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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (92332)	8/24/2005 3:41:38 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 122087

There's no rhyme or reason left in his public pronouncements - which now border on the farcical. ragingbull.lycos.com

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (92332)	8/26/2005 10:21:43 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

So the Sith Lord, who, last week was supposedly identified as an infamous corporate raider of the 1980's, now may not exist at all? And if he does exist may have little (or even no?) connection to any of this? Backtracking much here? I've posted the actual complaint here: Message 21639647 Nowhere is there any allegation of even something remotely resembling a Sith Lord nor does there appear to be any room for the presence of one in the scenario laid out. Essentially Byrne is claiming that Rocker did unflattering research on Overstock that he force fed to a supposedly independent Gradient who published it once Rocker had established a substantial short position. These negative reports served to depress the price further as more shorts piled on. For Byrne to be successful, IMO, he'd first have to show that Rocker's research was purposefully inaccurate in an attempt to harm Overstock. He'd then have to show that Gradient was financially compensated by Rocker for publishing Rocker's research. The fact that Rocker traded ahead of his research being published, again IMO, doesn't appear to be insider trading since it was the result of his own due diligence, not, say, the result of having drinks with a loose Overstock employee. However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in the Elgindy trial the judge clearly said you can't trade on your own DD until after you've first widely disseminated the information to the public (a ridiculous notion that I predict will never hold up on appeal). - Jeff