4 ms·

There is precedent that even if you are in possession of info that will eventually become public, which you then trade on, you can still be convicted of insider

• sokoloff 3y ago
  > for using stock information in “Business Week” magazine before it was distributed to the public They traded on information that was non-public at the time of the trade. Why shouldn't that be treated exactly as trading on news of this merger before it was announced? (The merger was eventually going to be known to the public as well, right?)
• lokar 3y ago
  The printer has an obligation of trust. Someone overhearing your loud phone conversation in public does not.