The ballad of Moffat and Chiesi is a classic tale of desire and betrayal. Chiesi had an affair with Moffat, but the person she truly loved was her boss, Mark Kurland, 60, the co-founder of New Castle. But Kurland wouldn't leave his wife and ultimately renounced Chiesi.
In the summer of 2008, Advanced Micro Devices Corporation (AMD) was in talks to spin off its manufacturing business, Fabco, creating a joint venture that would be 50% owned by a Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund. IBM was involved in the discussions because it had been asked by AMD to provide a license for the use of its technology as part of the reorganization. Moffat was IBM's point man for the talks.
While at the court Moffat admitted that he had gave information that was material and non public to Chiesi as he known as a trader at a hedge fund and that she specialized in technology stocks at New Castle. He told her about a pending corporate reorganization at AMD. Around September 2008, he told Chiesi that Lenovo’s earnings during the pending quarter were poor. Moffat learned about this because Lenovo had purchased IBM’s personal computing business several years ago and, as a result, he was asked to serve as a non-voting member of the Board of Directors of Lenovo. Last, he stated to her, that sales of IBM Systems X servers were not good and that the other servers were meeting his expectations. Kerry Lawrence, one of Moffat’s attorney emphasized that his client did not actually trade on any of the information disclosed to Chiesi and received no money for the illegal leaks.
Chiesi told Kurkland about the AMD information that been updated by Moffat. New Castle bought 199,400 shares of AMD. Kurland wasn't the only person to whom Chiesi was giving information. She was also feeding the information she gleaned from Moffat to her friend Raj Rajaratnam. Rajaratnam, 52, then was one of the 300 richest men in the world, with a net worth of around $1.8 billion. The Sri Lankan native's hedge fund, Galleon, was worth around $7 billion at its peak. His sources of business information included highly placed individuals at McKinsey & Co. and Intel Corp. By the end of September, New Castle had upped its stake in AMD to 2.3 million shares. Galleon owned more than 8 million shares.
What they didn't realize was that the government was listening to their telephone conversations. The feds had been investigating Rajaratnam since 2007. The probe had started with information supplied by a confidential informant and then led to a tap on the Galleon head's phone. By the summer of 2008 wiretaps expanded to include other associates of Rajaratnam's, including Chiesi. In addition to recording her conversation with Moffat about the AMD deal, the government soon was gathering evidence suggesting that Moffat was telling Chiesi about confidential results at IBM and about takeover talks between IBM and Sun. According to the government, Galleon and New Castle made $20.8 million from insider information provided by Chiesi and other sources.
On a rainy March morning in New York, Moffat, accompanied by his lawyer, Lawrence, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth. Then, voice trembling, he admitted guilt.
"I disclosed this information to Ms. Chiesi intentionally, and I knew that what I was doing was wrong," he said in his allocution, describing Chiesi as a "friend".
Moffat was allowed to remain free on bail that day. Prosecutors are expected to recommend that he spend six months in prison, the minimum in the sentencing guidelines. Mark Kurland was the first of the Galleon defendants to be sentenced. He admitted his crimes but attempted to minimize their significance, saying he was only a "minor" player in the ring. Kurland argued he was significantly less culpable than Moffat, the tipper, and should receive a similarly light sentence. He then sentenced to 27 months in prison. Kurkland and Moffat are among 21 people charged since October in two waves of insider-trading arrests. Of that initial group, only Chiesi and Rajaratnam have pleaded not guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy.
Some of Chiesi's other friends have also paid a price, including friends who have not been implicated in wrongdoing. Among them was John Joyce, IBM's former CFO, who introduced Chiesi and Moffat. Hector Ruiz, the former CEO of AMD, is under investigation by federal authorities in connection with his dealings with Chiesi, according to a person familiar with his legal situation.
A Disaster No. 2 : The Sacking of Golden CEO
"Dear Mr. Hurd," began the note that Mark Hurd read on June, 29th 2010 in his office at Hewlett-Packard.Co (HP) "Please be advised that we represent Ms. Jodie Fisher regarding her claims... against Hewlett-Packard ('HP') and you, Mr. Mark Hurd, as an individual." Thus began one of the oddest episodes in the annals of Silicon Valley, in which a vaunted leader fell from grace under murky circumstances.
HP chairman, president and CEO Mark Hurd, 53, the buttoned-down golden boy the company brought in to clean up the mess left by his ousted predecessor Carly Fiorina (a stock slide contributed by HP controversial acquisition of Compaq Computer Corporation), the guy who delivered on that charter beyond the company’s wildest expectations (doubled HP’s revenue and share price), quit suddenly on Friday evening, August 6th 2010 after a weeks-old company investigation by outside and inside legal counsel of sexual harassment charges. Hurd was accused by Jodie Fisher, 50, a female marketing contractor hired to represent HP at high-level customer and executive summit events. In addition to working with HP, Fisher which represented by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred , also appeared as a contestant on NBC reality show “Age of Love” and acted in a string of low-budget softcore pornography movies during the 1980s and 1990s.
Before the investigation, the entire board had been pleased with Hurd’s performance and unanimous in wishing to keep him, two of the people familiar with the matter said. The planned August 5th mediation would have let HP lawyers, Covington & Burling LLP see evidence behind the sexual-harassment claim and allowed them to question Fisher. The mediation never happened, instead Hurd surprised the board by settling a sexual-harassment claim before directors could learn more about the incident (Fisher claims Hurd settled the sexual harassment claim privately). Found tried to conceal a relationship with his accuser, the board no longer had confidence that Hurd was being straight with them. Those contributed to HP’s board voted unanimously to ask for Hurd’s resignation.
Based on the investigation it was determined that Fisher’s claim of sexual harassment was not supported by the facts. HP delicately says they had a "close personal relationship," but neither Hurd or Fisher party claims a sexual relationship. While the company determined that Hurd didn’t harass Fisher, it found that she received numerous inappropriate payments, around $20,000 from HP during her two years as a marketing contractor. On the next day after Hurd’s resignation, the internal memorandum had written:
“… Mark’s resignation was submitted at the request of the company’s Board of Directors as a result of inappropriate behavior in which he engaged that violated HP’s Standards of Business Conduct and undermined his ability to continue to lead the company”
The investigation did reveal. The law firm's review found expense-account irregularities. The investigators told of a half-dozen dinners with notations saying Mr. Hurd had dined with Dennis Lynch – Hurd’s security guard, on occasions when Lynch said he wasn't present and when Hurd actually dined with Fisher. A computer forensics showed that on April 27, 2009, Hurd Googled “Jodie Fisher video" and then accessed "erotic4u.com" to view more than 30 web pages, including ones showing scenes of Fisher in the 1997 adult film "Passion and Romance: Ocean of Dreams. It was found that Hurd had failed to disclose a close personal relationship he had with the marketing contractor that constituted a conflict of interest, failed to maintain accurate expense reports, and misused company assets.
Once, Hurd said in his statement:
“As the investigation progressed, I realized there were instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP and which have guided me throughout my career…”
Hurd is due to receive a severance payment of $12.2 million, plus other benefits that include restricted HP shares. All told, Hurd may receive $40 million to $50 million, according to an estimate by Frank Glasser, CEO of Veritas Executive Compensation Consultants LLC in San Francisco.
On August 12th 2010, HP faces a lawsuit over the departure of Mark Hurd from shareholders angry at the massive payoff he received and accusing the board of failing in their legal duties. The lawsuit, filed for shareholders by a Connecticut-based law firm in Santa Clara County Superior Court against both HP and Hurd, alleges that:
“… as a result of Hurd's, Lesjak's, and the HP board's shortcomings, HP lost significant credibility, and the market punished HP (and its shareholders) upon the 8/6/10 revelation of Hurd's termination - slashing its stock rating and erasing over $9 billion in market capitalization when the company's stock resumed trading on 8/9/10”
The board, mostly appointed by Hurd, is accused of gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violating the California corporation code, misappropriating information, and unjust enrichment. The suit filed by Scott+Scott LLP lists HP shareholder, the Brockton Contributory Retirement System. It also aims to reclaim Hurd's severance package for HP (Hurd’s million golden parachute is too high), and to enforce governance changes on the board.
Working alongside the California attorney general's office, which had launched a criminal investigation into the affair, Mary Blasy, an attorney of Scott+Scott LLP negotiated a settlement under which HP agreed to a host of corporate governance changes. They included the appointment of more independent directors, the establishment of a host of "ethics and compliance" VPs, executive committees and training programs, and revisions of the company's standards of business conduct. HP also agreed to pay $6.3 million in attorney's fees.
The disaster is keep on going. Tuesday, September 7th, sued its ousted CEO Mark Hurd to block him from going to work for Oracle as co-president. HP has taken its civil case to California's Superior Court in Santa Clara alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. It claims Hurd can't possibly do his new job at Oracle without putting HP in peril and complains that it paid him tens of millions of dollars in severance to sit on the sidelines and keep its secrets for two years (Parts of the Agreement Regarding Confidential Information and Proprietary Developments – the “Trade Secret Protection Agreements”, signed by Hurd on February 6, 2008, February 26, 2009, and February 12, 2010, can be found in the complaint (sections 28-32)). It is suing him under a confidentiality agreement, not a non-compete agreement.
A Legal Review – Affair After-Effect
What happen to Mark Hurd and Robert Moffat are just another example of what an intimate relationship could bring anyone, regardless of their position into a disaster after disaster, affected their personal career and future, their family and friends life and especially their company. Below is the legal review of those cases, based on my own perspective and opinion.
Sexual Harassment
At Hurd’s case above, he had been investigate because the sexual harassment allegation against Fisher – the former HP marketing contractor. What really is sexual harassment? In legal terms, sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advance or conduct on the job that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. There are two types of sexual harassment at the work place. The first is one in which an employer offers a promotion or some type of similar trade in return for sexual favors. This is referred to as "quid pro-quo harassment". The second type of harassment is one in which a "hostile work environment" is created. Such an environment includes any situation in which an employer, supervisor or co-worker engages in conduct that makes a co-worker feel uncomfortable because of his or her sex. The conduct must be offensive and unwanted by the victim.
The claim letter that set off the furor was sent on Fisher's behalf by celebrity lawyer, Gloria Allred. It included an eight-page chronology of meetings in hotels around the world. The letter written an alleged that Mr. Hurd sexually harassed Ms. Fisher, in certain cases touching her body in sexually suggestive ways. The claim can be categorized in “hostile work environment” kind of sexual harassment. The letter also said Mr. Hurd and Ms. Fisher discussed intimate details of the CEO's life, including his personal life at home.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and is a serious problem in the American workplace. Title VII does not explicitly mention sexual harassment, but soon after the law passed, victim began to argue that sexual harassment at work constituted sex discrimination under Title VII.. In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced new guidelines affirming that sexual harassment violated Title VII. Although these guidelines were not law, they had a profound influence on judicial decision-making and organizational policy-making. In addition to Title VII, the U.S federal law on sexual harassment, many states have anti-discrimination, human right and fair employment that prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace. Complaints may raise state claims in both federal and state courts. In a book written by O’Shea and friends, there are 3 ways to pursue harassment claims, internal procedures, federal system, state system and arbitration. Those wishing to lodge hostile environment claim under Title VII should first pursue corrective action with the employee. Most mid-size and large companies provide internal procedures to handle harassment complaints. HP also have that policy. After Hurd got the complaint letter sent by Allred, he then emailed it to HP General Counsel, Michael Holston, who forwarded it to directors. The board then hired Washington law firm Covington & Burling for an internal investigation of the allegations. A Covington lawyer, Tom Williamson, described the result of a review to Hurd's phone calls, travel, expenses and PC usage, and interviews with Hurd and other HP employee. It revealed that Hurd lied about the identity of his dinner companions in his expense reports. Hurd had HP pay to fly the woman near to where he was staying even when she wasn’t any longer working for HP. Covington, which wasn't able to interview either Allred or Fisher, found no evidence that Hurd had sexually harassed Fisher. But its review left the board with evidence that Hurd had underplayed his relationship with Fisher, and perhaps prevaricated about it.
In Federal law caps individual damages in Title VII suits based on the size of the employer organization, with an upper limit of $300,000. State law claims may result in substantial additional relief, including uncapped damages. In Hurd’s case, the claimed soon to be settled and not continuing into court. Hurd decided to reach a private settlement with Fisher that would lower the chance of Fisher allegations ever becoming public – a decision that surprised the HP board.
Intimate relationships between managers and their direct reports are particularly risky. A personal relationship between superior and someone who reports to them, vise versa, can be seen as a conflict of interest, due to the fact that the superior is in a position to influence or exert authority over the other person. This special relationship will lead to a preferential treatment from the superior. It deals more in favoritism. Just like Hurd who always give Fisher, a first class plan seat and classy dinner meeting. Worse things can happen in a form of relationship like this. It is possible that once or if the relationship facing some trouble, the other person may cry for sexual harassment due to hurt feelings. This what exactly happen with Hurd and Fisher story. Poor to Hurd, he lose his money, job, career and most of them his reputation.
Later, we know that Hurd is resign, many think that he had been forced to resign by the board. Some analyst said that HP board was over-reacted with the scandal, but in my perspective that is what other competent boards will do when they put under the same circumstances. Particularly as HP after a damaging employee spying scandal in 2006, the company has been desperate to renew its reputation as a leader in corporate governance standards. Like once Arabians proverb said, lying and stealing are next door neighbors. Believing that an employee is lying to you, is more than enough grounds for termination.
Mismanagement
The decision by HP's board to can CEO Hurd for reasons that are not yet as clear to shareholders as they were to the board has now cost HP shareholders $14 billion – or about 15% of their pre-sacking wealth. Then, the board, mostly appointed by Hurd, is accused of gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violating the California corporation code, misappropriating information, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff, the Brockton Contributory Retirement System, also aims to reclaim Hurd's severance package for HP, and to enforce governance changes on the board. The complaint says HP violated corporate law by failing to inform shareholders of the investigation into Hurd, who was also its chairman. Even the HP board has defended its decision by saying that the expense-account violations the sexual harassment investigation turned up rendered Hurd incapable of leading the company.
Obviously, I agree about the sacking of Hurd, as his story proved to be shifted enough over the course of the investigation that then made board no longer believed his denials. But, I do objected the decision of the HP board give a very high value of golden parachute. If he did violate the Standards of Business Conduct (SBC), why is he still getting his severance package? So, it was logic that the shareholder, by this means the retirement party, to questioning about the $35 million of severance that given to Hurd. It also make me think what really happen here. As academic I suspect that the HP board had another motive. If, instead of firing Hurd, the board had announced that Hurd had settled the sexual harassment lawsuit, had reimbursed the company for the controversial expenses, and had received a sharp warning from the board, would HP stock be higher or lower than it is today? The answer is much higher. Which isn't to say that the board made the wrong decision. If Hurd really committed fraud and embezzled, which the board says he did, then he should have been canned regardless. Although he shouldn't has gotten a severance, then. I also made some guessing to explains Hurd's huge severance payment, because this particular employee like Hurd had a contract that presumably specified that he could only be fired for "cause," the board was presumably (and justifiably) worried that it would not be able to prove the "cause" if the case ever ended up in court. Later, once again HP turned down this lawsuit with some settlement and promise to make a better company governance.
Insider Trading
Insider trading occurs if you know material confidential information about a public company (whether it is your company or another company) and you trade on that information or tip others about it before the information is released publicly. Material information is news that can affect a company's stock price, such as knowledge of a takeover or accounting problems, a dividend change, a new product, or earnings that are better or worse than expected. This what is happen to Moffat’s case.
In Moffat’s case, which later known as Galleon Case defended at least 3 Limited Liability Company (LLC), 2 Limited Public (LP) and 17 people include Moffat, Chiesi, Kurkland and Rajaratnam. Those people traded securities based on secret information they shared among them, some of those information was tipped by Chiesi. This Galleon Case called as ‘the biggest white-collar crime in US history” by the Reuters because some big companies like IBM, AMD, SUN Microsystem, and even Intel Corp entangled into it. I’m focusing my review on Moffat, the former IBM executive because affair is the first issue of his entanglement into this Galleon Case and also Kurkland and Chiesi whom also involved into that scandal.
The plaintiff of Galleon Case was the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While in its amended complaint, it imposed Moffat, Chiesi and Kurkland (even all defendants) violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder. The SEC also claimed Chiesi and Kurkland violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. The commission based on Section 21(d)(3) and/or Section 21A of the Exchange Act and Section 20(d) of the Securities Act ordering each of defendants to pay civil monetary penalties, it even barring Moffat from acting as officers or directors of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of Exchange Act or to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
Later on the court, Moffat pleaded guilty and sentenced to 6 months in jail. Judge Deborah Batts additionally fined Moffat $50,000, while Moffat’s conspiracy count carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. His securities fraud count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million. I think what had been sentenced to Moffat was quite fair, because he did not enjoy any money or other financial benefit from that trading conspiracy and moreover Moffat admitted his wrongdoing – leaked such non-public information to other people outside the company. Futhermore, in my point of view, Moffat can also be viewed as a victim, because in fact he had been betrayed by his affair. Without his knowledge, Chiesi had disseminated the information she was obtained from him. Although, in court Moffat also admitted that he known Chiesi, work in hedge fund company and Moffat also considered that there such a big possibility that any confidential information leaked by Moffat can be used by Chiesi. Again here, even a logic operation manager with wide experiences like Moffat can be blinded by love and desire with blond, blue-eyed, and petite, Chiesi.
Kurkland itself later be sentenced in May for 27 months in jail, while referred to federal sentencing guidelines Kurkland faced as much as 37 months in prison. He was also ordered to forfeit $900,000. I agree with what had been sentenced to Kurkland (even I thought he could be get more punishment), even his lawyer asking for probation, arguing that his client had not played a major role in the alleged insider trading scheme. While Kurkland defended himself by stated that he only traded on tips that originated with Moffat and passed through Chiesi but obviously the government wiretap proved that what he had done was motivated by his greed to money. While Chiesi, along with Sri Lankan billionaire Raj Rajaratnam, are scheduled for trial in 2011. And if I am become one of the jury in the Manhattan Court faced with that Galleon Case, I will definitely give Rajaratnam the weightier sentence among all defendants, because all this mess and fraud conspiracy, tied and entangled with Rajaratnam. For Chiesi, I guess she better pleaded guilty and also get a fair sentence for betrayed, deceptive and used people to get benefits for herself.
What Happen In Indonesia ?
Commonly in Indonesia, companies that make written rules governing the dating and marriage relationship strictly between their employees or its business partner is largely limited to government companies. For example, PT Pertamina, Tbk explicitly will fire its employee who married with another employee in the same office plus the employee also must pay some penalty money up to US$ 30,000 (year 2010). For those companies that do not have any written rules related with dating within employees, it does not mean they permit any romance relationship occur off-handed. Some verbal warning or advice from employer may take in place to prevent negative implication that can affect any office processes.
In Indonesia, cases of sexual abuse reported to authorities is still small, but that does not mean that the sexual harassment experienced by workers or employees of the company in Indonesia is less than in other countries. The problem is that our workers are still reluctant to report it for various reasons, including the myth that sexual abuse is common at the workplace and does not need to be exaggerated. In addition, our legal instruments that governing the specific and detailed about that matter also not maximized. During these period the defendant can only be entangled with several articles in Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) article 289 to 296 also article 506. But in reality, what constitutes sexual harassment may not fall into the category referred to in those articles. If we compare with the rule of law on sexual harassment in the U.S have been contained in Title VII amended by Congress in 1991, then we can see how the law there has been established in detail about what constitutes sexual harassment following the applicable legal sanctions for the perpetrators. Bearing in mind that we must take a long time if we want to wait for the government and the legislature passed a law or regulation concerning sexual harassment, then the company should initiate proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This in my opinion is very important to maintain the good name of the company and also a mental construct of employees in company in order to maximize employee productivity and avoid losing significant employee for a silly reason.
In the capital market of Indonesia, the practice of insider trading violations are classified as one of the most frequently performed by the parties concerned in a number of scandals, involving the publisher of both private and state property (BUMN). This happens not only because of the difficulty of proving the occurrence of the practices, but also because the sanctions provided for this long is vague and ambiguous. Penalties are given to the practice of insider trading has so far only in the form of administrative sanction fine. In fact, the Indonesia’s Capital Market Law states that the practice of insider trading are included as criminal. A criminal sanctions should not only get administrative sanction, but also confinement for the deterrent effect of sanctions for the perpetrators.
An example of Indonesia’s insider trading case is what happen in Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PGN). The day after PGN held a press release stating that there was a correction on the planned size of the volume of gas that will be delivered, PGN share price falls in a short time due to other market players to sell bandwagon PGN shares on a large scale. When the stock price plummeted from Rp. 9.650 coded PGAS (opening session) to Rp. 7400 (closing session) or a decrease of 23.36 percent and the JSE is set to auto reject halting position (stop automatically). Some people inside PGN, who know the material information before the press-released, had traded PGN’s stock within those periods. Of course this was violated Capital Market Law of 1995 No. 8 article 95 and 96. In article 104, the defendants will face as much as 10 years in prison and sanction fine for maximum 15 billion rupiahs. But, in fact, the Bapepam-LK – an authorities and the capital market regulator in Indonesia, only give administrative sanction in the form of fine against nine PGN boards. It’s totally different with Galleon Case in U.S where even the least involvement defendant like Moffat, was given the prison sentence. This proves that our government is indecision and equivocal when dealing with cases of insider trading. Criminal justice process takes long time, greater cost and complicated process of evidence. All this contributes to instability of law enforcement in the Indonesian capital market.
Epilogue
Nowadays, it appears to be the workplace where the majority of people meet, where relationships are forged, and where significant others are established. Romance at the office is always a part of a story in workplace world. It is an old story with a new twist. It becomes an universal phenomenon and it also put employer in fine line between ensuring employee productivity and interfering in the private affairs of their employees.
An “intimate-relationship” between co-worker, especially those who have high position in company will put company and him or herself in a risky situation. From a sweet love can end-up into sexual harassment claim, from a small sharing with the loves one could drag someone into unpredictable insider trading scheme. The best thing to avoid those terrible after-effect affair is being honest and loyal to whom you had made your commitment, it could be your spouse – the one you live with, or to your company where you work.
The one thing that every employee needs to do is maintain the trust and support of the people he or she works for. Mark Hurd failed to do that. Robert Moffat do the same thing. And for that he has only himself to blame.
Glass, Shirley P., 2003. NOT “Just Friends” : Protect Your Infidelity and Heal the Trauma of Betrayal. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Cindy Krischer Goodman, Sexual Harassment Cases are not on the Rise, but Jury Awards Getting Bigger, The Charleston Gazette, December 3, 1996, at P1D
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/ex-i-b-m-executive-pleads-guilty-in-galleon-case/
The case is U.S. v. Kurland, 10-cr-69, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-272528.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=HPQ:US
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/mark-hurds-sex-harassment-settlement-surprised-hp-board/19594907/
http://www.techeye.net/business/hps-ceo-hurd-packs-his-suitcase-after-sex-scandal
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/15/saupload_hpq.png
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37053792/Court-Filing-HP-Civil-Complaint-Against-Mark-Hurd
Graff, Samantha K., 1998. Note on the Law of Sexual Harassment. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing
O’Shea, T., and LaLonde, J., 1998. Sexual Harassment: A Practical Guide to the Law, Your Rights and Your Option for Taking Action. St. Martin’s Griffin.
Security and Exchange Commission’s Amended Complaint of Galleon Case, part (x) of Summary, page-5
Surunji, Andi., 2007. “Insider Trading” di Akhir Tahun. Kompas, 28 Desember 2007.