The Insider Trading Laws are completely unenforceable. The law seems to be used vindictively and arbitrarily.
And think of this scenario - why isn't this case considered Insider Trading?
Imagine I own shares in my company. I'm about to buy a house, and I need some money. I consider selling my shares, but I have some non-public information that I know is going to increase the value of my shares. So - instead of selling my shares, I take a Margin Loan against them (or just hold onto them), and then sell the shares at a later point at a higher price. I have certainly benefitted from my Insider Information, but this would not be considered as Insider Trading - why not??
But two wrongs do not make a right. I have to take issue with Martha's counsel for some of their tactics. Claiming that the alleged drug use of the star witness had any impact on this case is farcical.
Post a Comment