2 ms·
This is a massive loophole that has been exploited for decades. Here's how it plays out, from board rooms to halls of Congress: I breach my loyalty so that you
by gohrt 11y ago
This is a massive loophole that has been exploited for decades.
Here's how it plays out, from board rooms to halls of Congress: I breach my loyalty so that you make $1million profit. Your spouse buys my child a $50K car as a birthday present.
In the cloudy eyes of the law, I received no benefit from giving you the tip.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 11y agoIndeed. Dirks v. SEC touches on loophole-creation in at least one place: "The SEC argues that, if inside-trading liability does not exist when the information is transmitted for a proper purpose but is used for trading, it would be a rare situation when the parties could not fabricate some ostensibly legitimate business justification for transmitting the information. We think the SEC is unduly concerned." The last sentence is not immediately followed by any argument in support, so at this point I have no idea why the majority would dismiss the SEC's concern, which looks plausible to me. Perhaps they think it is not a relevant concern, but if so, why not say so? Irrelevance would seem to offer a stronger counter-argument than a disagreement over the magnitude of an effect. Perhaps they are uninterested in considering this issue because they have already decided the case on what they think are logical grounds.