4 ms·

from the article: if he looses "He can be forced to pay a fine" (but does not specific fine amount) and that he sold the shares "avoiding a $750,000 loss on the

from the article: if he looses "He can be forced to pay a fine" (but does not specific fine amount) and that he sold the shares "avoiding a $750,000 loss on the holding". I wonder how much, if he does end up loosing, the fine will be. My bet is that, even in the worst case, it will be less than the certain 750K loss he knew was coming.

jbigelow76 13y ago
They could try and make an example out of him purely for show purposes. Most banking execs appear to be getting away with (financial) murder, but Mark Cuban isn't juiced in with government like the bankers are. He may take a hit so the feds can make us, the unwashed masses, believe that even the billionaires will be held accountable.
- rayiner 13y ago
  If found liable (this is a civil action), at least it will be easy to articulate exactly what if anything he did wrong. Can you say that about the banking execs? The SEC doesn't avoid people who are "juiced in" to the government. It prosecutes cases it can win. Bankers spend a lot of time figuring out where the line is and staying on the right side of it. To the extent they do anything wrong, prosecuting them involves getting a jury to understand reserve ratios and risk models and other things they won't understand. But insider trading is easy to understand. He had this insider information, and did this trade that saved him $750k. I can explain that to grandma. Its easy. Which is why bankers don't get caught doing it, but less plugged in people do.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Cuban argued he was allowed to sell. And this judge agreed. So this still might be a gray area. But I am not a lawyer... or an inside trader.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Note I'm not saying he did anything wrong. What I mean is that if he did, it'll be easy to explain what it was he did wrong. It won't be something like "he should have classified these tax credits under this accounting rule you don't understand instead of this other accounting rule you don't understand."
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        My bad. I did not mean to imply you said he did anything wrong. What I meant was that if it is a gray area, even if he did do something wrong, it might not be so easy to explain it to grandma either.
- siegecraft 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure they're already trying to make an example out of him for show. If I remember correctly, this first popped up right after Cuban announced BailouthSleuth.com
- jbooth 13y ago
  He's not only less connected, but a loudmouth, too. You can't have people just piping off, saying whatever they want.. what kind of example does that set?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I understand the desire to cheer for the loudmouth. I'm certainly rooting for him. But the real world is like high school. We're judged by our peers. If you're a loudmouth, you had better be extra careful because your peers won't give you the benefit of the doubt. This is a rule of the physics of society.
selmnoo 13y ago
(You mean 'losing' not 'loosing', please fix comment so I can delete this comment :))
sokoloff 13y ago
Disgorgement of increased profits (or reduced) losses is a typical civil remedy offered by the SEC in such cases. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 78u-2(e) and 78u-3(e). 78u-2(e): Authority to enter order requiring accounting and disgorgement: "In any proceeding in which the Commission or the appropriate regulatory agency may impose a penalty under this section, the Commission or the appropriate regulatory agency may enter an order requiring accounting and disgorgement, including reasonable interest. The Commission is authorized to adopt rules, regulations, and orders concerning payments to investors, rates of interest, periods of accrual, and such other matters as it deems appropriate to implement this subsection." 78u-3(e) is similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement_(law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement_(law) The (presumed) intent is to remove the incentive for others to do this, which a fixed or capped fine would not accomplish (as you observed).

jbigelow76 13y ago

They could try and make an example out of him purely for show purposes. Most banking execs appear to be getting away with (financial) murder, but Mark Cuban isn't juiced in with government like the bankers are. He may take a hit so the feds can make us, the unwashed masses, believe that even the billionaires will be held accountable.

rayiner 13y ago
If found liable (this is a civil action), at least it will be easy to articulate exactly what if anything he did wrong. Can you say that about the banking execs? The SEC doesn't avoid people who are "juiced in" to the government. It prosecutes cases it can win. Bankers spend a lot of time figuring out where the line is and staying on the right side of it. To the extent they do anything wrong, prosecuting them involves getting a jury to understand reserve ratios and risk models and other things they won't understand. But insider trading is easy to understand. He had this insider information, and did this trade that saved him $750k. I can explain that to grandma. Its easy. Which is why bankers don't get caught doing it, but less plugged in people do.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Cuban argued he was allowed to sell. And this judge agreed. So this still might be a gray area. But I am not a lawyer... or an inside trader.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Note I'm not saying he did anything wrong. What I mean is that if he did, it'll be easy to explain what it was he did wrong. It won't be something like "he should have classified these tax credits under this accounting rule you don't understand instead of this other accounting rule you don't understand."
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      My bad. I did not mean to imply you said he did anything wrong. What I meant was that if it is a gray area, even if he did do something wrong, it might not be so easy to explain it to grandma either.
siegecraft 13y ago
I'm pretty sure they're already trying to make an example out of him for show. If I remember correctly, this first popped up right after Cuban announced BailouthSleuth.com
jbooth 13y ago
He's not only less connected, but a loudmouth, too. You can't have people just piping off, saying whatever they want.. what kind of example does that set?
- rayiner 13y ago
  I understand the desire to cheer for the loudmouth. I'm certainly rooting for him. But the real world is like high school. We're judged by our peers. If you're a loudmouth, you had better be extra careful because your peers won't give you the benefit of the doubt. This is a rule of the physics of society.

selmnoo 13y ago

(You mean 'losing' not 'loosing', please fix comment so I can delete this comment :))

sokoloff 13y ago

Disgorgement of increased profits (or reduced) losses is a typical civil remedy offered by the SEC in such cases. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 78u-2(e) and 78u-3(e). 78u-2(e): Authority to enter order requiring accounting and disgorgement: "In any proceeding in which the Commission or the appropriate regulatory agency may impose a penalty under this section, the Commission or the appropriate regulatory agency may enter an order requiring accounting and disgorgement, including reasonable interest. The Commission is authorized to adopt rules, regulations, and orders concerning payments to investors, rates of interest, periods of accrual, and such other matters as it deems appropriate to implement this subsection." 78u-3(e) is similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement_(law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgorgement_(law) The (presumed) intent is to remove the incentive for others to do this, which a fixed or capped fine would not accomplish (as you observed).