Feds trying to flip insider trader against SAC

"Any prosecution of Mr. Cohen would most likely hinge on the cooperation of Mathew Martoma, the former SAC employee charged in the case. Mr. Bharara said in the charges that Mr. Martoma obtained secret data from a doctor about clinical trials for an Alzheimer’s drug being developed by the companies Elan and Wyeth. The information enabled SAC to avoid losses of almost $194 million on the stocks, which it sold and then bet against, reaping $83 million in profit — a total benefit to the firm of more than $276 million. SAC executed the trades shortly after Mr. Martoma e-mailed Mr. Cohen and said he needed to discuss something important."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/new-trading-case-casts-a-deeper-shadow-on-a-hedge-fund-mogul/

Best part:

"Dr. Gilman, 80, a neurologist at the University of Michigan medical school, was hired by Elan and Wyeth to monitor the trial’s safety, which gave him access to secret information about the results. SAC retained Dr. Gilman as a consultant and paid him about $108,000.

At first, Dr. Gilman’s reports on the trial’s progress were positive, and SAC built a position in the two drug makers worth approximately $700 million, according to prosecutors. But then, on July 17, 2008, Dr. Gilman told Mr. Martoma that there were problems with the drug, the government said.

A few days later, Mr. Martoma e-mailed Mr. Cohen that he needed to discuss something “important,” and the two then spoke for 20 minutes, according to court filings. Over the next four days, at Mr. Cohen’s direction, SAC Capital jettisoned its entire position in the two stocks and then placed a big negative bet on the drug makers, the government said.

On July 30, after disclosure of the poor trial results, shares of Elan and Wyeth sank. According to the prosecutors’ calculations, SAC would have lost about $194 million had it kept the stock; taking a short position instead generated profits of about $83 million."

 

What I dont get is: If SAC has the tightest anti insider trading compliance in place which they and some FoF claim that did their due diligence, why did this happen, and further how would the FED's build such a case? These trades would have been open and closed probe because of the super "compliance" at SAC.

Something really askew here and this may surprise people if you know what I mean ?

 

this is like martha stewart case , they bring the small fry to trial and prosecute and the banks dont go to trial, plead not guilty and pay a fine of 500k on cases in the billions,they just do a small conviction occasionally to make it look like they are working

 

Seems like the Feds only started to put any energy into insider trading cases against hedge funds post GFC. I suspect some famed stockpickers might have quite different reputations if they'd started seriously looking at hedge funds fifteen years earlier.