Joe Nacchio's case will get a good look by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it may not get a spot on the court's docket, legal analysts said Wednesday.

For a case to be accepted by the court, it generally must raise an unsettled issue of law, or one in which rulings in different districts conflict.

The court also will take cases of national importance, or that could impact others in similar situations.

In the high court's recently completed term, about 8,240 cases were filed and the court agreed to hear only 75.

Marcy Glenn, a former chairwoman of the appellate practice group at Holland & Hart in Denver, said the appellate court's closely divided decision, the multiple dissenting opinions and the reputation of Nacchio's lead appellate attorney will increase the odds for Nacchio's case to be heard.

Glenn, who has followed Nacchio's appeal closely, said Judge Michael McConnell wrote a strong dissent, and noted he has previously been on the short list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

In addition, Nacchio's appellate attorney, Maureen Mahoney, has a strong record before the U.S. Supreme Court, including overturning the conviction of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for alleged improprieties connected with the Enron corporate scandal.

More attention will be paid to this case than the average petition, Glenn said, while stopping short of predicting it will be heard.

"As bad as the outcome is for Mr. Nacchio, he has positioned himself - and the dissents have helped position him - about as well as he could hope for, under the circumstances," she said.

Others had a different take, including two University of Denver professors who attended much of Nacchio's trial.

Law professor Jay Brown said the chances are low the court will hear the case, particularly on the issue of the excluded witness.

He said Nacchio's best chance may be to raise the issue of what constitutes "material" information, or insider information that has a significant enough impact on a stock price. Nacchio has argued that the information he had wasn't material, and he's free to raise that argument again.

But even the odds of that succeeding are remote, Brown said.

"I think all in all, they're unlikely to take this case," Brown said.

John Holcomb, professor of business ethics and legal studies at the University of Denver's Daniels School of Business, characterized the appellate court decision as well crafted and convincing.

"Though it is a narrow 5-4 ruling, the majority decision is a thorough rebuke of the claims made by the defense and the analysis of the three-judge panel," Holcomb said. "It even adopts some of (trial) Judge (Edward) Nottingham's language that the defense report to qualify (Daniel) Fischel as an expert witness was 'woefully inadequate' or 'woefully insufficient.' It is clear from the majority opinion that any mistakes made were by defense counsel and not by Judge Nottingham."

Holcomb concluded by saying Judge Jerome Holmes wrote a "very careful and convincing majority opinion" and predicted "he will be the hero to Qwest shareholders and to those who will be glad to see Nacchio in prison."

David Milstead and Jeff Smith contributed to this report

NACCHIO TIMELINE

2001

* June 20: Morgan Stanley downgrades Qwest stock after analyst questions accounting practices. Qwest Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Nacchio disputes claim.

2002

* April 4: Qwest says SEC has begun formal inquiry into its accounting practices.

* June 16: Nacchio resigns as chairman and CEO.

2003

* Feb. 11: Qwest lowers 2000 and 2001 revenue by $2.2 billion and later reports a $35.9 billion loss for 2002.

* Aug. 28: Chief Financial Officer Robin Szeliga leaves company.

2005

* March 15: SEC charges Nacchio, Szeliga, former CFO Robert Wood ruff and four other former executives with orchestrating a financial fraud between 1999 and 2002.

* Dec. 20: Federal grand jury indicts Nacchio on 42 counts of insider trading. He pleads not guilty.

2006

* March 24: U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham declines Nacchio's request to dismiss the indictment.

* Aug. 25: Nottingham rejects Nacchio's request to move trial outside of Denver.

2007

* Jan. 31: California's teacher pension fund reaches a nearly $47 million settlement with Qwest Communications over a lawsuit claiming the company defrauded the fund of $150 million. Nacchio is ordered to pay $1.5 million.

* March 19: Jury selection begins in Nacchio's insider trading trial.

* March 20: Prosecutors paint Nacchio as a CEO who illegally sold stock. Nacchio's defense team says he was forced to sell shares but believed in his company's future.

* March 27: Szeliga testifies against her former boss, saying she had tried to persuade him to reduce a 2001 public revenue forecast because of concerns it was unattainable.

* April 9: Defense rests without Nacchio testifying.

* April 19: Jurors convict Nacchio on 19 of 42 counts after six days of deliberation. He remains free on $2 million bond.

* June 4: Nacchio's attorneys ask for a new trial at new venue, saying jurors were exposed to "unremitting vituperative public attacks" on their client.

* July 27: Nottingham sentences Nacchio to six years in prison and orders him to forfeit $52 million.

* Aug. 22: A federal appeals court allows Nacchio to remain free on bond pending appeal.

* Dec. 18: Nacchio's attorneys argue to get conviction overturned.

2008

* March 17: Three-judge appeals panel orders new trial, saying trial judge incorrectly excluded expert testimony.

* July 30: Federal appeals court agrees to review decision that overturned conviction.

2009

* Feb. 25: The full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates Nacchio's conviction, says he can be ordered to begin serving prison sentence.

Back to Top