3 ms·
1. The texts are subject to copyright. You have to treat them as you would any other copyrighted text. 2. You can trade on the information in the capital marke
by pseingatl 13y ago
1. The texts are subject to copyright. You have to treat them as you would any other copyrighted text.
2. You can trade on the information in the capital markets. The information was disclosed to you inadvertently. You are not an insider, you did not conspire with anyone to to violate the law.
3. The physical papers still belong to the owner. You may have custody of them, but you do not own them.
With respect to trading, this is no different than walking down the street and hearing someone say that "Company X is a good buy."
4. You have a duty to return the documents, but you have no duty not to read them. In fact, you have to read them in order to be able to return them.
- ColinWright 13y agoThe better to understand your reply, I have a few questions: 1. Are you a lawyer? 2. If so, in what jurisdiction is your qualification valid? 3. What if the taxi in question is in Zurich, say? 4. Are you going to qualify your answer in any way, or is it absolute?
- mschuster91 13y agoIt 'd be best if you ask a real, qualified lawyer in the country you're resigning. In most countries though, you're under duty to return the documents to the owner ASAP, and you're eligible to some kind of compensation according to the value of the documents.
- pests 13y agoI don't think that is his main concern. In the original post he seems concerned about the legality of information learned, not so much document ownership or lost and found rights.
- PeterisP 13y agoEven so, the details that aren't supplied in the question (which jurisdiction exactly? what kind of information was it?) are more important than the few details that are listed (where the information was found, that those are printouts). If you want an useful answer, you need to tell more details to a relevant lawyer; currently this question can only get answers that are either useless or dangerous.
- rwallace 13y ago> 2. You can trade on the information in the capital markets. The information was disclosed to you inadvertently. Be careful of acting on that idea; just because something is morally reasonable doesn't make it legal. I heard of a case once where someone sold shares based on happening to see a factory on fire through an airplane window, and a court found it to be insider trading. Sure, maybe that case wasn't representative; I'm not a lawyer - but consult someone who is, before assuming that sort of thing is legal.
- Dylan16807 13y agohttp://fubarinc.blogspot.com/2013/08/inside-out-more-on-insider-trading.html http://fubarinc.blogspot.com/2013/08/inside-out-more-on-insi... That plane thing seems to have been an erroneous hypothetical.
- james1071 13y agoYou have not got a clue what you are talking about.
- chris_wot 13y agoYou can trade on the information in the capital markets. The information was disclosed to you inadvertently. You are not an insider, you did not conspire with anyone to to violate the law. Wrong, wrong, wrong! In SEC vs. Texas Gulf Sulfur Co., those who had access to information not available to the general public and who used it to their advantage were seen to be insiders. [1] In United States vs Carpenter, the judge stated that "It is well established, as a general proposition, that a person who acquires special knowledge or information by virtue of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with another is not free to exploit that knowledge or information for his own personal benefit but must account to his principal for any profits derived therefrom." [2] 1. http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations-keyed-to-klein/the-duties-of-officers-directors-and-other-insiders/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-texas-gulf-sulphur-co/2/ http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporations/corporations... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Court_decisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Court_decisions
- smalter 13y agoit appears to me that you're misunderstanding those cases. in texas gulf sulfur, the defendants were officers at the company. they were directors at texas gulf sulfur and they were trading on texas gulf sulfur stock. they have a fiduciary duty to the company that a stranger doesn't have. that's what the judge in carpenter is referring to. if you acquire the info by virtual of a fiduciary relationship, you aren't free to trade on that info. in texas gulf sulfur, they had the fiduciary relationship to the company because they were officers at that company. not so here.
- CamperBob2 13y agoSo I have a fiduciary relationship with some guy who was in too big a hurry to jump out of my taxi? Fascinating.