The complaint is fairly straightforward, and it seems he probably had the "heads up" prior to the sale of Atlas. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2016/comp-pr2016-189.pdf If the Atlas executives gave him a non-disclosure agreement to sign indicating he would not share the information or trade on it, then the SEC would have a much stronger case. Like the Bloomberg article mentioned, he's going to claim he never explicitly agreed to not trade on it. The SEC would have to see all of the trades pre/post sale of Atlas to determine exactly what he knew and when, then ask him to testify about the trades. Given he's invoking the 5th, that may not happen, unless someone testifies against him. The other paragraphs in the complaint about being late on disclosures probably gets him fined for failing to make timely SEC filings.
Aha. The case spells out clearly what he did and how he did it. The losers here were average investors and traders not privy to private information. I guess you're not a trader or an investor, otherwise you'd want him to go to jail.
[QUOTE="d08, post: 4333892, member: 113048" The losers here were average investors and traders not privy to private information. I guess you're not a trader or an investor, otherwise you'd want him to go to jail.[/QUOTE] "The losers here were average investors and traders not privy to private information." false. you should familiarize yourself with the counterargument for legalizing insider trading provided that on Fridays you open up your mind which I guess is usually closed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...nize-the-victims-of-current-law/#3e4be8c36d0c consider googling legalizing insider trading to enhance your seemingly lack of knowledge on the subject. based upon the entirety remark it is lucky for you that logic is not a prerequisite for being a successful trader or investor.
Again it sounds like you have an issue with the law, but conflate that onto SEC staff. It's a fine distinction I know, but here in the U.S. only congress gets to pass laws. Agency staff can't make up laws, only enforce those passed by congress and signed by the President. And the SEC has staff who are paid to do nothing but that. It's their job, not their ego. My local prosecutor's office has lost a few murder cases, some of which weren't very strong. That doesn't make them all about "ego", "empire building", or any other insult one may want to hurl at them. It makes them hard working people getting paid less than market rate for their skills but still doing the job they're being paid to do and doing the best they can. Your statements are much like the guy who berates the police officer for giving them a speeding ticket because you don't agree with the speed limit in that zone, and then thinking police are lazy "pigs" when you see one in a donut shop!
"The losers here were average investors and traders not privy to private information." false. you should familiarize yourself with the counterargument for legalizing insider trading provided that on Fridays you open up your mind which I guess is usually closed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...nize-the-victims-of-current-law/#3e4be8c36d0c consider googling legalizing insider trading to enhance your seemingly lack of knowledge on the subject. based upon the entirety remark it is lucky for you that logic is not a prerequisite for being a successful trader or investor.[/QUOTE] We aren't debating the regulation here. You think Cooperman gives two shits about whether something makes sense or not? He only wants to make coin at the expense of others in a clearly unfair situation. If insider trading was legal, he would've been slow and wouldn't have made anything. You defending his actions makes you look like a clown. I don't expect SEC to do anything here though. SEC only wins when they go after small fish or foreign traders, "own guys" like Cooperman and Cohen will walk away with relatively small penalty and life's good. Pathetic.
We aren't debating the regulation here. You think Cooperman gives two shits about whether something makes sense or not? He only wants to make coin at the expense of others in a clearly unfair situation. If insider trading was legal, he would've been slow and wouldn't have made anything. You defending his actions makes you look like a clown. I don't expect SEC to do anything here though. SEC only wins when they go after small fish or foreign traders, "own guys" like Cooperman and Cohen will walk away with relatively small penalty and life's good. Pathetic.[/QUOTE] instead of attacking the article or the subject you attack me.it is the old lawyer's trick. if you can't win on the facts or the law attack the integrity of your opponent. it show the stuff you are made off.
instead of attacking the article or the subject you attack me.it is the old lawyer's trick. if you can't win on the facts or the law attack the integrity of your opponent. it show the stuff you are made off.[/QUOTE] Borrowed from another poster here but so apt I had to use it.
Borrowed from another poster here but so apt I had to use it.[/QUOTE] are you making a point. if so state it.
are you making a point. if so state it.[/QUOTE] I can certainly spell it out for you if you require it. The following are direct quotes from you on this thread and others: "it is about government money extortion, empire building and bragging rights" "it is money and ego with these people." "based upon the entirety remark it is lucky for you that logic is not a prerequisite for being a successful trader or investor." "idiot millennials in the US make a fashion statement by making slashes in their jeans and wearing caps backwards." "what a bunch of morons at the FBI" "your answer is prototypical of a snake oil salesman. " "they probably wined and dine the company to get their business. they probably threw in some prostitutes and that probably dimmed the executives perspective." "for disclosure purposes do you have relatives or friends who work or have worked for the post office?" by way of response to an argument on the merits of something the post office was doing. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea that you come across as frequently attacking people rather than their arguments, often stereotyping huge swaths of people in the process, then go crying about ad hominem attacks when you yourself have no good response. A ton of aphorisms fit here, pot calling the kettle black, can dish it out but can't take it...but to use another aphorism, a picture's worth a thousand words.