Yeah.. people dont dump all their fixed-income assets because they overheard talk of a buyout. They had rock solid information and knew for a fact the annoucement was coming.
Please keep in mind that I'm not putting down on anyone who's arguing against me and all I want to do is share the knowledge I have and learn something new from you guys as well (for instance ByLoSellHi, enough with previews and sneak peaks and please cut to the chase show us the money - that'd be great! ). Let me go on the record and say I think these a-holes are amoral bastards who stole from honest people and deserve all their assets confisticated and serving many years in jail but my hatred toward them is one thing, serving them justice is quite another. I hope everyone realizes the distinction here.
She wasn't charged because the government couldn't prove that, or didn't think they could. They went with a surer thing. This has no relevance to whether the government could have made a prima facie case of insider trading against her. The prosecution often brings easier to prove charges, and leaves out the harder to proves ones, when prosecuting an individual. Their goal isn't affected. Cheers. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040309.html
BLSH, I generally like the stuff you post, but you are missing the mark here. She wasn't charged with insider trading because what she did was not a crime. It wasn't because they couldn't prove it. It wasn't a crime. Period.
This is good for ML's business, I can already see asian investors pouring their money into it. "Invest with us! Your money is SEC insured" I'm serious.
Exactly. Even though convicting her of insider trading would have been a major moral victory for the government in times of Enron and its ilk, they couldn't squeeze enough lemonade out of that charge to send her to prison, even with all the tangible evidence and a star witness who was directly involved in the whole transaction so they found a derivative after the investigation had started and used it against her. What does that say about the insider trading law?
Your kidding right? ML alerted the SEC. The SEC then went to court and got an order freezing the customer's account. Does that sound like something ML wants to base an advertising campaign around?
That's just not true...of course if you have material information, no matter how it was received, you can't act on it.