Another good to be king, Mark Cuban not guilty of insider trading

[Russ Smith]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jury-deliberations-begin-mark-cuban-054508854--spt.html

I've just never got this case. Cuban admits he got information of a pending stock offering that would dilute his stock, so he sold. But he says it wasn't insider trading because he didn't consider it to be non public information, and because he told the company he'd sell.

The CEO of the company says they informed Cuban, told him not to make it public, and Cuban conceded to them at the time he wished he could sell his stock first but he couldn't. He then did a few hours later saving himself 750K in paper losses when the stock went down.

The CEO of the company testified under oath(taped testimony) and the jury still says they didn't prove that Cuban traded on insider information?

There's got to be more to this case I never understood why it took so long it's such an obvious case of Insider Trading unless there's something that the jury is told or not told that we don't know?

Or is it really as simple as Cuban is so rich he can get away with it?

 

[LVG]

For what it's worth, the Feds had to prove 7 elements to support the Cause of Action for Insider Trading. Out of 7, according to the jury (I believe it was an interrogatory), the Feds proved two. Failing to prove 1 element is enough to acquit.

http://www.680news.com/2013/10/16/j...s-of-insider-trading-case-against-mark-cuban/

I haven followed the case, so I'll let you decide if the jury was in error or not.

Oh well, the judge could always set aside the verdict if he wanted.

 

[Russ Smith]

For what it's worth, the Feds had to prove 7 elements to support the Cause of Action for Insider Trading. Out of 7, according to the jury (I believe it was an interrogatory), the Feds proved two. Failing to prove 1 element is enough to acquit.

http://www.680news.com/2013/10/16/j...s-of-insider-trading-case-against-mark-cuban/

I haven followed the case, so I'll let you decide if the jury was in error or not.

Oh well, the judge could always set aside the verdict if he wanted.

yeah it has to be something like that where the burden of proof is simply tough to meet. On the surface everyone agrees it's insider trading except for Cuban and he himself admits he sold the stock because he was told they were about to do something dilutive to the stock price. He simply doesn't think that was "non public" so he thinks it was ok.

the company insists it was non public, they even told him do not make this public. That he expressed an interest in selling was told he couldn't, and then did so anyways.


With Cuban it's quite clear why he sold, to avoid the coming action that would dilute his stock, the only question then is was that allowed or not but apparently they couldn't prove it was.

Can't be as simple as he's Mark Cuban, because everyday people don't get access to that sort of information in the first place so it's ALWAYS someone like Mark Cuban.

 

[BigRedRage]

if the company tells him, is he supposed to act like they didnt and just lose the money?

 

[Russ Smith]

if the company tells him, is he supposed to act like they didnt and just lose the money?

By law yes. He was an insider, he wasn't allowed to trade on the information and the company said under oath, that they told him that. that he acknowledged it, said he wished he could sell but knew he couldn't. 2 hours later he sold.

The entire management of the company took large paper losses for the same reason.

 

[BigRedRage]

Gotcha.