The CEO Mark Cuban spoke to doesn't recall what he said
blogmaverick.com
blogmaverick.com
1) Q- We spoke earlier about you were telling Mr. Cuban in words or substance : “I have confidential information for you”.
A- Right.
2) Q- Do you recall anything Mr. Cuban said in response or reply to that statement by you ?
A- No, I do not.
The SEC knows this-they have the transcript, yet they brought the case anyway. Why? Do they have a different statement from Mr. Faure ?
here's the way i look at it: Mr. Cuban wanted to save .0003% of his total net worth by dumping stock on an anonymous unsuspecting buyer who lost 10% of their investment amount in a 24 hour period because s/he did not have the inside information that Mark had and that buyer would most certainly not have bought the stock if s/he did.
it's lousy no matter how you slice it or dice it.
Example: Angelo Mozilo dumped 400 Million dollars of CFC stock onto the market. He knew the shit that was going on... where's the SEC?
But there are much bigger fish to fry here, but the SEC and CTFC have neither the means nor the competency to do something of value. Instead they go after this petty bullshit which seems to be politically motivated.
Cuban's sale of stock added correct information to the markets. As an outside investor, Cuban had no duty of trust to the other investors, unlike the CEO, who violated his fiduciary duty by disclosing confidential information to an outside investor without a written non-disclosure agreement.
Just what, exactly, does Mark Cuban have to do with hackers or HN? Why is this stuff getting voted up? Not to mention, even just from a news standpoint these articles have very little substance to them. Can we give this a rest, please?
Those of us who are interested in Mark Cuban and insider trading can go to his blog on our own without having these off topic posts plastered all over the front page.
Just because it's not relevant to you, doesn't mean it isn't interesting and relevant to the rest of us. If no one found it interesting, then it wouldn't get voted up.
Great... I've got the hacker equivalent of Britney Spears-type celebrity news to look forward to for the next few months.
127.0.0.1 news.ycombinator.com
Is an article supposed to be relevant to hackers or entrepreneurs simply because it is written by an angel investor? By this logic, why not just automatically post every article Cuban has ever written?
I'm not going to waste my time with any conspiracy theories, but I do think insider trading is kind of a bullshit crime in many cases. Only an idiot would fail to act on a tip that happens to be passed to him whether it is inside information or not. No one is going to sit idly and watch $750,000 dissolve. Of course, it's a totally different story when it's a deliberate attempt to acquire and profit from information unavailable to other investors.
If I remember correctly, they went after Martha Stewart because she was the CEO of a publicly traded company and also once had a stockbroker license. In other words, she definitely knew better and should have handled the situation differently. Is or was Mark Cuban ever an executive for a publicly traded company?
Cuban also funds bailoutsleuth.com which is supposed to track the government's use of the $700 billion.
You can't expect to put yourself in such a visible position of moral status and think that others won't try their hardest to bring you down. I'm sure Cuban knows that and hopefully he keeps his slate clean.
The involvement of Mr. Cuban is just coincidental :).
"So the allegation in paragraph 14 of the SEC’s Complaint that “Cuban agreed that he would keep whatever information the CEO intended to share with him confidential” is untrue? If so, the SEC would be in violation of FRCP 11(b)(3). This is especially true since a duty of confidentiality is an essential element of either a 17(a) or 10(b) claim under the Exchange Act"
www.newmogul.com