That's precisely the thing. She would have been wrist slapped with a fine and maybe some sort of probation for insider trading. The big deal is that she lied about it here, there and everywhere. She said she had a verbal arrangement to stop-sell at $60. All she had to really do was put in a stop-sell at $50 after getting passed the info and the SEC would have never batted an eyelash.
She deserves whatever punishment she gets for being a tard.
I'm just a little bit troubled by the fact that lying to the Feds is a felony. I'm presuming that this was not under oath? Else-wise she would have been charged with perjury? Unless if you're charged with some crime, it's implied that one is under oath to tell the truth to the Feds regardless.
Heck, if she said nothing. Kept silent and let her lawyer do the talking, she probably would have no problems with the Feds since they didn't even have enough on the insider trading charge for it to get to the jury.
And yes some people lost money because she sold her shares at a higher price than they did the next day.
You are correct but those other people were going to lose that money anyway. The 3000 shares she sold certainly weren't enough to move the market. What caused the people to lose money was the fact that the FDA had dis-approved a new drug from Imclone.
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
That's precisely the thing. She would have been wrist slapped with a fine and maybe some sort of probation for insider trading. The big deal is that she lied about it here, there and everywhere. She said she had a verbal arrangement to stop-sell at $60. All she had to really do was put in a stop-sell at $50 after getting passed the info and the SEC would have never batted an eyelash.
She deserves whatever punishment she gets for being a tard.
I'm just a little bit troubled by the fact that lying to the Feds is a felony. I'm presuming that this was not under oath? Else-wise she would have been charged with perjury? Unless if you're charged with some crime, it's implied that one is under oath to tell the truth to the Feds regardless.
Heck, if she said nothing. Kept silent and let her lawyer do the talking, she probably would have no problems with the Feds since they didn't even have enough on the insider trading charge for it to get to the jury.
Originally posted by Scott
As far as I can tell Martha heard that the CEO was selling stock and so sold hers too. Big deal.
No! She lied (under oath-yes) about it, the charge of insider trading was dropped.
And yes some people lost money because she sold her shares at a higher price than they did the next day.
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
"Only little people pay taxes..."
Your quote should serve as incentive for the litle people to move on and become bigger people.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
And yes some people lost money because she sold her shares at a higher price than they did the next day.
You are correct but those other people were going to lose that money anyway. The 3000 shares she sold certainly weren't enough to move the market. What caused the people to lose money was the fact that the FDA had dis-approved a new drug from Imclone.