4 ms·

SEC Charges Mark Cuban With Insider Trading

84 points by nickb 18y ago

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
Interesting. I wonder if the key question will come down to how he came across the information. From what I understand, it can only be considered insider trading if it's based on non-public information. Perhaps Mark based his decision on something public that just hadn't really hit most people's radar yet? Or perhaps he's 100% guilty and got caught red-handed.
- henning 18y ago
  The text of the complaint states: "Despite agreeing in June 2004 to keep material, non-public information about an impending stock offering by Mamma.com Inc. confidential, Cuban sold his entire stake in the company - 600,000 shares - prior to the public announcement of the offering." If that claim is true, he acted on non-public information.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    Not necessarily...perhaps someone else failed to keep the information confidential, in which case it would seem that Cuban would be legally free to sell, correct? Once the news breaks, it's no longer non-public information, right?
    - soldarnal 18y ago
      It seems likely that the information wasn't already public knowledge or the stock's price would have dropped in advance of the public statement. We've seen this year how fickle the markets can be to public "knowledge" such as when United declared bankruptcy or when Steve Jobs had a heart attack.
  - swilliams 18y ago
    I'm a financial trading luddite, so bear with me, but what happens when you do come across some private information that leads you to believe your stock will tumble? Grit your teeth and wait for the knowledge to go public before selling?
    - sachinag 18y ago
      I am a financial advisor, but I am not your financial advisor, and this is not financial advice and should not be construed as such. The answer to your question is yes. Longer answer: if you have material, non-public information (either first hand or through hearsay), you may not trade on it.
      - Retric 18y ago
        Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this depends on what your relationship to the company is. If you overhear the CEO talking to someone then you can sell if the CEO is talking to you then you can't. (Then again if you overhear something then it's more likely for you to get away with it so YMMV.)
        sachinag 18y ago
        You're wrong. It doesn't matter how you hear it - or what your relationship is. If it's material and non-public, you can't trade on it. There were people who were hanging out at financial printers to find out material, non-public information, which they would then trade on. There's no relationship whatsoever there, but it's insider trading.
        run4yourlives 18y ago
        No, that's just harder to prove, but just as illegal. Given that, if you're in a position to overhear the CEO, you're probably already governed by a stricter set of rules than the guy on the bus.
    - henning 18y ago
      Generally if you just "stumble" across confidential, non-public information without warning in advance (the way the CEO of Momma.com apparently told Cuban that he was going to tell him something confidential), someone has probably broken the law or breached a contract or something.
krschultz 18y ago
So now can we all agree to stop up voting his pseudo economic theories and investing advice? The first rule of investing - don't get arrested.
- condor 18y ago
  Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypocrite.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    It's also possible that he's innocent.
    - nadim 18y ago
      My understanding of the SEC has evolved since I just finished the Snowball Warren Buffet book (http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/dp/0553805096 http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/...). There is a section that discusses his run in with the SEC and there is a behind the scenes discussion before charges are pressed (in WB's case, not pressed). I think Cuban has already had a chance to defend himself behind the scenes, and despite this the SEC is still deciding to prosecute. This has example written all over it. Read the statement of facts in the PDF as well: (http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf). After reading it, chances seem slim that he's innocent.
      - calambrac 18y ago
        Aside from the timing of the trade and the fact that the calls took place, everything in that report is based on the word of the CEO of Mamma.com. I honestly don't know if that matters, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. But if it does matter, if the line between legal and illegal is whether the other party told you that you were receiving private information, then it's pretty shitty that you could be found guilty based only on that other party's say-so, don't you think?
oqtol 18y ago
Just saw link at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html
vaksel 18y ago
Cuban is 50? WTF dude looks like he is 35-40 tops. Also look at how efficient our government is...you break a law and it takes them 4 years to investigate it
- fallentimes 18y ago
  He lost 50 lbs participating in Dancing with the Stars.
- henning 18y ago
  Where does it state they've been actively investigating this since the event occurred? Do you think the SEC is like Yoda and feels a disturbance in the Force when someone engages in insider trading?
  - vaksel 18y ago
    They probably flagged it during the quarter following the transaction. And if they haven't started actively investigating it right away, that seems even worse somehow
    - henning 18y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised to hear a government agency is inefficient, but I hope idle speculation doesn't become a substitute for facts around here.
  - tomsaffell 18y ago
    Historically regulators (such as the SEC and FSA in the UK) have had to look at the data after the fact to search for evidence of insider trading. They are in the midst of adopting technologies that will allow them to monitor in real time, and potentially even stop the trades (though I'm not sure it would have help in this case). Apama is helping do this in the UK: http://apama.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_financial_s.html http://apama.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_financial_s.h... http://www.progress.com/apama/index.ssp http://www.progress.com/apama/index.ssp Disclaimer: I used to work for these guys, but back in 2000 when the plan was to become a location-aware social web service (like loopt)
oldgregg 18y ago
I would probably have more sympathy if he wasn't such a blowhard.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  I can't help but wonder if his sound advice for the average Joe not to play the market attracted the ire of the Wall Street dons who need the ponzi machine to keep running.
- sdfx 18y ago
  More sympathy for a guy who allegedly screwed the rest of the shareholders and broke the law?
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Interesting quote from Cuban's blog a few years ago (also noted by TC): "I had purchased stock in Mamma.com in hope that it could be an up and coming search engine. I thought I had done some level of due diligence. Talked to the company management. Talked to some employees who worked in sales. Read the SEC Filings. I knew that they had a checkered past and had been linked to stock promoter Irving Kott, and that their law firm still handled some of Kotts business, but the CEO, Chairman, lawyers all said that things were reformed and the company was focused on its business. Then the company did a PIPE financing. Im [sic] not going to discuss the good or bad of PIPE financing other than to say that to me its a huge red flag and I dont [sic] want to own stock in companies that use this method of financing . Why? Because I dont [sic] like the idea of selling in a private placement, stock for less than the market price, and then to make matters worse, pushing the price lower with the issuance of warrants.So I sold the stock." My take is that the company was about to do some bush league shit (which is what PIPE financings often are) and he didn't like it. Because he didn't like it, he sold his shares and wasn't very secret about it. Seems reasonable to me. Regardless, I'd like to read more facts. Unfortunately, "law" isn't always about "right" or "wrong".
    - sdfx 18y ago
      Of course he is allowed to sell the stocks if he wants to. But if he knew more than the other shareholders and sold because he knew the stock would plummet, it's neither lawful nor "right". According to the article, he knew he was not allowed to sell his stake. Maybe he was upset and was not thinking straight, but if the events happened as depicted in the article, there is no other way to describe this than "wrong".
crabapple 18y ago
haha insider trading is like copying assignment answers in college...its not 5% of potential insiders who are doing it...its 5% potential insiders who AREN'T doing it. its like driving in the carpool lane by yourself...now and then the cops throw a $500 fine at someone during rush hour to deter others from abusing the rules, but the reality is that the other 22 hours a day you can get away with it, and countless people do
- sachinag 18y ago
  Really? Do you have stats to back this up? Cause I'll tell you that there's so much more money to be made in legal ways that the benefits of insider trading, coupled with the fact that the SEC loves to make examples of people, that insider trading is very rare nowadays. Everything is logged electronically. (I'm sorry, but this is the sort of "the rich and powerful get away with murder" crap that makes me want to smack a bitch.)
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    They like to make examples of people, but they also settle a lot, don't have adequate resources and are undermanned. It's a constant cat & mouse game except the SEC is the mouse. Sachin, you live in Chicago - venture over to the CBOT or talk to some of your friends that work there. While the OP's post is certainly an exaggeration, the rich & connected have access to privy information. This: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/good_news_our_s.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02... Is not a coincidence.
    - sachinag 18y ago
      Dan, I agree - but to say that "everyone's doing it" is crazy. It's easier to trade on material, non-public information if you're exposed to it on a regular basis because your patterns aren't readily apparent. That said, there are a lot of people who will trade on rumors that they consider "inside information" that things don't work out as well as you'd think they would. Look at the volatility in stocks right before earnings announcements. It's hysterical.
fallentimes 18y ago
Probably the least surprising news of the year, and I love Mark Cuban. Techcrunch has some more information: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark-cuban-slapped-with-insider-trading-charges-by-sec/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark-cuban-...
fallentimes 18y ago
I can't wait until they reveal their findings about Bear Stearn's insider trading. I heard it was going under one week before it happened; it was the worst kept secret on Wall Street.
- steveplace 18y ago
  I remember the day before the stock tanked. The volume vs. open interest on way OTM puts was absurd. Traders made several thousand percentages on their positions. Edit: picked up some historical data. 40k volume on front month 25 puts for .275 a contract. Finished next day at 4.25, and the day after (Monday) at 20.30. This one gives you about a 7400% gain.
- sokoloff 18y ago
  "Worst kept secret" approximates "public information" at the limit.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I don't know. Does it? A relatively small number of people made a ton of money off of it while a relatively large number of people got burned.
    - sokoloff 18y ago
      I was assuming that your measure of badness was "the more people who know this secret, the worse kept it is". By that measure, the limit of a poorly kept secret is exactly public information. I'm having a hard time coming up with any other continuous measure of "badness" of secret keeping.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Me too. It will be interesting to watch this play out.
jmtame 18y ago
Cuban confuses me sometimes. 50% of the time, he claims that entrepreneurs should work hard, and he's ethical. The other 50% of the time, he's running around talking about how we should ban network neutrality because anyone who innovates on the Internet owes a fee to the guys who control the cables. Uhh WTF Cuban? Pick one side of the fence and stay on it. Insider trading? I know you've got more productive things to do than save some money by cutting a few corners. Stop preaching about ethics and hard work if you're going to pull this crap.
- Eliezer 18y ago
  Wait... you're saying... people can not be pure good or pure evil?
  - jmtame 18y ago
    More like outspoken hypocrites. But polarizing the debate works too.
run4yourlives 18y ago
Sounds pretty open and shut to me. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Given this happened 4 years ago, they probably spent a good amount of time investigating just how he found out. There's a big difference in "was in a position to know" and "did/a reasonable person would have known".
nickb 18y ago
Full complaint: http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf
pistoriusp 18y ago
I'm very ignorant when it comes to things like this. So Mark invested in a company? He heard they were going to do a PIPE, he sold his shares, and the next day they fell 10%? How did he break the law? Def. Insider Trading: "Illegal trading by anyone considered an insider who has access to non-public information, and who attempts to profit from that knowledge." I understand that sentence, it makes sense to me, but I don't see how this is unlawful? What if you're working for a company that you're also a shareholder of and you get the "feeling" that the company is going to tank, so you sell... Is that illegal? Or are these different things.
- sdfx 18y ago
  knowing for a fact that the stocks will fall is different from a vague feeling. There's nothing wrong if he had based his decision solely on publicly available information, but if he knew more than the next guy, he's got an unfair advantage.
- swilliams 18y ago
  I think the issue here is that he heard they were going to do a PIPE before it became public knowledge. That's the story according to the mamma.com CEO.
deepster 18y ago
As soon as I saw the article on another website, I ran to Hacker News...just to read the comments.
utsmokingaces 18y ago
Why the hell did he would invest in mamamamia is mind boggling.
jbm 18y ago
Damn, I posted in the wrong thread it seems. Mamma.com is a company with too much money and no vision - at least that's how they were when someone I knew was dealing with them. I don't know how an "insider" manages to not sell his shares as soon as the opportunity arises.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
joanou 18y ago
If he is found guilty, and he probably is, lock him up for years. And fine him $1B. Also, I am tired of this guy's pontificating.

84 points by nickb 18y ago

Interesting. I wonder if the key question will come down to how he came across the information. From what I understand, it can only be considered insider trading if it's based on non-public information. Perhaps Mark based his decision on something public that just hadn't really hit most people's radar yet? Or perhaps he's 100% guilty and got caught red-handed.

henning 18y ago
The text of the complaint states: "Despite agreeing in June 2004 to keep material, non-public information about an impending stock offering by Mamma.com Inc. confidential, Cuban sold his entire stake in the company - 600,000 shares - prior to the public announcement of the offering." If that claim is true, he acted on non-public information.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  Not necessarily...perhaps someone else failed to keep the information confidential, in which case it would seem that Cuban would be legally free to sell, correct? Once the news breaks, it's no longer non-public information, right?
  - soldarnal 18y ago
    It seems likely that the information wasn't already public knowledge or the stock's price would have dropped in advance of the public statement. We've seen this year how fickle the markets can be to public "knowledge" such as when United declared bankruptcy or when Steve Jobs had a heart attack.
- swilliams 18y ago
  I'm a financial trading luddite, so bear with me, but what happens when you do come across some private information that leads you to believe your stock will tumble? Grit your teeth and wait for the knowledge to go public before selling?
  - sachinag 18y ago
    I am a financial advisor, but I am not your financial advisor, and this is not financial advice and should not be construed as such. The answer to your question is yes. Longer answer: if you have material, non-public information (either first hand or through hearsay), you may not trade on it.
    - Retric 18y ago
      Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this depends on what your relationship to the company is. If you overhear the CEO talking to someone then you can sell if the CEO is talking to you then you can't. (Then again if you overhear something then it's more likely for you to get away with it so YMMV.)
      - sachinag 18y ago
        You're wrong. It doesn't matter how you hear it - or what your relationship is. If it's material and non-public, you can't trade on it. There were people who were hanging out at financial printers to find out material, non-public information, which they would then trade on. There's no relationship whatsoever there, but it's insider trading.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        No, that's just harder to prove, but just as illegal. Given that, if you're in a position to overhear the CEO, you're probably already governed by a stricter set of rules than the guy on the bus.
  - henning 18y ago
    Generally if you just "stumble" across confidential, non-public information without warning in advance (the way the CEO of Momma.com apparently told Cuban that he was going to tell him something confidential), someone has probably broken the law or breached a contract or something.

krschultz 18y ago

So now can we all agree to stop up voting his pseudo economic theories and investing advice? The first rule of investing - don't get arrested.

condor 18y ago
Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypocrite.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  It's also possible that he's innocent.
  - nadim 18y ago
    My understanding of the SEC has evolved since I just finished the Snowball Warren Buffet book (http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/dp/0553805096 http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/...). There is a section that discusses his run in with the SEC and there is a behind the scenes discussion before charges are pressed (in WB's case, not pressed). I think Cuban has already had a chance to defend himself behind the scenes, and despite this the SEC is still deciding to prosecute. This has example written all over it. Read the statement of facts in the PDF as well: (http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf). After reading it, chances seem slim that he's innocent.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      Aside from the timing of the trade and the fact that the calls took place, everything in that report is based on the word of the CEO of Mamma.com. I honestly don't know if that matters, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. But if it does matter, if the line between legal and illegal is whether the other party told you that you were receiving private information, then it's pretty shitty that you could be found guilty based only on that other party's say-so, don't you think?

oqtol 18y ago

Just saw link at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html

vaksel 18y ago

Cuban is 50? WTF dude looks like he is 35-40 tops. Also look at how efficient our government is...you break a law and it takes them 4 years to investigate it

fallentimes 18y ago
He lost 50 lbs participating in Dancing with the Stars.
henning 18y ago
Where does it state they've been actively investigating this since the event occurred? Do you think the SEC is like Yoda and feels a disturbance in the Force when someone engages in insider trading?
- vaksel 18y ago
  They probably flagged it during the quarter following the transaction. And if they haven't started actively investigating it right away, that seems even worse somehow
  - henning 18y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised to hear a government agency is inefficient, but I hope idle speculation doesn't become a substitute for facts around here.
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  Historically regulators (such as the SEC and FSA in the UK) have had to look at the data after the fact to search for evidence of insider trading. They are in the midst of adopting technologies that will allow them to monitor in real time, and potentially even stop the trades (though I'm not sure it would have help in this case). Apama is helping do this in the UK: http://apama.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_financial_s.html http://apama.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/the_financial_s.h... http://www.progress.com/apama/index.ssp http://www.progress.com/apama/index.ssp Disclaimer: I used to work for these guys, but back in 2000 when the plan was to become a location-aware social web service (like loopt)

oldgregg 18y ago

I would probably have more sympathy if he wasn't such a blowhard.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
I can't help but wonder if his sound advice for the average Joe not to play the market attracted the ire of the Wall Street dons who need the ponzi machine to keep running.
sdfx 18y ago
More sympathy for a guy who allegedly screwed the rest of the shareholders and broke the law?
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Interesting quote from Cuban's blog a few years ago (also noted by TC): "I had purchased stock in Mamma.com in hope that it could be an up and coming search engine. I thought I had done some level of due diligence. Talked to the company management. Talked to some employees who worked in sales. Read the SEC Filings. I knew that they had a checkered past and had been linked to stock promoter Irving Kott, and that their law firm still handled some of Kotts business, but the CEO, Chairman, lawyers all said that things were reformed and the company was focused on its business. Then the company did a PIPE financing. Im [sic] not going to discuss the good or bad of PIPE financing other than to say that to me its a huge red flag and I dont [sic] want to own stock in companies that use this method of financing . Why? Because I dont [sic] like the idea of selling in a private placement, stock for less than the market price, and then to make matters worse, pushing the price lower with the issuance of warrants.So I sold the stock." My take is that the company was about to do some bush league shit (which is what PIPE financings often are) and he didn't like it. Because he didn't like it, he sold his shares and wasn't very secret about it. Seems reasonable to me. Regardless, I'd like to read more facts. Unfortunately, "law" isn't always about "right" or "wrong".
  - sdfx 18y ago
    Of course he is allowed to sell the stocks if he wants to. But if he knew more than the other shareholders and sold because he knew the stock would plummet, it's neither lawful nor "right". According to the article, he knew he was not allowed to sell his stake. Maybe he was upset and was not thinking straight, but if the events happened as depicted in the article, there is no other way to describe this than "wrong".

crabapple 18y ago

haha insider trading is like copying assignment answers in college...its not 5% of potential insiders who are doing it...its 5% potential insiders who AREN'T doing it. its like driving in the carpool lane by yourself...now and then the cops throw a $500 fine at someone during rush hour to deter others from abusing the rules, but the reality is that the other 22 hours a day you can get away with it, and countless people do

sachinag 18y ago
Really? Do you have stats to back this up? Cause I'll tell you that there's so much more money to be made in legal ways that the benefits of insider trading, coupled with the fact that the SEC loves to make examples of people, that insider trading is very rare nowadays. Everything is logged electronically. (I'm sorry, but this is the sort of "the rich and powerful get away with murder" crap that makes me want to smack a bitch.)
- fallentimes 18y ago
  They like to make examples of people, but they also settle a lot, don't have adequate resources and are undermanned. It's a constant cat & mouse game except the SEC is the mouse. Sachin, you live in Chicago - venture over to the CBOT or talk to some of your friends that work there. While the OP's post is certainly an exaggeration, the rich & connected have access to privy information. This: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/good_news_our_s.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02... Is not a coincidence.
  - sachinag 18y ago
    Dan, I agree - but to say that "everyone's doing it" is crazy. It's easier to trade on material, non-public information if you're exposed to it on a regular basis because your patterns aren't readily apparent. That said, there are a lot of people who will trade on rumors that they consider "inside information" that things don't work out as well as you'd think they would. Look at the volatility in stocks right before earnings announcements. It's hysterical.

fallentimes 18y ago

Probably the least surprising news of the year, and I love Mark Cuban. Techcrunch has some more information: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark-cuban-slapped-with-insider-trading-charges-by-sec/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark-cuban-...

fallentimes 18y ago

I can't wait until they reveal their findings about Bear Stearn's insider trading. I heard it was going under one week before it happened; it was the worst kept secret on Wall Street.

steveplace 18y ago
I remember the day before the stock tanked. The volume vs. open interest on way OTM puts was absurd. Traders made several thousand percentages on their positions. Edit: picked up some historical data. 40k volume on front month 25 puts for .275 a contract. Finished next day at 4.25, and the day after (Monday) at 20.30. This one gives you about a 7400% gain.
sokoloff 18y ago
"Worst kept secret" approximates "public information" at the limit.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  I don't know. Does it? A relatively small number of people made a ton of money off of it while a relatively large number of people got burned.
  - sokoloff 18y ago
    I was assuming that your measure of badness was "the more people who know this secret, the worse kept it is". By that measure, the limit of a poorly kept secret is exactly public information. I'm having a hard time coming up with any other continuous measure of "badness" of secret keeping.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Me too. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

jmtame 18y ago

Cuban confuses me sometimes. 50% of the time, he claims that entrepreneurs should work hard, and he's ethical. The other 50% of the time, he's running around talking about how we should ban network neutrality because anyone who innovates on the Internet owes a fee to the guys who control the cables. Uhh WTF Cuban? Pick one side of the fence and stay on it. Insider trading? I know you've got more productive things to do than save some money by cutting a few corners. Stop preaching about ethics and hard work if you're going to pull this crap.

Eliezer 18y ago
Wait... you're saying... people can not be pure good or pure evil?
- jmtame 18y ago
  More like outspoken hypocrites. But polarizing the debate works too.

run4yourlives 18y ago

Sounds pretty open and shut to me. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Given this happened 4 years ago, they probably spent a good amount of time investigating just how he found out. There's a big difference in "was in a position to know" and "did/a reasonable person would have known".

nickb 18y ago

Full complaint: http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf

pistoriusp 18y ago

I'm very ignorant when it comes to things like this. So Mark invested in a company? He heard they were going to do a PIPE, he sold his shares, and the next day they fell 10%? How did he break the law? Def. Insider Trading: "Illegal trading by anyone considered an insider who has access to non-public information, and who attempts to profit from that knowledge." I understand that sentence, it makes sense to me, but I don't see how this is unlawful? What if you're working for a company that you're also a shareholder of and you get the "feeling" that the company is going to tank, so you sell... Is that illegal? Or are these different things.

sdfx 18y ago
knowing for a fact that the stocks will fall is different from a vague feeling. There's nothing wrong if he had based his decision solely on publicly available information, but if he knew more than the next guy, he's got an unfair advantage.
swilliams 18y ago
I think the issue here is that he heard they were going to do a PIPE before it became public knowledge. That's the story according to the mamma.com CEO.

deepster 18y ago

As soon as I saw the article on another website, I ran to Hacker News...just to read the comments.

utsmokingaces 18y ago

Why the hell did he would invest in mamamamia is mind boggling.

jbm 18y ago

Damn, I posted in the wrong thread it seems. Mamma.com is a company with too much money and no vision - at least that's how they were when someone I knew was dealing with them. I don't know how an "insider" manages to not sell his shares as soon as the opportunity arises.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

joanou 18y ago

If he is found guilty, and he probably is, lock him up for years. And fine him $1B. Also, I am tired of this guy's pontificating.