tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post981887890558825894..comments2023-10-24T06:05:38.954-05:00Comments on The Thinker--or Just Sitting Around?: Stupid, stupid, stupidPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17504383209010655249noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-16744586485064237812008-11-19T10:26:00.000-06:002008-11-19T10:26:00.000-06:00Khyle, I agree it presents difficult situations bu...Khyle, I agree it presents difficult situations but he could have avoided the contact with the issuer.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17504383209010655249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-60041047815959635332008-11-19T10:25:00.000-06:002008-11-19T10:25:00.000-06:00I can handle this one, RR.Yes, you're right, the S...I can handle this one, RR.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you're right, the SEC action is civil. They seek to recover the profits (or losses avoided, and injunctive relief (which is a bigger deal than it sounds, it disqualifies you from a lot of exemptive provisions under the securities laws.)<BR/><BR/>DOJ didn't used to like these kind of cases. They were difficult to prosecute and not "sexy." But now the regulators and Justice have been working much more closely (post-Enron) and parallel proceedings aren't unusual.<BR/><BR/>The amount of $$ isn't substantial here but a lot of bang for the prosecutorial buck with the celebrity factor.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17504383209010655249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-15319027912408274342008-11-19T09:26:00.000-06:002008-11-19T09:26:00.000-06:00I know that someone here will correct me if I'm wr...I know that someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the action being taken here by the SEC "civil" in nature? Is it common for a civil case to become criminal as well?Rousing Rabblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951672412199469562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-88593262618933354262008-11-18T17:55:00.000-06:002008-11-18T17:55:00.000-06:00Peter - but he couldn't go public with it, that's ...Peter - but he couldn't go public with it, that's the whole point right? <BR/><BR/>Seems like the DOJ is saying if you don't want someone to sell your stock, call them with some potentially negative news, and tell them to keep it confidential. That doesn't make sense to me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466458562802634464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-56087220946924167812008-11-18T16:25:00.000-06:002008-11-18T16:25:00.000-06:00Well, Khyle, he COULD sell if he disclosed to the ...Well, Khyle, he COULD sell if he disclosed to the market what he knew. That is only fair.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for Mark, he was an outspoken war/Bush critic. Bad timing if DOJ wants some revenge.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17504383209010655249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-37727964739281744352008-11-18T16:02:00.000-06:002008-11-18T16:02:00.000-06:00So much chatter today about whether or not this af...So much chatter today about whether or not this affects his bid for the Cubs.<BR/><BR/>Cubs? Wha? Chatter should be about how much time he's gonna be doing.<BR/><BR/>Cuban's going to be trading soap for cigarettes, not relief pitching for outfielders.schmidlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408511092032665751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14245640.post-56003429876272291112008-11-18T15:35:00.000-06:002008-11-18T15:35:00.000-06:00Though I'm no lawyer, to me it looks like Mamma.co...Though I'm no lawyer, to me it looks like Mamma.com almost tried to trap Cuban so he couldn't sell.<BR/><BR/>Just by taking the act of calling him, it meant he couldn't sell. Which is BS in my opinion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466458562802634464noreply@blogger.com