Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Imclone systems (IMCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (1748)	12/29/2001 11:02:38 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 2515

deleted

To: aknahow who wrote (1748)	12/30/2001 4:22:08 PM
From: RCMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2515

Not sure it violates the securities laws. He tells us that he has inside information, that he knows he shouldn't tell us the information but will do while concealing his identity, and he effectively urges us to use that info in decisions whether to buy or sell IMCL securities. Yeah, that's surely a Rule 10b-5 violation, whether or not the company "should have" disclosed the info. (If the company is unlawfully concealing something, he might be priviliged to notify the SEC, but not to urge others to trade on the info.) The key is that he -- unlike the corporation -- has no right unilaterally to make the info public, and he apparently breached his obligations to the corporation in doing so. What makes it a violation of the securities laws is that breach's connection to trading the security. Your argument -- "IMO the sort of information disclosed, if it is accurate, should have been disclosed to all by the companies involved and or the FDA. Making such things confidential just gives an inside edge to other insiders who keep quiet." -- may be an argument for Congress or the SEC to make this sort of stuff legal, but that's not the current state of the law. And the "other insiders who just keep quiet" would violate their obligations and the ecurities laws if they traded; they may not trade when they have material, undisclosed information that they are obligated not to disclose. More basically, should anyone trust the word of some character who tells you "I'm sneakily letting out this info my employer hasn't and doesn't want me to"? I hear this sort of garbage from cold callers a lot; they usually go away when I tell them I'm about to refer them to the SEC.