribution of their assests?

At what level of assests does this thinking kick in? Is it ok to cheat a spouse out of 30K? 300? Or is it only when it is millions that the ex should not get a fair shake?
I personally do not think that having tons of money gives anyone the right to offer unfair settlement in divorce. 'Oh, she got half of what she should have, but it was still millions' only means she got shafted for millions.
I do not see the size of their assests as handing to the husband some right to dissemble. I doubt anyone would.
Would you say the same about a woman who fought to get her half of 50K in assests? Or is it just women in marriages with large assests that should be happy to take a less than fair settlement?

[onenote]

77. I'm curious as to whet her you've read the transcript.

I spent several hours last night going through it. From my reading of it, Ms. Stemberg got around 500,000 shares of stock as part of the divorce settlement, representing 1/2 of the stock her husband owned. Her husband's common stock was not freely transferrable -- it was subject to certain limitations placed on it because of his position in the company. Only a portion of it could have been transferred to her and absent some action by the board of directors, she would still have been limited in what she could do with those shares. The testimony indicates that rather than lift the restrictions, the company came up with the plan to have a portion of the husband's common stock converted into a new class of securities (Preferred Class D). The testimony indicates that because of various different preferences and restrictions, each class of stock at that time was valued differently, with the freely transferrable shares Common Stock and the freely transferable Class D being valued at essentially the same level. That this was so reflected in part the fact that the Class D could be automatically converted into Common at any point in time and would, in any event, be converted into Common stock (as would other preferred classes of stock) upon the issuance of an IPO.

In short, the stock she got, at the time she got it had the same value as the stock her husband had. Indeed, her stock arguably was more valuable than what he had since her's was immediately transferrable and his wasn't. Shares of Class D stock were sold to a group of Kuwaitees for $2.25 share in February 1988. Its unclear from the transcript whether those were newly issued Class D shares or Ms.Stemberg's shares. In any event, its still hard to see how she was screwed insofar as the choice would have been to have shares she couldn't transfer or shares that she could and did transfer, just at a time and price when they weren't worth as much as they would have been had she held onto them. The irony, I suppose, is that if she had been able to take the shares with the restriction on sales, she wouldn't have been able to unload them and thus would still have had them when they were converted to freely transferrable Common at the time of the IPO. Of course, she wouldn't have been able to pay off her mortgage when she wanted to. In short, from the transcript, I can't see any evidence of her being screwed. It would be interesting to hear what she has to say and thus i would like to see the gag order lifted. Maybe that would cast Romney's role, which seems pretty limited based on the testimony, in a different light. But for now, I don't see anything on the face of the testimony that suggests that Ms. Stemberg was a victim of anything other than bad timing.

[Rabid_Rabbit]

88. Thanks for the detailed explanation

for us laymen. Sounds like she is upset over selling her shares too early

[onenote]

89. The wild card is what she would say that conflicts with or isn't covered by the transcript

For example, who did she sell to? The Kuwaitis (I keep flashing on Back to the Future and the "Libyans" whenever I write that). Who put her together with the buyer? Was Romney involved? The fact that there is nothing in the testimony to indicate he played a role would seem to undercut such a claim since presumably her attorney (who she could talk to nothwithstanding the gag order) would have explored Romney's role in the sale. But its one possibility, however remote. There may be others, which is why getting the gag order lifted is the only way to know if this is anything more than a nothingburger.

[Stewland]

59. Romney

I see a pattern in Romney's life where he always seems to be on the most profitable side of things. I imagine he would use his position as President of the United States to the benefit of his cronies just as Bush/Cheney benefitted Haliburton,Blackwell, and numerous other favorable corporations owned by their inner circle.

[alp227]

91. Agree, the more i read about him,

the less difference i see between Mitt and the average crook on Wall St.

[Up2Late]

60. What a great business man.

[onenote]

61. I've just spent a couple of hours quickly reviewing the entire transcript

and if there is anything there that anyone will give a rat's ass about, I missed it.

Its a dry as dust, painfully detailed and redundant, walk through of how, in 1991, Romney came up with his opinion of what the value of various classes of stock were in 1987. As best I could tell, there was no discussion of the relationship between that opinion and what the IPO price was in 1989. There was a discussion of how the company sold stock (not public but to a round of private investors) originally at .80/share in 1986 and for $2.90 in 1987 and how Romney himself bought less than he was entitled to buy in 1987 because he felt $2.90 was too high at that time given the restrictions on the stock's transferrability and other factors and how in 1987 or 1988 the board was hoping to be able to get $6/share in an IPO and thus rejected a low ball offer from Sears for the company.

In short, if there's something in this testimony that is worthy of spending any time on, someone should point it out. I suspect that what Allred is hoping is that her client can talk so she can talk about things that aren't in the testimony, such as whether he painted a more pessimistic picture of what he thought the company's prospects were to her than he believed, although his testimony indicates that two years before the IPO happened, he believed there was only a 25 percent chance of the IPO hitting $6.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Since you clearly have access to information the rest of us don't please share...

What was Mittens telling other interested parties about the value and future of this stock? If you can not show me that he said the same thing in his own boardroom and to other parties and that he did not deliver 'special' opinion here, then you have the basis for a conclusion. Unless you provide that context, all you are doing is guessing.
At best is shows Mitt has absolutely rotten forcasting skills. But my guess is he is on record saying something very different to other people.

[onenote]

78. The only information I have is the transcript which is available to everyone now.

The lawyer examining him seems to establish that for some purposes the company, at that time, valued the stock at even less than what it was selling for in 1987-1988, that in dealing with Sears it came to the conclusion that the target sale price at that time was 100-130 million, but that Sears counteroffered with an offer of only $40 million and the board wasn't interested. There is a discussion about whether Mr. Stemberg was permitted to talk to his wife about the valuation of the company back in 1987 which seemed to conclude that he was able to, but since he wasn't the witness it wasn't brought out whether he did so. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that Romney communicated with Ms. Stemberg. It also was established that Mr. Stemberg seemed to do a better job at evaluating the market value of the stock than Romney (i.e., when new investors were offered stock was offered at $2.90 per share in 1987. Romney thought that price (which was pushed by Stemberg) was too high and, indeed, Romney didn't buy as much stock at that price as he could have. Turns out it was a successful offering because other investors were willing to pay $2.90 for that stock (which was "preferred" stock with more rights than the stock that Stemberg owned and that was effectively transferred to Ms. Stemberg.

My point is that based on the transcript (available here: http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1025_romney_2.pdf) I don't see anything that amounts to a hill of beans. Now if the gag order is lifted and Ms. Stemberg has more to say, that might change things. But remember, it was her attorney who deposed Romney, obtained documents from Romney, and questioned him in court about the valuation of the stock (and the gag order would not have prevented her from discussing the divorce and surrounding matters with her attorney).

[FreeBC]

64. This would be a HUGE story...

...if it was Obama.

But it's Romney so it will largely be ignored by the television media.

[truthisfreedom]

67. Nothing to look at here, move along. It's just another Mitt rMoney move.

shh, go to sleep.

[greiner3]

68. "...He also has friends who own polling companies..."

And family that owns voting machine companies.

[Javaman]

79. SEC violation?

My GF made an interesting observation last night...

mittens lies on the stand to devalue the staples stock. The stock plunges to lower the worth of his staples friend.

But knowing that his testimony would in fact lower the stock, isn't that willful manipulation of the market?

[onenote]

80. No.

Romney's testimony was impounded -- it was never made public. Plus it was given two years after the stock went public, so it could hardly lower the price that Ms. Stemberg got for her shares. Moreover, the testimony indicates that around the time that Stemberg was selling her shares, Romney elected not to purchase the maximum amount of a more value "preferred" class of stock that was being offered for $2.90 because he thought the price was too high.

Unless the gag order is lifted (and I hope it is) and Ms. Stemberg has something to say that does not square with the testimony or addresses something not covered in the testimony, the testimony itself seems to be a dead end.

[Javaman]

86. ahh okay. Thanks. :) nt

[sarcasmo]

82. Kick!

[Kurovski]

83. R-100 (nt)

[One_Life_To_Give]

84. Why is this news

Two years after she sold some of her shares he testifies on their value. A year after is know they would have been worth 3 times what she sold them for. And if she had waited a year would of received 14 million instead of only 13 million. Presumably both sides in this case would of had their own expert witnesses? Perjury charges if any would be coming from the original judge? Who imposed and presumably could have removed any gag order? Seems to be much ado about nothing.

[Vincardog]

87. WillardLIES?OMG

[blondie58]

94. what really irks me

Is that Mr. Stemberg kicked her off his insurance. And she has ms!!