Mark Cuban Charged With Insider Trading

geekboy_x writes "The SEC today charged Mark Cuban with insider trading violations, alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering." Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.

Comments

Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[eldavojohn]

Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.

Are you crazy? Do you know how many page hits that would generate?! You don't know Mark Cuban. Of course, from his blog a few hours ago:

"I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff's win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff's process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government's claims are false and they will be proven to be so."

I'm not a lawyer. As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up. Also, I don't recall hearing the SEC drop charges or lose these cases very often so I'm pretty sure this guy is boned.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[wtansill]

Maybe he can get Martha Stewart's old cell. Should be a nice homey place...

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[sunking2]

If he is guilty, than coicidental doesn't really matter. What matters is that he is being prosecuted. From the little I've read he seems pretty guilty. The story basically goes: He heard from momma.com that would sink their stock. He immediately sells. The next day momma.com makes an official announces, stock tanks. The end result is he saved himself like $600k in losses. Assuming this happened, he is guilty and whether there is another agenda behind it is irrevelent.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[larry bagina]

"Insider trading" can be very vauge and edge cases aren't clearly defined by statute or case law. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for obstruction of justice during the investigation (which might not have madei t to trial). If he shuts up, doesn't lie, and doesn't try to destroy evidence, he'll find it a lot easier to stay out of jail.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[erikina]

As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.

As a hobbiest stock trader, I can tell you with confidence that inside trading happens a hell of a lot. Theres billions of dollars to be made. In fact, it happens so much - that there are many technical-trading techniques used to "follow the insiders". So every so often they find an inside trader, chuck him in jail and try make everyone happy. I'd much prefer if the government just got it's nose out of the market. The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market..

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[Reality Master 101]

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake.

I like Mark Cuban, and I can totally believe the Bush administration is trumping up charges against him. That said, your quote is one of my pet peeves, and is DEAD WRONG.

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The public at large is perfectly within its rights to judge anyone anyway it wants to. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his first trial, yet I have no doubt he performed the crime.

All too often people in power and/or defense attorneys try and manipulate the public with the "innocent until proven guilty" junk. "Don't rush to judgment on my client just because he was seen with a smoking gun in his hand, remember, we're all innocent until proven guilty!" No, I'm under no obligation to judge people based on courtroom rules used to "prove" guilt. I can judge people based on whatever criteria seems reasonable to me.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[techno-vampire]

She was convicted of lying to investigators.

Yes. She was convicted of lying to investigators when she wasn't under oath and hadn't been warned that what she said might be used against her. Not only that, what she lied about must not have been a crime because she was never charged with anything else.

Now we know: never talk to the feds unless your lawyer's present, even if you don't think you've done anything against the law.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[erikina]

That's crap on so many levels. But first, let's get you off your moral high-horse. Let's say you have a $100k worth of Intel stock (from super, or w/e retirement plan you have in your area). So anyway, you always Intel was a pretty solid stock, and got along with some Intel people.

Now let's say you're knocking back a few beers with your Intel buddy, and he tells you the i7 CPUs are failing en masse, the management is crumbling and AMD is poised to deliver a fatal blow. So in short, you are now in possession of insider information. So the question is, would you sell your stock or wait till you lose it?

Secondly, there's no stealing. You agreed, I agreed. We might have different information, but that's hardly a secret. And the person who is "more correct" will drive the market to correct itself. (See prediction markets).

A technical trading is evil? rofl I'm not even going to bother..

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[pnumoman]

You may be trying to be snide, but yes, you really should always have a lawyer present when that kind of heat is being applied to you. Federal investigators don't have to recite Miranda unless they're taking you under custody. (and depending on what kind of investigator they are, they might not have the authority to take you under custody.) And lying to a federal investigator is a serious no-no regardless of what the circumstances are. See 18 USC 1001. Simply put, don't lie when the feds come asking questions. It's a crime, plain and simple. Or, like parent said, don't say anything unless you have a lawyer present. Oh, and IANAL...yet.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[mr_lizard13]

Holy shit, the i7 CPUs are failing en masse??!

They've only just come out!

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[nomadic]

I concur with everything you say. Always be polite to the cops or federal agents no matter how obnoxious they are, but demand to see a lawyer and then keep your mouth shut. And IAAL so there's instant credibility!

Now everyone who read this send me $200 for legal services rendered.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[KillerBob]

The company I work for encourages me to buy its shares. If that is not insider trading I don't know what is.

That's not insider trading. It may or may not even be stock options. The company I work for (one of the top 3 computer companies in the world) also encourages us to buy their stock, and offers stock options to its employees. They also require we take annual training on business ethics, and that we understand exactly what constitutes insider trading. There's even a question on the final exam of said training dealing specifically with when it would be unethical to purchase stock.

Knowing the general scuttlebutt around the company for how we're doing doesn't give me inside information. Pretty much the whole world knows which markets we're leading, and wich markets we're behind in. If somebody on the front lines is buying stock, they probably don't know anything more about the company than the public at large. We have another category entirely of employees, however... people who are windowed. Those people are given a window in which they are allowed to buy/sell company stock, and periods when they are not allowed to buy.

An example of when a windowed employee would not be allowed to buy would be, say, after our sales figures for the last quarter have been tallied, but before they have been published. People in the upper echelons of the company will know this information, and would be able to predict how their announcement will affect our stock market. With this in mind, they can react accordingly. This, in turn, would allow them to buy a bunch of stock before a sudden spike, or dump a bunch of stock before it falls. That is insider trading.

Insider trading is illegal, because it gives those people an unfair advantage over the rest of the world. That's why we have windowed employees... if you're in a position where insider trading is possible, you're told when not to buy/sell stock so that you can't be accused of it.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[k33l0r]

Holy shit, the i7 CPUs are failing en masse??!

YES, Sell, sell, sell. You should do what I do: base your trading on rumours you hear on Slashdot.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[7-Vodka]

This is a lawyer

why should we care?

[circletimessquare]

for all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team

i applaud his timing and his luck and success, but i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot

Re:why should we care?

[fprintf]

I've never been able to figure it out, and in fact didn't know why he was famous until you mentioned broadcast.com (a place I have never been). Billions for that?

I only saw his reality show, and learned from that show that he owns a basketball team. Otherwise, you are right. Why should we care? He made billions, meanwhile his company (I believe acquired by Yahoo! since broadcast.com redirects there) no longer exists and the parent company is in financial trouble itself. Got out at the right time is an understatement!

Re:why should we care?

[0100010001010011]

In an open letter to Internet service providers published earlier this week, billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban calls for telecoms to put an end to peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. Cuban expresses concerns that P2P "freeloaders" are clogging the tubes with commercial content. His letter doesn't focus on piracy, however, and instead primarily attacks companies that use P2P for legitimate commercial applications.

Re:why should we care?

[netsavior]

let me rephrase your comment to explain:

Why would a bunch of nerds be interested in a guy that made a BILLION DOLLARS doing something nerdy?

Re:why should we care?

[billcopc]

Ya but he didn't do anything nerdy. He's just another MBA asshat like all the other people we've been taught to despise. His only claim to fame is playing the stock game, and poorly at that. He just got reeeeeeeeally lucky.

The main difference between Mark Cuban and the Powerball winners, is Mark Cuban was born with his ass where his mouth should be.

It's good to be rich...

[HerculesMO]

I wish *I* could be charged with insider trading.

It would mean I'm worth it enough to go after :(

Spin-Doctoring at its best.

[Trojan35]

So, Cuban commits SEC fraud, and we're supposed to ignore it because he's anti-Bush and it was 4 years ago?

Re:Spin-Doctoring at its best.

[Doc Ruby]

No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.

I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.

Re:Communism at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should learn what Communism actually is, before making an ass of yourself here?

Summary is incorrect

[paulthomas]

Mamma.com took a private investment at a discount (a PIPE). This is a sign of weakness, and the announcement sent the shares lower. The SEC alleges that Mr. Cuban sold his shares with insider knowledge of the PIPE, liquidating his stake before it got battered the next day.

WSJ article (report updated since I saw it earlier; it now erroneously says it was an investment in a private company).

Re:Communism at work.

[MindlessAutomata]

I think he meant "wrong" not in a legal context but in a moral context; his argument thus leading, "neither of these two things are really wrong and should not be illegal".

No Jail Time

[Nixoloco]

According to the complaint filed by the SEC, they are not seeking any jail time.

They are seeking judgement:
a. enjoining Cuban from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities law.
b. ordering Cuban to disgorge, with prejudgement interest, the losses avoided as a result of the actions described
c. ordering Cuban to pay a civil money penalty to pursuaint to Section 21A.... blah blah

But.. no jail time. Martha Stewart received jail time because she was convicted of obstruction of justice / lying to investigators. Not that I don't think jail time is warranted personally..

Twice now

[fishbowl]

Twice in my career I have had a good laugh at the expense of someone whose abuse I suffered.

The first was David Duncan. He was a senior finance/accounting manager when I was a peon at Mobil. I basically had to jump at his every request even though I never worked for him or his department. I left that job to start an internet business, but I really enjoyed the day that I saw David Duncan testifying before Congress, explaining Enron to them. Beautiful day.

The second is today. When my internet company was encoding and streaming his sports and talk radio broadcasts (innovative for 1994, mind you), Mark Cuban used to page me and call me at home at all hours with the most unreasonable demands and questions. Now I realize if I had been willing to kiss his ass the way he was accustomed to being kissed, I might be a billionaire today, but it would never have happened. Today I am all smiles.

More information here

[weiserfireman]

http://www.businessassociationsblog.com/lawandbusiness/comments/the_insider_trading_charges_against_mark_cuban/

This was written by a Law Professor. Basically it boils down to the SEC has to really stretch current law to cover this situation.

It appears the CEO of Mamma.com knew that several of their original investors, specifically Mark Cuban, would be upset by the release of more stock, diluting his original investment. The CEO might have told Mark about the investment in an attempt to keep him from being able to sell his shares before the announcement.

Mark was a minor stockholder (6.3%) and didn't meet any of the other legal standards (fiduciary responsibility to the company) to be considered a traditional insider.

So here is question. If you are a stockholder in a company, can the SEC consider you an insider under the law if an insider calls you and asks you to keep a secret? Under traditional insider rules, the CEO of the company is the person who violated the law by telling Mark about the upcoming announcement.

not a lawyer, but find legal topics fascinating

Re:More information here

[CodeBuster]

If you are a stockholder in a company, can the SEC consider you an insider under the law if an insider calls you and asks you to keep a secret?

So don't take his call or simply say, "La, La, La...I'm not listening!" when he tries to give you insider information.

Can AND WILL Be Used Against You

[bill_mcgonigle]

To be fair, the lesson I take from it is don't lie to the feds without a lawyer present. (And even then...)

Anything you say that turns out not to be true, even if you don't know it, "can and will be used against you in a court of law." Anything you say that helps you is inadmissible as 'hearsay'.

So if you do a two hour interview, are thoroughly truthful except for 15 seconds, which you may or may not know is not true, the jury will only know about those 15 seconds. Somebody file a bug.