We recently presented a look at some of the most notorious financial felons of contemporary times.

Since then, news has included the indictment of Mark Cuban for insider trading in a case that is somewhat reminiscent of Martha Stewart's case. According to the SEC, the billionaire entrepreneur asked his broker to sell all his shares of Mamma.com after the company's CEO confidentially told him of an impending stock offering that would dilute the value of all existing shares. By selling before the information became public, Cuban is said to have sidestepped losses of more than $750,000. Cuban insists, though, that no agreement existed to keep the information confidential.

And then there was the indictment in Texas of Vice President Dick Cheney, along with former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others. There seems to be a conflict of interest between the vice president's influence on the federal agency that oversees federal immigration detention centers and his substantial holdings in Vanguard Group, which invests in private prison companies. But does the lame-duck county district attorney, who was a no-show in court, have the authority to bring charges against federal officials with regard to federally run institutions?

This post is part of a feature in which we wonder whatever happened to some notorious financial figures. See the other 17.

As Wall Street implodes around us, the word "hubris" is getting tossed around quite a bit. Hubris -- also known as excessive, overweening pride -- has become the catchall explanation for most of the market's ills. Our financial system has gone up in flames, we're told, simply because so many CEOs and regulators thought they were too smart to fail, no matter how highly leveraged their subprime mortgage portfolios may have been.

Assuming this is true, let's call Joseph Nacchio a trendsetter. As the chief executive of Qwest Communications International (NYSE: Q), Nacchio was determined to construct the world's biggest, best, and most totally awesome fiber-optic network. (Mind you, this was back in the late '90s, when the telecom bubble was just a glimmer in the market's eye.) However, the plucky CEO was driven not by a personal commitment to excellence, but rather by spite.

Nacchio left his old job at AT&T (NYSE: T) because he wasn't granted a plum promotion to president, which he felt he so richly deserved. What better way to show up his former employer than to build a superior network and steal away market share?

Unfortunately, Nacchio's impure motivations were not the best recipe for success. To give you some idea as to how his plans for world telecom domination played out, check out this blog entry I wrote about Qwest and Joseph Nacchio as part of our series on the worst S&P 500 stocks of the past 25 years.

Now that Qwest (NYSE:Q) is finally back up to the same low price it was in January 2002 -- $8.65 per share -- long suffering investors will be in for a bumpy week as former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio's trial on 42 charges of insider trading begins in federal court in Denver. If convicted on most or all insider trading charges, Mr. Nacchio, 57, faces the possibility of life in prison. Legal reporters argue that 10 years in prison and the forfeiture of $100 million in ill-gotten gains is a more likely punishment scenario. What makes Mr. Nacchio's trial more than the usual white-collar fraud trial is that his defense is claiming the case involves national security issues. Unless the four national security agencies involved are willing to provide documentation and allow testimony in open court, Mr. Nacchio cannot possibly receive a fair trial. Thus the charges against him must be dropped. National security agency attorneys are trying to persuade the judge that these national security issues are merely fabrications to deflect attention from Mr. Nacchio's misdeeds.

What is agreed upon is that Mr. Nacchio sold $100 million in Qwest stock in 2001 at a time when he knew Qwest was experiencing financial difficulties. Mr. Nacchio does not dispute that he sold the stock, but due to private meetings with then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Nacchio states he was given to understand Qwest would benefit from certain "blackbox" telecommunications national security contracts. When these "blackbox" contracts did not materialize, Qwest experienced financial problems leading it to the edge of bankruptcy. Mr. Nacchio was charged with insider trading in 2005. Mr. Nacchio's trial may set a new low in legal bloviation.

Also in the news, the Associated Press states Qwest founder, railroad baron Philip Anschutz, the man who hired Joseph Nacchio to run Qwest, has entered a private deal to sell almost all of his remaining shares in the company. On February 27, 2007, Mr. Anschutz sold 2.7 million shares for $24 million, an average price of $8.66-8.78 per share. More interesting, however, is his private deal to sell in excess of 20 million shares in 2010 for an undisclosed price. He will receive a current prepayment of $150.5 million from this private deal, details of which are difficult to obtain. Does this sound like a run for the exit to anyone else? What does Mr. Anschutz know about Mr. Nacchio's impending trial that other Qwest investors do not?