The cross-examination of a key government witness in the James Fry fraud trial became a sparring match Friday with neither side giving much ground in a battle over who knew what and when as the Ponzi scheme of convicted businessman Tom Petters skidded toward disaster in 2008.
Michelle Palm, a vice president with Fry's Arrowhead Capital Management, dueled with defense attorney Joe Friedberg for the better part of two hours as Friedberg pushed to show his client hid nothing from investors and was clueless about the $3.65 billion fraud operating out of Petters Cos. Inc. (PCI).
Friedberg argued that 90-day promissory notes owed by PCI to Arrowhead were actually payable for up to 182 days. And if they weren't paid after 182 days, "you had a remedy, default," Friedberg said.
"A default isn't really a remedy," Palm answered.
"You could sue," Friedberg responded.
"That's a collection action, not a remedy," Palm said.
Friedberg noted that all of the 12 promissory notes that were extended to avoid default were back within terms of the lending agreement by September 2008, when the Petters operation collapsed.
"Technically they weren't late," Palm agreed. "But they were still beyond the typical 90-day due date."