Con_Alma;827909 wrote:...so it's only illegal if it can be proven?

I thought you can only be convicted if it was proven.

Semantics.

O-Trap;827907 wrote:I would think this thread could serve as evidence of some sort, could it not? Court order for Justin to turn over all IP history and info on user j_crazy seems like it could be particularly damning if it was posted from a work computer.

I suppose. It'd be a lot of work for the SEC to go after a minor shareholder with evidence from an internet forum.

With that said, there's a zero percent chance I ever give out any insider information to anyone.

sleeper;828044 wrote:Semantics.

Maybe, but it was those semantics I was inquiring about.

Con_Alma;828049 wrote:Maybe, be it was those semantics I was inquiring about.

I mean technically not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign is illegal, but if there is no one of legal authority around to witness it, then it really doesn't matter.

LJ;828035 wrote:J_crazy is one of those. We are not.

We received information from the "tippee". In other words, the duty of trust does not exist at this level.

Are you sure about that??

I thought that any buying or selling of a security by someone who has been exposed to material, nonpublic information about the security can be considered insider trading. My understanding was that the new rulings were not prejudiced with regard to origination of information but rather the fact that material information that was not available to all was relied upon.

Con_Alma;828063 wrote:Are you sure about that??

I thought that any buying or selling of a security by someone who has been exposed to material, nonpublic information about the security can be considered insider trading. My understanding was that the new rulings were not prejudiced with regard to origination of information but rather the fact that material information that was not available to all was relied upon.

There is no duty of trust on information provided by a 3rd party on an anonymous website.

So, yes, I am sure of that.

hoops23;828033 wrote:Does anybody really give a shit?

I SURE AS HELL DO!!!!!!

Just kidding, yo.

sleeper;828053 wrote:I mean technically not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign is illegal, but if there is no one of legal authority around to witness it, then it really doesn't matter.

I completely understand your explanation and have not disagreed with anything you have posted. I'm not sure you are understanding mine, however.

My question didn't relate to impact or if it "matters". My question was regarding the legality.

Maybe it will help if I use your stop sign example. Is it illegal to proceed through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop, even if no one is around to witness it? Your answer that it was illegal is what I was asking in relation to the trading of Microsoft stock.

...saw this on line & Microsoft stock only went down $ 0.13 cents a share!


Microsoft, Yell Group form advertising partnership
July 12, 2011 - 10:50PM
Ads by Google
Stocks Ready To Soar
www.OTCStockExchange.com

Penny Stocks Near Breakout Points Huge Profits, 90% Winners Join Free

Microsoft Corp. and U.K.-based marketing services provider Yell Group PLC are teaming up to provide online advertising and business services to small and medium-sized businesses, the companies said on Tuesday.

Financial terms were not disclosed.

Yell provides print and digital marketing services to more than 1.3 million customers across the U.S., U.K., Spain and Latin America. The companies said they are working together to offer search, mobile and local advertising products and services to small and medium businesses.


...oh well J_crazy, back to the oil rig!

Con_Alma;828068 wrote:Is it illegal to proceed through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop, even if no one is around to witness it?

Ah, the old "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" line of questioning. To which the answer is, obviously, potato.

LJ;828066 wrote:There is no duty of trust on information provided by a 3rd party on an anonymous website.

So, yes, I am sure of that.

The knowledge of the material information not being fairly made available to all is the concern.

"...Material information, about certain aspects of a company, that has not yet been made public but that will have at least a small impact on the company's share price once released. It is illegal for holders of material insider information to use the information - however it was received - to their advantage in trading stock. ..."

LJ;828066 wrote:There is no duty of trust on information provided by a 3rd party on an anonymous website.

So, yes, I am sure of that.

I think i'm covered too. just got a new cell phone and first thing this morning i got a text saying "shit, just got called into a meeting with the VP. apparently yellowbook just merged with microsoft." I have no clue who the person is that sent that to me. so if i were to act on that would i be covered?

Thug

j_crazy;828076 wrote:I think i'm covered too. just got a new cell phone and first thing this morning i got a text saying "****, just got called into a meeting with the VP. apparently yellowbook just merged with microsoft." I have no clue who the person is that sent that to me. so if i were to act on that would i be covered?

I personally say no, you are not covered. I think LJ has a different opinion.

http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch221.htm

Remarks by
Thomas C. Newkirk
Associate Director, Division of Enforcement


"...Analytically, the obligation [not to engage in insider trading] rests on two principal elements: first, the existence of a relationship giving access, directly or indirectly, to information intended to be available only for a corporate purpose and not for the personal benefit of anyone, and second, the inherent unfairness involved where a party takes advantage of such information knowing it is unavailable to those with whom he is dealing. In considering these elements under the broad language of the anti-fraud provisions we are not to be circumscribed by fine distinctions and rigid classifications. Thus, it is our task here to identify those persons who are in a special relationship with a company and privy to its internal affairs, and thereby suffer correlative duties in trading in its securities. Intimacy demands restraint lest the uninformed be exploited. ..."

"...Several years later in the case of SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., a federal circuit court supported the Commission's ruling in Cady, stating that anyone in possession of inside information is required either to disclose the information publicly or refrain from trading. The court expressed the view that no one should be allowed to trade with the benefit of inside information because it operates as a fraud all other buyers and sellers in the market.26 This was the broadest formulation of prohibited insider trading. ..."

j_crazy;828076 wrote:I think i'm covered too. just got a new cell phone and first thing this morning i got a text saying "shit, just got called into a meeting with the VP. apparently yellowbook just merged with microsoft." I have no clue who the person is that sent that to me. so if i were to act on that would i be covered?

Well, since MSFT is up a nickel, I don't think it's the crime of the century if you're selling.

Con_Alma;828087 wrote:"...Several years later in the case of SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., a federal circuit court supported the Commission's ruling in Cady, stating that anyone in possession of inside information is required either to disclose the information publicly or refrain from trading. The court expressed the view that no one should be allowed to trade with the benefit of inside information because it operates as a fraud all other buyers and sellers in the market.26 This was the broadest formulation of prohibited insider trading. ..."

Thanks for proving my point. He had information that was provided by an insider. The 3rd party then disclosed the information publicly on an anonymous website.

So, therefore, if any of us traded on that information, it would not have been insider trading.

LJ;828102 wrote:Thanks for proving my point. He had information that was provided by an insider. The 3rd party then disclosed the information publicly on an anonymous website.

So, therefore, if any of us traded on that information, it would not have been insider trading.

You're welcome. Just to make sure we are clear...as long as the information is publicly disclosed does it then become a legal trade.

It doesn't matter if you are a tertiary or secondary party. It doesn't matter if you are a 10% stake holder or director or corporate officer. It doesn't matter if you received the information from the "tippee".

If you receive information that has not been made public and you rely upon it to trade, it is an illegal action.

The public must be made aware of the same information.

Once the public becomes aware of the same information you may the legally trade.

Maybe that's what you meant earlier by a 3rd party on a public website not having duty of trust.