????伯克希爾公司（Berkshire）審計委員會在周三發(fā)布的一份報告中指出，大衛(wèi)?索科爾違反了公司的交易規(guī)則，對首席執(zhí)行官沃倫?巴菲特撒了謊。索科爾長期擔(dān)任公司高管，上月，正當(dāng)外界對他交易伯克希爾正在并購的一家公司的股票提出種種質(zhì)疑之際，他出人意料地離開了伯克希爾公司。

????就在伯克希爾一年一度的奧馬哈市年會隆重召開前三天，公司對外發(fā)表此項聲明，此時，距巴菲特向諸位投資人宣布索科爾離職已有四周之久，而消息一出則即引起震驚。

????索科爾曾任伯克希爾旗下子公司中美洲能源公司（MidAmerican Energy）董事會主席，他個性非常強硬冷傲，曾被媒體普遍認(rèn)為是80歲高齡的巴菲特的繼承人選。然而周三發(fā)布的報告揭露，他另有企圖。

????盡管這樣做可以讓巴菲特稍微松口氣，但索科爾離職事件勢必還會在奎斯特中心（Qwest Center）周六年會上被熱議。屆時巴菲特也將出席，并對其追隨者發(fā)表演講。

????而對于巴菲特早前對索科爾新聞的處理決定，評論家們則投來了輕蔑的目光，稱其作法沒能達(dá)到人們普遍能接受的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，即向投資人公開事實真相并交由投資人做出決定。

????非但如此，伯克希爾公司竟發(fā)表了一封新聞稿，言辭中極力袒護(hù)索科爾，而審計委員會報告顯示，索科爾的行為根本沒有辯解的余地。這份報告指出，巴菲特最早是從一位投資銀行家那里聽到口風(fēng)，得知索科爾購買股票的消息。

????3月14日上午，伯克希爾?哈撒韋公司和路博潤公司(Lubrizol)宣布簽署并購協(xié)議。一位與伯克希爾有生意往來的花旗銀行（Citigroup）代表就并購事宜向巴菲特表示祝賀，并告知巴菲特：是花旗的投資銀行家讓索科爾注意到路博潤。這是巴菲特先生第一次得知，投資銀行家在向索科爾推薦路博潤公司的過程中起到了一定作用，而這與索科爾在一月份時稱自己是因為擁有路博潤的股票才了解路博潤這家公司的說法不相吻合。

????報告中還披露，索科爾并沒有把自己視為巴菲特未來的繼承人；或者至少在違規(guī)交易事件曝光之后，他是這么想的。

????3月29日，巴菲特曾提供給索科爾一次機(jī)會，讓索科爾審閱由他本人起草的一份有關(guān)宣布索科爾辭職，并披露索科爾與路博潤交易事件的新聞稿草稿。應(yīng)索科爾的要求，巴菲特先生刪除了新聞稿中一段索科爾認(rèn)為并不屬實的話，其中暗示到：索科爾提出辭職是因為他認(rèn)為與路博潤進(jìn)行的交易會殃及到他成為巴菲特先生繼承人的機(jī)會。索科爾告訴巴菲特，他根本沒有幻想能夠成為巴菲特的繼承人，提出辭職的原因與那些交易完全無關(guān)。

????除了刪除的那段話，索科爾先生對這則新聞稿的準(zhǔn)確性別無異議。例如，有關(guān)索科爾購買路博潤股票時，“他并不知道如果巴菲特也有意與路博潤進(jìn)行交易，路博潤會作何反應(yīng)”這部分聲明，索科爾先生并未提出任何改動。索科爾先生也對巴菲特有關(guān)其“在這則新聞稿中毫無隱瞞”的聲明表示認(rèn)可。

????巴菲特也許在這則新聞稿中的確毫無隱瞞，但他也沒有從中獲得任何好處。遵照公關(guān)傳統(tǒng)慣例，伯克希爾公司隱瞞了索科爾違規(guī)交易的真實內(nèi)幕，反而為索科爾開脫，宣稱索科爾辭職是為了“利用職業(yè)生涯的剩余時間，將其家族資源投入到可以創(chuàng)造長期權(quán)益價值的渠道中，并且希望能創(chuàng)立一家能為后代謀福利同時又能為個人慈善事業(yè)提供資金的企業(yè)?！?/p>

????這段評論說明索科爾已失去了理智，但更為爆料的新聞接踵而來。巴菲特隨后在信中開始提及極為駭人聽聞的事實——即他早就知道索科爾在向伯克希爾公司推薦并購潤滑劑制造商路博潤時，并沒有披露索科爾本人已購買該公司股票這一事實。

????巴菲特沒有提供相關(guān)更多細(xì)節(jié)，接著只是表示“大衛(wèi)和我都沒有覺得購買路博潤股票是違法行為。他告訴過我，這些事件不是他決定辭職的原因。”

????巴菲特幸虧不是法官，否則他的這番陳詞定會引起一片嘩然。據(jù)報道，盡管索科爾已引起美國證券交易委員會（Securities and Exchange Commission）對其是否觸及法律界限的關(guān)注，但誰知道還會不會有這方面的后續(xù)報道呢。

????不管怎樣，即使伯克希爾公司審計委員會的報告如預(yù)測那樣，其目的是為了保護(hù)巴菲特，至少現(xiàn)在沒有人能說“公司無視索科爾卑劣行徑”這樣的話了。這不算什么大的舉動，但為了奧馬哈那些巴菲特的忠實追隨者們，伯克希爾可能不得不這么做。

????A report from the company's audit committee said Wednesday that David Sokol broke company trading rules and lied to CEO Warren Buffett. Sokol is the longtime top executive who unexpectedly quit Berkshire (BRKA) last month amid questions about his trading in shares of a company Berkshire was acquiring.

????The company's statement comes three days before its heavily attended annual meeting in Omaha and four weeks to the day after Buffett shocked investors by announcing Sokol's departure.

????Sokol was the hard-charging, abrasive chairman of Berkshire's MidAmerican Energy unit and was widely depicted in the press as a possible successor to the 80-year-old Buffett -- though Wednesday's report reveals he had other ideas.

????The move could take some heat off Buffett, though the Sokol affair will still surely be the talk of the Qwest Center Saturday when Buffett addresses his acolytes.

????Critics rained scorn on his initial handling of the Sokol news, saying he failed to live up to his commonsense standard of presenting investors with the facts and letting them decide.

????Instead, Berkshire issued a press release that read to many as a defense of Sokol, whose actions are revealed in the audit committee's report to have been indefensible. The report says the first Buffett heard of Sokol's stock purchases was through, gasp, an investment banker.

????On the morning of March 14, Berkshire Hathaway and Lubrizol announced the signing of the merger agreement. A Citi representative with whom Berkshire Hathaway did business congratulated Mr. Buffett on the merger agreement, and told Mr. Buffett that Citi's investment bankers had brought Lubrizol to Mr. Sokol's attention. This was the first time Mr. Buffett heard that investment bankers played any role in introducing Lubrizol to Mr. Sokol, and did not square with Mr. Sokol's remark in January that he had come to know Lubrizol by owning the stock

????The report also reveals that Sokol didn't view himself as a potential successor to Buffett – or at least, didn't after the trading transgressions came to light.

????On March 29, Mr. Buffett provided Mr. Sokol an opportunity to review for accuracy a draft Mr. Buffett had prepared of a press release announcing Mr. Sokol's resignation and disclosing Mr. Sokol's Lubrizol trades. At Mr. Sokol's request, Mr. Buffett deleted from the release the one passage Mr. Sokol said was inaccurate: a passage that implied that Mr. Sokol had resigned because he must have known the Lubrizol trades would likely hurt his chances of being Mr. Buffett's successor. Mr. Sokol told Mr. Buffett that he had not hoped to be Mr. Buffett's successor, and was resigning for reasons unrelated to those trades.

????Except for that deletion, Mr. Sokol concurred in the accuracy of the press release. For example, Mr. Sokol left unchanged the statement that when Mr. Sokol made his purchases, he "did not know what Lubrizol's reaction would be" if Mr. Buffett developed an interest in a transaction. Mr. Sokol also left unchanged Mr. Buffett's statement that he had "held back nothing in this press release."

????Buffett may not have held anything back with that press release, but he didn't do himself any favors with it either. In the great PR tradition, it buried the news of Sokol's transgressions, instead starting with the claim that Sokol had resigned to "utilize the time remaining in my career to invest my family's resources in such a way as to create enduring equity value and hopefully an enterprise which will provide opportunity for my descendents and funding for my philanthropic interests."

????This comment established Sokol as off his rocker, but the bigger news was to come. Buffett later got around to mentioning in that letter the rather daunting fact that he had learned Sokol recommended Berkshire acquire lubricants maker Lubrizol (LZ) without disclosing his purchase of the company's shares.

????Without offering much in the way of details, Buffett then said that "neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful. He has told me that they were not a factor in his decision to resign."

????Buffett not being a judge, that line drew a few hoots and hollers. And though Sokol is reportedly getting some attention now from the Securities and Exchange Commission on the legality front, who knows if we will ever hear again about that.

????Anyway, if the Berkshire audit committee's report is predictably protective of Buffett, at least no one can say now that the company is blind to the fact that Sokol is a creep. It isn't much, but it may have to do for the faithful in Omaha.