Frist’s defense takes shape

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been rather quiet since becoming the focus of SEC and Justice Department investigations. Yesterday, however, Frist finally emerged and started laying out a defense.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, facing federal inquiries into his sale of hospital company stock, said yesterday that he had no inside information about the stock’s likely performance and sold the shares solely to avoid a possible conflict of interest in case he seeks higher office.

Frist (R-Tenn.), who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid, said he began taking steps to sell all the stock held in a trust about three months before its value sharply fell. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into his June sale of all his holdings in HCA Inc., a Nashville-based company that his family founded. The next month, the stock’s value dropped 9 percent after the company issued a disappointing earnings forecast.

Frist, a wealthy surgeon, briefly addressed reporters in the Capitol but took no questions in making his first public comments since the inquiries were announced late last week. Rejecting the notion that he may have benefited from inside information, he said: “I had no information about HCA or its performance that was not publicly available when I directed the trustees to sell the stock.”

That point about initiating the sale several months in advance is important. Part of the reason Frist’s stock sale raised eyebrows was the timing — his “blind trust” sold shortly before a discouraging SEC filing drove the stock price down. If Frist began the process months in advance, the timing appears a lot less suspicious.

On the other hand, that “conflict of interest” argument still just doesn’t work.

He noted that for years he repeatedly had said his ownership of HCA stock posed no conflict of interest for his Senate duties. Those statements frequently angered some consumer and victims’ rights groups because of the large amount of health care legislation before the Senate, including the Medicare prescription drug plan.

“The complaints and questions have persisted,” Frist said yesterday. “Because of these continuing questions, and looking ahead at my final years in the Senate and what might come next, I have for some time wanted to eliminate even the possibility of an appearance of a conflict by totally divesting of any HCA stock in my family’s trust.”

I’m afraid this makes as much sense this week as it did last week.

If Frist had the appearance of a conflict of interest, it’s been there for 11 years. When Bill Frist led the fight against Clinton’s “Patients’ Bill of Rights” in 1999, for example, many noted that it was troubling for a lawmaker with stock in a company that might suffer under the White House plan to take such an active role. Nonsense, said Frist, who never hesitated to defend the industry with which he had financial (and familial) ties.

I, frankly, don’t know enough about insider trading to know how close to the legal line Frist got, but it’s only one part of the controversy. Frist still needs to explain why, all of a sudden, he felt the need to divest when he did — and then explain why he was far less than truthful about the nature of his stock ownership.

Frist can say whatever he wants. I, for one, don’t believe in coincidence.

  • Frist would have had a major conflict of interest if he kept his stock.

    From a May 26, 2005 article, “Hospitals Brace for Medicare Blitz”,
    from Street.com:

    “Congress is currently weighing a bipartisan bill that would dramatically alter the entire Medicare payment system. Under the proposal, Medicare would pay hospitals on the basis of their cost to treat patients rather than the amount they charge to do so….

    Already, industry executives look skittish. Since CMS first made its recommendations in early March, senior managers at a number of hospital chains — including Community (CYH:NYSE – commentary – research), LifePoint (LPNT:Nasdaq – commentary – research), HCA (HCA:NYSE – commentary – research) and Triad (TRI:NYSE – commentary – research) — have been shedding large amounts of stock. All of those stocks set new 52-week highs this spring but have since begun to retreat.

    Shares of industry leader HCA, where insider selling has been especially pronounced, fell 1.2% to $53.01 on Wednesday. The stock is now off 6.5% from the peak it hit last month.”

  • This is an interesting connection below. It is a lttr. wherein Frist directs (6/13/05) all securities issued by HCA, Inc. & securities…..to be sold from 3 different accounts. WHF 2000 Qualified Blind Trust #12991; William H. Frist GST Trust #12992; William H. Frist CRUT #12993. Politicalmoneyline.com reveals the vast spending by our leaders, trips around the world w/ relatives (including grandchildren and nanny!), and documentation (hundreds of pages, in some cases) of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing.

    http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/docs/frist7-14-05.pdf

  • The legal standard here hinges on whether Frist acted on the basis of material inside information when he directed the trustee to sell his HCA stock– i.e., whether he was aware at the time the sale was consummated that HCA was about to issue a disappointing earnings report that would likely drive the stock price down. Given Frist’s close ties to the corporation, and the very convenient timing of the sale, it seems pretty implausible that Frist acted without inside knowledge. The paper trail should illuminate this.

  • I think Frist is in hot water with regard to two separate issues here:

    1) Did he direct the disposition of his HCA stock based on inside information?

    2) Did he violate – in conjunction with the trustees – the terms of his blind trust, which is supposed to eliminate the possibility of conflict of interest because the contents of the trust are completely “blind” to the holder of the trust? If he knew what was in the trust, then it wasn’t blind, and that constitutes a major breach of ethics for a publicly elected official in his position.

    In spite of Frist’s denial of wrongdoing, I think his star is about to be snuffed out.

  • Content No. 6 by Drew is exactly right. when speaking of politicians one should always use the descriptive terms “liars and thiefs”!!

  • Comments are closed.