4 ms·
I desperately want to read Matt Levine’s take on this.
by thenewwazoo 3y ago
I desperately want to read Matt Levine’s take on this.
- gnicholas 3y agoOr the Court of Appeal's take. I was surprised that defendant's counsel didn't say commit to appealing the decision. I would think that a novel issue like this would be the perfect one to take up on appeal. Perhaps the issue is that the 9th Circuit is not as likely to reverse this decision, and the cost (in legal fees) of getting to the Supreme Court is relatively high in comparison to the penalties assessed.
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y agoMe too, because Matt Levine's take is usually that insider trading requires a duty to shareholders[1], not just non-public information. From that pov it sounds like this wouldn't be insider trading. Correct me if I misunderstood his normal position. [1] he also usually adds the explanation that insider trading is about theft, not fairness. Meaning that if you obtained information which is not public by means of your own research, that would not be insider trading, because you have no duty to the shareholders.