Latest Posts
- Notice to “Spectator” readers
- So Long. Farewell. Auf wiedersehen. Goodbye.
- Magazine maven Bonnie Fuller poised to market her toughest brand yet: Herself
- John Macfarlane grabs The Walrus’s tiller
Tools
Categories
- General
- Bay Street
- Black Watch
- Television
- Radio
- Internet
- Newspapers
- Gossip Hound
- Egos
- Across the Ocean
- Over the Border
- Books
- Magazines
- American Election
- New York Times vs Wall Street Journal
- Gaffe of the Week
- Livent Trial
Postings by date
Livent trial revelations: Cooked books rooks schnooks
Posted on May 15, 2008 by Douglas Bell
He’s a lot taller, rather more phlegmatic, and considerably more fragrant (having applied substantial splashes of eau de something), but Livent’s former VP finance Gordon Eckstein had about him more than a whiff of David Radler when he walked into court yesterday to testify against his erstwhile bosses Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb. The examination—in chief carried out with brisk efficiency by the Crown’s lead prosecutor, Robert Hubbard—directed Eckstein to tell the court that though he was the one who cooked Livent’s books, he did so at the behest of Drabinsky and Gottlieb (both of whom were sitting not 20 feet away).
Eckstein testified that he helped create a deceptively rosy financial picture that led investors to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into Livent throughout the 1990s. “They [Drabinsky and Gottlieb] absolutely knew that the numbers were false,” said Eckstein, just before Hubbard led him through a recitation of the financial rewards that his bosses accrued as a result: shareholdings in the tens of millions of dollars (this as opposed to Mr. Eckstein’s somewhat more meagre allocation, worth $79,000).
Time after time, in closing out each chapter of the story, Hubbard asked Eckstein the same question: “Did you know what you were doing was wrong?” And each time he offered the same answer in a clear, unwavering baritone, once even looking directly at the accused: “Yes.”
As the morning wore into early afternoon, things grew tetchy between Hubbard and the Greenspans. The latter began to object more frequently to what they felt was Hubbard’s leading of the witness. At one point, Eddie lightened the atmosphere by noting that Hubbard had upset him so much that “I just broke my chair,” to which Hubbard responded, without missing a beat, “You might need a couple of chairs in the course of this trial.”
Another moment of low comedy arrived with the appearance of former Livent director and executive VP Robert Topol. He appeared in the gallery, of course, since his criminal charges in the matter were stayed by a superior court judge citing undue delay. An avowed supporter of the accused, Topol was rapidly ushered out, with both the prosecution and the defence alerting the judge to his removal owing to an “abundance of caution” (he could be called as a witness).
A number of members in the press gallery noted Topol’s presence and insouciant air (it was unmissable—he made himself rather comfortable). One journo even suggested that since the delays leading to the dismissal of his charges were a result of the Crown’s accommodating Eddie Greenspan’s schedule, “the guy ought to be sending Conrad Black flowers once a month.”
• Eckstein ordered to cook Livent books, court hears [National Post]
• Changes were made to Livent financial statements: witness
• Ex-COO watches trial from safe seat [National Post]
• Former executive testifies he told Livent to clean up the books [Globe and Mail]
- Back to Spectator Home
- Categories: General, Black Watch, Egos, Livent Trial
- Permalink





Comments
Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy
You must register to post comments. Please register here.
Casey May 15, 2008 at 8:58 a.m.
I have never met Fast Eddie or his brother and fellow lawyer for defense. Yet the unmistakeable chariatures and descriptions of the former's personality and character are beneath my contempt. I keep asking myself why this man is portrayed constantly as a totally unsympathetic and distinctly unlikeable individual and my answer is that this is what he is, after all. I do not see how GD has a chance in hell of winning this trial and the trial outcome will, in my opinion, finally cement the now infamous Fast Eddie reputation, at very least, in the public eye.
Just the fact that GD is finally being prosecuted for his alleged crimes ( I think he is as guilty as hell ), after all the delays put forth by Fast Eddie, is comeuppance and karma. I hope that the potential scammer, GD, finally gets to experience the dreaded " perp walk " ( a consequence that CB managed to unfortunately evade ), but that he will also be photographed in jumpsuit orange and locked up.
jade_lee May 15, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.
As I have disclosed prior, I once worked at 360 University Ave. court house and I did get to watch both Greenspans defend clients in court. They are both fabulous defense lawyers! But as I have stated before, a person's defense lawyer has to work with the individual's "facts" and if like CB these current men accused of fraud are guilty, the Greenspans don't have much to work with.
Casey May 15, 2008 at 4:51 p.m.
jade_lee May 15, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.
And I vehemently disagree....in my opinion, Greenspan's reputation does not live up to its hype nor does his talent, brains, abilities merit the Canadian media's view prior to the CB trial. CB, if asked, will tell you that Fast Eddie was never his first choice to defend him and, in fact, wanted Brendan Sullivan of the US but Sullivan wanted 25 million up front and CB was, as they say, kinda tapped at that point.
Casey May 15, 2008 at 4:52 p.m.
does his talent, brains, abilities = nor DO his talent, brains, ......again, apologies for lousy grammar
Casey May 15, 2008 at 5:06 p.m.
Furthermore, jade_lee, at risk of overstating my case for Greenspan's overall diminshed talents, particularly his actions and especially his defense strategy in the CB trail, just because Fast Eddie is a bully and can yell and intimidate and name call the loudest, does serve him well....
Casey May 15, 2008 at 5:07 p.m.
Do NOT serve him well.....see what happens when I am rushing?....lol
charley May 17, 2008 at 9:12 p.m.
Surely just "cook" after "books"? Even Variety headlines try to follow grammatical laws somewhat.
charley May 17, 2008 at 9:15 p.m.
Oops- meant should be "rook" after "books". How mortifying-try to nitpick and miss the nit by a yard.
Post a comment