Actually LML, there is a point. Under the proposed SEC rules, there is no issue--if you trade while you have material non public info, you are SOL. Presently, you may argue--and some jurisdictions would agree--that a plaintiff must show that you actually traded on the info. For example, if you have a quarterly trading window and you traded in it consistent with prior activity, it would be difficult to prove that you used the information. Thus, no violation.
In this case, I suspect there will be much more controversy over the materiality of the supposedly non public info. If there was no big deal with Cablelabs, as appears to be the case to me, then the info may have been non public but was not material.
BTW, my senior partner tried the very first case that Mel Weiss--the plaintifs' lawyer, ever tried. Weiss lost, the company won. Most recently, colleagues tried and won another of these. Happens all the time that these charges are trumped up to line the pockets of the plaintiffs' bar. Indeed, the problem was severe enough to warrant Congressional action. Indeed, here it looks like the shorts--pluvia, et al.,--may actually have set the timing up with the lawyers as part of a concerted attack. If I were defending TERN, which I'm not, I would pursue discovery in that area. Does everyone know that the Milberg Weiss firm that brought the action was hit with like a $50million libel judgment for making blatantly false accusations??They settled for big money. So, one should read their accusations with plenty of salt. Regards to all.
P.S. to Pluvia--you violated a fundamental rule of the boards by gloating on other investors' pain. This, as you surely know, generates very bad karma. And, you did it to someone whose handle is warrior. My SAI was a two tour Green Beanie Major who wore the silver star proudly. You just fired a warning shot ........ surely you know about warning shots at warriors? You should choose your enemies more wisely....did you really want a higher profile in law enforcement circles? |
