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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (8613)	6/5/2003 12:37:03 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

So, if there was no crime, can Martha really be found guilty of covering up "something"? Well she can still be guilty of obstruction of justice even if they can't prove the underlying "crime." The insider trading issue is interesting. Is selling because you have non-public information that a sleazy insider is selling, actually insider trading? That's the sort of question they give to law students as a final exam - plenty of arguments both ways. But from my own selfish viewpoint the more of these high-profile cases we have the better. If ethics won't make people behave, maybe the threat of a perp-walk will. Biotechs are perhaps more vulnerable to insider trading than most stocks, and of late my sense is that companies have become markedly less leaky. Sadly, the 10b-5 Plans have taken away some important signals that we used to get. If I saw executives in a respectable company selling, I took comfort in knowing that their trial wasn't known by them to be a dud. It's when they stop selling you have to worry. <g> Peter