Martha Stewart Case

In the early 2000’s, America’s famous and favorite home cooker made headlines, and not in a positive way. Headlines that would forever change that way people thought about her. Martha Stewart was convicted for misleading federal investigators who were looking into allegations of insider trading which raised several ethical issues. Is being to rich a reason to convict Martha of this crime? If everyone does it, why hold Martha to a higher standard? In this case, insider trading was clearly evident in Martha Stewarts Case. Born in 1941, Ms. Stewart had quite the life. Growing up, her father introduced her to gardening, while her mother introduced her to cooking, baking, and sewing and after marrying her husband, Andrew Stewart; she became a

In other words, its buying and selling of securities that has obtained non-public material information, and in Martha’s case she was guilty of it. “However in an interesting legal technicality, Martha Stewart did not necessarily breach a fiduciary duty to the other investors, since she had no real obligations to inform other investors, which would be the case if she were an officer with company (US SEC, 2009). This being said, if she confessed her actions were wrong, she would not have been convicted of insider trading. Insider trading can be either legal or illegal due to the nature and the timeframe. This was not the road that Martha Stewart decided to take. ‘She instead chose to collide with her broker in an attempt to barricade a story about how there was a standing order for Ms. Stewart to sell her shares” (US SEC, 2009). Martha Stewart had knowledge on the ethics surrounding trading of stock having already been a CEO, she should have known what she was doing, but one can argue that due to her crazy work life, she simply did no think about it. It shows that she is not engaging in illegal behavior. “Martha Stewart displayed her morality lies when lying to the US authorities even thought this was obviously illegal and unethical; her action can also be analyzed through egoism philosophy where right or acceptable behavior defined in terms of consequences to the individual, regarding maximizing self0interest” (Carr, 2002). Martha Stewart thought she did everything right, but still did not bother to warn the shareholders. If insider trading had not taken place, it would be less of a crime, but her actions indicated unethical behavior and define lack of integrity, and lying to Federal investigators only made it