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: tom pope who wrote (1758)	12/30/2001 10:18:21 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2515

Ray Dirks won the protracted legal battle. The case was also quit different. His private sales recommendation was based on tons of diffficult analysis of documents available to others.

To: tom pope who wrote (1758)	12/30/2001 11:18:21 PM
From: RCMac	Respond to of 2515

if you have material information that you have reason to believe came to you from a reliable inside source, [and you trade on that information] then you are a "tippee", and the SEC might well decide you are liable to an insider trading charge. Tom, That's a fair statement of the law, if you include the bracketed language which I assume you meant, but it derives from post-Dirks cases. (George is right that Ray Dirks won in the Supreme Court (1980 or so?), after years of litigation.) Probably the risk is very low that the SEC would chase George or any other reader of a message board, but the potential liability exists at least in theory, I think. But my point was not to warn about this fairly remote risk of liability, but to suggest that the sort of jerk who says: "here, let me give you, gratis, some freshly stolen inside information" should probably not to be believed or relied on by any thoughtful investor. --RCM