What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Relaxxation, on 11/19/2008, -17/+89I hope he's innocent and makes them look stupid.
- damian7, on 11/19/2008, -11/+10***** IT, WILL DO IT LIVE!
- benologist, on 11/19/2008, -0/+12It sounds like he's guilty but they found a loophole in that there's no evidence of an agreement to keep the info confidential.
-----------
As far as the SEC is concerned, insider trading occurs whenever anybody trades shares based on information about a company that is not yet public.
It appears that is exactly what Cuban did. But there is also a rule that would seem to apply here that it is only insider trading if the “person agrees to maintain information in confidence.” Judging from the questions Cuban’s lawyers asked the Mamma.com CEO at his deposition, his argument will likely be that he never made such an agreement. - refisawanker, on 11/19/2008, -13/+8Yeah. Because what we really need is another billionaire gaming the system and using his massive resources to get away with breaking rules and embarassing the regulator who protects the average investor.
Great plan.- HentaiJeff, on 11/20/2008, -1/+6trouble is cuban's not another billionaire, he still knows how it is to be poor/middle classed. just look at some of the events he throws at the AAC sometime.
- barfooz, on 11/20/2008, -8/+4You're going to get dugg down but you're right. Money is power, power to make your own rules, and power to get out of trouble. It is irrelevant whether he is in touch with the "common man". He has the resources to bend the rules and get his way. Not sure why Diggers support him so much, but I'm with you.
- barfooz, on 11/20/2008, -9/+5So you hope that the institution that is tasked with ensuring that our markets are fair and honest is shown to be unfair and dishonest? How is that a good outcome? I hope that they are shown to be correct, because I want allegations of insider trading to be serious, fair and not politically driven.
- tech42er, on 11/20/2008, -1/+6"So you hope that the institution that is tasked with ensuring that our markets are fair and honest is shown to be unfair and dishonest?"
Because they are. If they are unfair and dishonest, don't you want them to be called on it, so they can go back to ensuring our markets are fair and honest and all allegations of insider trading to be serious, fair, and not politically driven? You seem to be conflating "what the SEC should do" with "what should be revealed about what the SEC's doing". - DrPaul2008, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I can't wait for the day when you naive statists finally get this.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGo ... - ramiro, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1This institution you speak of has failed since its inception to ensure that our markets are "fair and honest".
All the SEC does is to go after someone who sold his/her shares because he/she knew it would go down - something anyone in their right mind would do.
- tech42er, on 11/20/2008, -1/+6"So you hope that the institution that is tasked with ensuring that our markets are fair and honest is shown to be unfair and dishonest?"
- Austin179, on 11/19/2008, -13/+51I never got the whole "insider trading" thing. If a buddy calls me and says "my company is going to have massive layoffs tomorrow," and I sit still and lose money, I'm screwed. If I sell stock I have in the company, I could get arrested? So I'm not supposed to have friends in high places? I must have this all wrong, someone please explain what "insider trading' really means.
- Relaxxation, on 11/19/2008, -1/+17It's more of a conflict of interest thing which tends to be frowned upon.
- 3Den, on 11/19/2008, -0/+18From wikipedia... as this seems to explain it better than I can:
Definition of "insider"
In the United States, for mandatory reporting purposes, corporate insiders are defined as a company's officers, directors and any beneficial owners of more than ten percent of a class of the company's equity securities. Trades made by these types of insiders in the company's own stock, based on material non-public information, are considered to be fraudulent since the insiders are violating the trust or the fiduciary duty that they owe to the shareholders. The corporate insider, simply by accepting employment, has made a contract with the shareholders to put the shareholders' interests before their own, in matters related to the corporation. When the insider buys or sells based upon company owned information, he is violating his contract with the shareholders.
For example, illegal insider trading would occur if the chief executive officer of Company A learned (prior to a public announcement) that Company A will be taken over, and bought shares in Company A knowing that the share price would likely rise.
In the United States and many other jurisdictions, however, "insiders" are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned, but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust. This duty may be imputed; for example, in many jurisdictions, in cases of where the a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend and the friend violates a duty to the company if he or she trades on the basis of this information. - odigity, on 11/19/2008, -14/+40Insider trading is a legal weapon that the elites use on those that they don't like. Insider trading is a normal day to day part of life for them - it's how Washington operates. But if you ever piss someone important off, then they'll make a case out of it.
Honestly, the idea of trying to make it a crime to make informed financial decisions is as stupid as making it a crime to sing Happy Birthday around a campfire.- TimDigg, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Which AOL could since they own the happy birthday song...http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
- dusanmal, on 11/19/2008, -7/+8It is not used by elites - it is used to prevent elite groups from forming and secretly informing each other while leaving the public exposed to all the risk.
- RidesAPaleHorse, on 11/19/2008, -2/+9How disgusting is it that a tune written in 1893 still has a valid copyright?
- odigity, on 11/20/2008, -1/+6@dusanma - There's no nice way to say this - you're naive.
- TimDigg, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Which AOL could since they own the happy birthday song...http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
- ternaryworks, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5It needs to be made clear that the information is "confidential" which is Cuban's hopeful escape, that he didn't know. If it is confidential, then you can't act on it until it's made public.
- TinternAbbot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1That's actually not true. It doesn't need to be clear.
- GODdestroyer, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2What a frustrating game.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/19/2008, -2/+10If people in-the-know were able to legally buy and sell stocks on insider information, regular old investors (like you) would be left out in the cold each and every time. Investing would be impossible without being an insider, or at least being privy to insider information, and people would, by and large, stop investing. That's what's wrong with it.
- fitzfan, on 11/19/2008, -1/+1"massive lay offs" would probably be a positive for the stock price because it reduces costs. Better example is your friend tells you they are filing for bankruptcy.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 11/20/2008, -2/+1"So I'm not supposed to have friends in high places?"
No, you can have friends in high places, you just can't use non-public info they tell you to profit (or avoid loss). - barfooz, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2If you have knowledge that is not publically available and you trade based on that information, it's insider trading. I don't think it's all that complicated. Ask a lawyer when in a gray area.
- 3Den, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1It's more complicated than that.
Non-public information is fine, unless it came from an insider.. an insider being someone who is supposed to keep those facts under wraps as part of their job.
If you just did hard research, and figured out something the public doesn't yet know, that's perfectly fine.
- 3Den, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1It's more complicated than that.
- tech42er, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Well, yes. The notion that you're supposed to make trades based on what you know but not EVERYTHING you know is ludicrous. On the other hand, what's the alternative? I'm a libertarian so I'm in favor of getting rid of insider trading laws, but I realize this won't happen in practice, because people will complain about "insiders" making money fraudulently, and people WOULD take advantage of looser laws. So you're in a situation where the law is fundamentally flawed but the alternatives really aren't much better.
- 3Den, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1Okay - the point is you shouldn't know.
Your buddy isn't allowed to trade at will (he can schedule trades ahead of time, etc, but he can't buy and sell on a whim because he's an insider.).
For him to use this privileged position to do trades, directly or indirectly, breaches his fudiciary duty to the existing shareholders who employ him.
It necessarily follows that this rule does no good if your buddy is allowed to call up whoever he wants, feed them the informatino he would LIKE to act on but can't, and escape the rule of law.. tha'ts why it's also illegal for you to do it.
- 3Den, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1Okay - the point is you shouldn't know.
- TinternAbbot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1The theory is that you take advantage of the person to whom you are selling by acting on information to which he is not privy. It seems stupid, but that's what the law is about.
- syumbul, on 11/19/2008, -7/+19I see a Martha Stewart
- ralphthemagi, on 11/19/2008, -1/+0They've hit him with civil charges, not criminal.
- fitzfan, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Martha only got in trouble because she lied about it.
- DrPaul2008, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2 ...
- mareln72, on 11/19/2008, -18/+8Its time to bring him down a peg or two or three.A case of money corrupting.
- kemp34, on 11/19/2008, -2/+13This is a politically motivated attack.
- uknowwhoibe, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2*could be*
Very likely, but not certainly. - kemp34, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1*IMEO
- uknowwhoibe, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2*could be*
- kemp34, on 11/19/2008, -2/+13This is a politically motivated attack.
- RealmDown, on 11/19/2008, -4/+55The SEC should stick with football.
- badqat, on 11/19/2008, -2/+22Only the SEC hasn't alleged any CRIME - this is entirely a civil matter, for now at least. As to if he'll become the next Martha Stewart...stay tuned.
- atbnet, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5Martha Stewart went to prison because she lied.
- cyrusuncc, on 11/19/2008, -2/+2I hope it's like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrmuvPbVE-g - RyanODSJU, on 11/19/2008, -3/+4BUSHED
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311812,00.html - RyanODSJU, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6Also-
http://digg.com/people/SEC_Employee_Accused_Cuban_ ... - kemp34, on 11/19/2008, -5/+47I guess the Feds didn't like him starting a website that was trying to keep an eye on the bail out activity.
http://bailoutsleuth.com/- cadebbie, on 11/19/2008, -0/+13I thought the exact same thing when I first heard this news.
- sheeplescareme, on 11/20/2008, -0/+10that and his involvement in that aj flick "loose change." he had originally been in talks to finance it, but backed out after people went bananas.
- cadebbie, on 11/19/2008, -0/+13I thought the exact same thing when I first heard this news.
- specialknfnd, on 11/19/2008, -0/+16He'll probably do ok until he gets to Florida...their defense is pretty dang good
- bstew22, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6it'll come down to the last play... and they'll have to review it, and review it, and review it, and wait...let's recount the score again, and again.....
- Lane, on 11/19/2008, -5/+10Honestly whats a loss under a mill to Cuban? Why the hell would he risk jail time? I don't buy it... On the other hand the time he has to waste to go through the hassle and the hoops he has to jump through to get this all taken care of in all likelihood isn't worth his time. Seems like extortion. Go government go!
- dalittle, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4This is about power. It looks like Cuban pissed off someone in the government who is now abusing their power by selectively prosecuting something 4 years old.
- jba68, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Yea, his crime was criticizing GW. The lead attorney questioned why Cuban would attack such a patriot, when Cuban funded Redacted
- ohcoaster, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1a million dollar loss won't ruin him and is a relatively small amount to him, but a million dollars is still a million dollars.
- dalittle, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4This is about power. It looks like Cuban pissed off someone in the government who is now abusing their power by selectively prosecuting something 4 years old.
- hawksfan03, on 11/19/2008, -1/+20this money is 1/16th of 1% of mark cubans net worth. I don't think he sold his shares thinking oh good, i'm glad I didn't lose that 1/16th of 1% of my money.
$125 is 1/16th of 1% of $200,000
This is ridiculous Cuban will spend any amount of money for the truth to get out there. Should be good for the US economy.- dusanmal, on 11/19/2008, -5/+3You forgot Martha Stewart who did the same for 1/20th of the money (40000 $). Rich are greedy. And think they can get away with anything. Hopefully some jail time to bring him to the ground, same as Martha.
- fitzfan, on 11/19/2008, -1/+7Once again, Martha only got criminal charges for lying about it.
- dusanmal, on 11/19/2008, -5/+3You forgot Martha Stewart who did the same for 1/20th of the money (40000 $). Rich are greedy. And think they can get away with anything. Hopefully some jail time to bring him to the ground, same as Martha.
- BoonTobias, on 11/19/2008, -14/+4***** mark cuban and his idiot brother who spams digg all day
- Evildudetx, on 11/19/2008, -11/+2He is going to get bitch slapped and wind up in a cell with bubba.
- Gibsonjunk, on 11/19/2008, -22/+0
- tykwondingo, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5go away.
- AsylumAleikum, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4I would like Mark Cuban to fight Brock Lesnar in public.
- sumeetg, on 11/19/2008, -6/+16***** the SEC
- epadafunk, on 11/19/2008, -7/+10why does anyone care about mark cuban, he's just another rich person.
- mushoo, on 11/19/2008, -9/+2The same reason your average right-wing-talk radio listener vehemently defends tax cuts for the rich and wants to do away with the "death tax."
- adambadam, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11I would argue he is not just another rich person. Sure he is rich, and perhaps he is an ***** though I admire that he follows his passions. In the NBA he brought a new life and a new dynamic to the sport that had been missing from owners in recent years in all professional sports. This is fundamentally described as a desire to win. He treats his players well and he treats his fans well and he gives back to his community.
- uknowwhoibe, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5He also has a great story behind him. Go read about his life as a computer salesman. It's a great read.
- tech42er, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Since he's rich, we should let him be railroaded by the SEC? How about just being in favor of the truth, innocent until proven guilty and all that BS, right? Seriously, take a chill pill with the militant populism.
- samimnot, on 11/19/2008, -1/+12Cuban in all his glory ;-) this guy just loves being in the Lime Light. He'll probably write off his Legal Fees as Advertising Expenses.
- drifter, on 11/19/2008, -6/+9I don't get many Digg users.
MAny are saying how it is such a small amount of Mark Cuban's wealth, therefore he wouldn't do it.
Also many Diggers, said that T. Boone Pickens is so rich therefore doesn't need more money.
Do you guys seriously think rich people don't want to become richer? There's something called greed.- understudy, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Who would risk going to jail to save 1% of their wealth?
_
- understudy, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Who would risk going to jail to save 1% of their wealth?
- RomeyRome, on 11/19/2008, -8/+10I see nothing wrong with insider trading. Nobody ever had a friend help them get a good deal?
- Sabre24q7, on 11/19/2008, -14/+7I hope he's guilty, what a douchebag
- chrism123, on 11/19/2008, -4/+11FTA
According to an e-mail obtained by Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times, an SEC staffer unaffiliated with this investigation harangued Cuban for being “unpatriotic” because he funded the conspiracy-theory documentary Loose Change, which was critical of the Bush White House.
Cuban’s lawyers might argue that this lawsuit is politically motivated retribution against Cuban in the dying days of the Bush administration. - refisawanker, on 11/19/2008, -7/+9Wow. Digg ignorance at it's finest. They bitch about CEO's spending 50K on a private jet, but Cuban screwing the little guy for person gain is okay?
I've figured it out.
Anyone who entertains the Diggers == Good.
Those who bore the audience the Diggers == bad.
Actions and ethics don't mean a thing.- PxCxG, on 11/19/2008, -2/+3You expected rational behavior from diggers?
- plibb, on 11/19/2008, -7/+9He's an ass, who cares.
- yoyoadrian, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6at least loose change will get some more coverage. how many times do you guys want to bet the media says funded "the conspiracy theory" documentary Loose Change ? lets all pledge to describe to the media and other folks as funded the "theory of Mass Murder" documentary Loose Change!
- noddyxoi, on 11/19/2008, -3/+4Maybe he is being framed because back then he offered to produce loose change, the film that would expose 911 as an inside job.
- deema1, on 11/20/2008, -4/+2I'll preface this by saying I think Cuban is a complete and total jagoff, but here's my unbiased opinion. While some can argue that this is politically motivated it's more than likely that it's not. Those who are outspoken and controversial often take advantage of that public perception by playing the martyr and laying blame on others for their missteps. It is never their fault.
The reason the SEC is doing this is probably not because of his political statements. Very few take Cuban seriously, and if the government was in the business of ruining detractors they'd need to drum up charges on about 70% of the country. They're doing this because he painted a very easy target on himself and his prosecution would set an example to others who take advantage of the system.
His investments are fairly transparent and he's very outspoken about his affiliations. At the time, he was a big proponent of Mamma.com. It is very easy to determine if and when Mamma management was soliciting top clients to buy pieces of their secondary offering through interviews with other investors and employees. It is also also easy to determine when the sales were made by Cuban, as those records must be handed over to prosecutors. Therefore the question becomes, why would Mark Cuban go from loving and fully supporting the company so much that he would have 600,000 shares, to completely dumping the stock a day or two later, just ahead of a major announcement capable of taking a huge piece off the stock? Obviously because he learned of the news and it changed his mind. Most insider traders do what Cuban did because they assume they won't get caught since they're acting as a single individual and most of these calls are handled in private and aren't recorded, so it's very difficult to prove what information was exchanged, how overt that information was, and how that information factored into one's previous predisposition.
The real question is whether or not the court will find him guilty because it's all speculation as to his motives. People may feel that he is lying but it's difficult to ascertain if that's the case without the facts as to how it was presented to him. The SEC letter that was sent probably won't help the prosecution's case at all either. - dfymarine, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Greed is good.......
-Gordon Gekko from "Wall Street" - laroche02, on 11/20/2008, -3/+5I'm surprised how many people think that insider trading should be legal. These rules are very important to help ordinary people trust the stock market.
The people who run these companies, who know their own company is sinking, could make hugh profits from selling their personal stock even though the other shareholders are holding theirs. Enron was guilty of other fraud, but as I recall, at least some of their people were unloading their shares in the final weeks. They apparently forgot to tell their coworkers, who lost their retirement savings.
If Joe Normal won't invest in the market, our economy would be more like it was in 1901.
I like my cellphone.- tech42er, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1So what? You make a judgement call based on whether or not the information was "really public" or not and ignore the VAST majority of times when people actually do make trades based on information only a few people know.
- vvaduva, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1You are surprised that morons in their 20s with entry-level jobs and no holdings and assets see nothing wrong with insider trading? Why oh why? What a surprise!
- le0pardess, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7It was insider trading when the 2 head crooks from the unfederal reserve and treasury dept. gave 10 billion taxpayer dollars to their "buddies" at goldman sachs.
These infidels should be in ***** jail.- SunathAlgeraan, on 11/20/2008, -1/+0Good afternoon. . .infidellllll.
- allfury, on 11/20/2008, -6/+3and mark cuban will be executed in public, metaphorically speaking. As much as I hate persecution, this ***** has been bucking for a fight for a long time. He's also an idiot, and btw, he is not a computer scientist, nor an engineer and is not a mogul.
He's a ***** tool who got lucky. - fatTJ, on 11/20/2008, -2/+2Ohh, so he's not buying a College Football team?
- understudy, on 11/20/2008, -3/+1So the administration who ignored evidence of an imminent 9/11, used a new brand of super-patriotism to intimidate, and screwed up the bailout is going after a man who is a 9/11 critic/truther, who the agency branded unpatriotic, and who is an outspoken bailout critic?
And there's nothing politically suspicious about that?
And Wesley Snipes' audit had nothing to do with his stance on the income tax?
And Elliot Spitzer's extramarital activities had nothing to do with his outspoken criticism of the predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders?
And Don Siegleman?
US Attorneys?
Maybe he is guilty (after all, Wesley Snipes didn't pay his taxes, and Spitzer did hire a prostitute), but you have to at least acknowledge that it MIGHT have some political motivations.
_ - seeingright, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Who cares what Mark Cuban does? The guy makes me sick.. just a elite snob that wants the world to take notice of him. He lost me when he publicly financed the conspiracy theory documentary on Bush.. now he is criticizing the Obama transition team about not having any entrepreneurs on the team.. again, who gives a ***** about what Cuban wants.. he is a jerk. No matter what happens he will just buy his way out of trouble or write the whole thing off as a business expense!
- EMFK, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1Poor Mark Cuban. Guess those Cubbies fans are going to have to wait another year after all. :-)
- joeanon, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Sounds like a public, last ditch effort, stunt.
If he was innocent, he would have taken his lawyers advice.
These are the actions of a more desperate man. - sultanknish, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1send the bastard to jail
- ramiro, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Cuban endorsed this book: The Number, where the author criticizes the finance community, especially the finance media.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is