4 ms·

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/05

by 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?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- nadim 18y ago
  I'd say the timing is a pretty strong indicator, although you're right, this isn't the same as proof. "On June 29,2004, Cuban sold his remaining 590,000 Mamma.com shares during regular trading at an average cost per share of $13.2937. On June 29,2004, at 6:00 p.m. after the markets had closed, Mamma.com publicly announced the PIPE offering."
fallentimes 18y ago
Lester Munson gives his take: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3708545 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson...

by nadim 18y ago

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?

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
nadim 18y ago
I'd say the timing is a pretty strong indicator, although you're right, this isn't the same as proof. "On June 29,2004, Cuban sold his remaining 590,000 Mamma.com shares during regular trading at an average cost per share of $13.2937. On June 29,2004, at 6:00 p.m. after the markets had closed, Mamma.com publicly announced the PIPE offering."

fallentimes 18y ago

Lester Munson gives his take: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3708545 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson...