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: Biomaven who wrote (23536)	4/24/2007 12:05:59 PM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

>>If this was a law-school exam, I'd raise the interesting possibility that if it were legal for Teva itself to trade MNTA stock based on Teva's information advantage, then it would paradoxically be illegal for a Teva employee to do so (under the misappropriation theory as the employee would be "stealing" the informational advantage from his/her employer). I would have no problem from using the misappropriation theory against a TEVA employee in that situation PROVIDED TEVA also acted on the info or intended to act and the employee knew or had reason to know of TEVA intent to use the info. It would make a very interesting case. But I can't imagine the SEC staff and attorneys caring enough about the issue to do anything absent political pressure. I have seen federal prosecutors refuse to prosecute kiting cases where financial institutions were hit with 5 digit losses. I have a discussion with one AG who told me they declined to prosecute if less than $75K was stolen. :-) ij