The courtroom was tense as the fate of Matthew Perry’s assistant was decided today, a verdict that the markets might call a binary event. For those who track the ebbs and flows of celebrity justice, this was a moment of high volatility. The assistant, whose name has been redacted for legal reasons, stood accused of financial improprieties that even a City trader would blanch at.
The prosecution laid out a case built on a foundation of questionable transactions, a ledger that would make any auditor weep. The defence, in turn, argued that the assistant was merely following orders, a cog in a machine that Perry himself greased. The judge, a no-nonsense figure reminiscent of the Bank of England’s governor, delivered the verdict with surgical precision: guilty on three counts of fraud.
The assistant's face fell faster than gilt yields on a rate cut rumour. The sentencing will follow, but the market reaction was immediate. Perry’s brand value took a hit, a markdown that his publicist will struggle to reverse.
This case serves as a reminder that in the court of public opinion, liquidity can dry up faster than a government bond auction. The assistant’s fate is sealed, but the ripple effects on Perry’s financial empire remain to be seen. One cannot help but think that this is a classic case of moral hazard: the assistant took the risk, but the principal reaps the reward of damage control.
Fiscal responsibility, it seems, is a lesson learned the hard way.
