9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Mark Cuban Triumphs in Insider-Trading Trial:

by TLTheLiberator
7 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
About a month ago...


SEC Loses as Mark Cuban Triumphs in Insider-Trading Trial - Bloomberg
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    The US government is seriously out-lawyered.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8721668].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I wonder how much it cost him?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8721775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Now he's running around trying to pick a fight with the SEC.

    I believe he's demanding to talk to the SEC head.

    I guess he's safe now and has opted to take advantage of the situation.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730256].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I don't think he's taking advantage he was found not guilty. He contends the prosecution was malicious and there were lies told and misinformation spread.

      He was offered a $2 million settlement -and that's often the path for SEC prosecutions. Most people after years of dealing with the SEC are happy to take a lesser fee and pay it and move on. Cuban turned down their offer and spent 12 million defending himself. He's ticked - I don't blame him.

      According to the SEC - "no one who was involved in this prosecution knew who Mark Cuban was". They should have just kept quiet as that's not even in the ballpark of believability.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
      that's why there are so many of us.
      ...jane goodall
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8730422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    They broke TWO federal laws!!!!!!!

    1. The accuser must be there to be cross examined, etc... by the defendant! That is constitutional law! So the case should have been thrown out.
    2. They MUST take a vote on any such dilution, and inform the public. If they did that, it wasn't insider info, and he was allowed to trade. If they didn't, then they weren't allowed to go ahead. I guess it COULD have been a FULLY private offering in which case the law doesn't apply anyway, SEC rules don't really apply! SEC rules!

    So they state that they tried to cheat him, and violate prospectus, filings, rules, etc... and accused him of insider trading because he wanted to counter the malicious intent?

    BTW I believe special rules kick in at 5%, so I wonder what would have happened if he had only a 4.99% interest.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8731550].message }}

Trending Topics