To: silicon warrior who wrote (799 ) 4/19/2000 2:56:00 AM From: lml Respond to of 1658
Silicon-W: Thanks for the reply.Under the proposed SEC rules, there is no issue--if you trade while you have material non public info, you are SOL. I agree.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. This is interesting, and plausible, but would be very difficult for a plaintiff to prove. I pity the plaintiff is such jxs. The regular pattern of selling, to some extent, provides a safe harbor for insiders to sell their shares irrespective of possession of non-public information. However, I would look to not only to timing, but also the magnitude of such sales relative to well-established patterns of selling by the insiders whose sales are the subject of the lawsuit. Accordingly, I don't believe such an analysis will be helpful to the TERN defendants as no such pattern exists. In fact, the record indicates an increased level of selling in and around the period in question. 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. I'm surprised by your conclusion on this issue as I believe it is misplaced. What Cablelabs thinks on this issue, while arguably relevant, is by no means conclusive or probative to the issue of materiality. I would think the issue of materiality goes to what an investor would deem material, not what CableLabs views material. As I see it, we're talking about apples & oranges, counselor. Investors are interested in the prospects of S-CDMA technology achieving DOCSIS certification within a given time frame as it pertains to the ability of TERN to grow revenues going forward. Investors view DOCSIS certification as important. I don't think you would argue with this. CableLabs holds a completely different perspective on materiality. Their view might be like this: "Yeah, we'll look at S-CDMA, and if it meets our parameters in terms of cost and workability within a certain time frame, we incorporate into the next certification; if not, we'll continue to look at it for inclusion into the next certification, keeping the door open, but there are no guarantees." CableLabs would like to incorporate S-CDMA into a certification at some point in the future, but it is not critical to the DOCSIS certification process. Now wouldn't you think the standard of materiality might be different for an investor than it would be for CableLabs?