3 ms·

> The question to be answered is whether or not a "whistle-blower" should ethically be allowed to profit, substantially, from blowing that whistle If they're a

> The question to be answered is whether or not a "whistle-blower" should ethically be allowed to profit, substantially, from blowing that whistle If they're an external party then I don't think it really matters.

Outdoorsman 11y ago
Your comment raises the question: if a substantial profit is involved is a claimant still "impartial", "neutral", "unbiased"...? Or, "external" to the proceedings, as your choice of terms suggests...? I don't have the answer....still thinking about this one! You make a good point...
- ves 11y ago
  The hope is that a company's fate isn't decided by the claimant. Of course the claimant is biased, that's what would have motivated them to take this position in the first place. The ultimate decision should be reached by an unbiased third party or parties, in this case the FTC / the market.
marincounty 11y ago
I didn't know Bill Ackerman, or his fund, before this battle. While I agree with Ackerman completely, I think at this point, he should take his short position off the table. Bring down Herbalife down for moral reasons. We need morality. I didn't know Ackerman was only 49. I thought he was much older. I think Ackerman might have a political future, if he desires politics? Maybe, he just doesn't care about how that short looks. I thought it looked o.k., until today. I'm not a fan of financial activism. Positive, or negative activism. I am so tired of the poor/naieve being exploited. This financial activism is not going away; it's just getting started. (Suprised George Sorrows was in this mess. He one of the rich boys I actually like. He's be of the few rich boys who tells the truth. He once said, while being interviewed on his yacht, 'I owe all of my success to my father, and his fortune. I would be a nobody--if it wasen't for his money, and guidance.')

Outdoorsman 11y ago

Your comment raises the question: if a substantial profit is involved is a claimant still "impartial", "neutral", "unbiased"...? Or, "external" to the proceedings, as your choice of terms suggests...? I don't have the answer....still thinking about this one! You make a good point...

ves 11y ago
The hope is that a company's fate isn't decided by the claimant. Of course the claimant is biased, that's what would have motivated them to take this position in the first place. The ultimate decision should be reached by an unbiased third party or parties, in this case the FTC / the market.

marincounty 11y ago

I didn't know Bill Ackerman, or his fund, before this battle. While I agree with Ackerman completely, I think at this point, he should take his short position off the table. Bring down Herbalife down for moral reasons. We need morality. I didn't know Ackerman was only 49. I thought he was much older. I think Ackerman might have a political future, if he desires politics? Maybe, he just doesn't care about how that short looks. I thought it looked o.k., until today. I'm not a fan of financial activism. Positive, or negative activism. I am so tired of the poor/naieve being exploited. This financial activism is not going away; it's just getting started. (Suprised George Sorrows was in this mess. He one of the rich boys I actually like. He's be of the few rich boys who tells the truth. He once said, while being interviewed on his yacht, 'I owe all of my success to my father, and his fortune. I would be a nobody--if it wasen't for his money, and guidance.')