

The CEO Mark Cuban spoke to doesn't recall what he said - vaksel
http://blogmaverick.com/2008/11/18/sec-p2/

======
vaksel

       1) Q- We spoke earlier about you were telling Mr. Cuban in words or substance : “I have confidential information for you”.
    
       A- Right.
    
       2) Q- Do you recall anything Mr. Cuban said in response or reply to that statement by you ?
    
       A- No, I do not.
    
       The SEC knows this-they have the transcript, yet they brought the case anyway. Why? Do they have a different statement from Mr. Faure ?
    

Thats a valid defense? Really? WTF

~~~
dcurtis
Yeah, if anything, those answers pique my curiosity.

------
smoody
is he disputing that he knew about the pending event that would cause the
stock to drop?

here's the way i look at it: Mr. Cuban wanted to save .0003% of his total net
worth by dumping stock on an anonymous unsuspecting buyer who lost 10% of
their investment amount in a 24 hour period because s/he did not have the
inside information that Mark had and that buyer would most certainly not have
bought the stock if s/he did.

it's lousy no matter how you slice it or dice it.

~~~
steveplace
Take a step back... big picture here. 750k is a drop in the bucket compared to
some of the shenanigans that have been going on. This charge on Cuban is
nothing more than a sideshow (think Martha Stewart) to put us under the belief
that the SEC has their shit together.

Example: Angelo Mozilo dumped 400 Million dollars of CFC stock onto the
market. He knew the shit that was going on... where's the SEC?

~~~
tptacek
Ouch. 750k is a drop in the bucket, unless you're a working stiff who bought
stock that Cuban was selling fraudulently. Smoody's comment hit me like a
punch in the face.

~~~
steveplace
It probably wasn't a single working stiff, or a working stiff in general.
Sure, people lost money on the other side... and if he did what the SEC
alleged, then he should go to jail.

But there are much bigger fish to fry here, but the SEC and CTFC have neither
the means nor the competency to do something of value. Instead they go after
this petty bullshit which seems to be politically motivated.

~~~
tptacek
I agree with what you're saying, but it's good to be reminded of the reason
why out-and-out insider trading is illegal; I'd obviously forgotten about the
counterparty.

------
jm4
This is vaksel's second submission this week about Mark Cuban and insider
trading. The last one was Mark Cuban's one line response to the insider
trading allegations and also pointed to his blog.

Just what, exactly, does Mark Cuban have to do with hackers or HN? Why is this
stuff getting voted up? Not to mention, even just from a news standpoint these
articles have very little substance to them. Can we give this a rest, please?

Those of us who are interested in Mark Cuban and insider trading can go to his
blog on our own without having these off topic posts plastered all over the
front page.

~~~
jdg
Perhaps because Cuban is a fairly prominent angel investor within the
community?

Just because it's not relevant to you, doesn't mean it isn't interesting and
relevant to the rest of us. If no one found it interesting, then it wouldn't
get voted up.

~~~
comatose_kid
I found the article interesting, but didn't really understand why it should be
on HN.

Is an article supposed to be relevant to hackers or entrepreneurs simply
because it is written by an angel investor? By this logic, why not just
automatically post every article Cuban has ever written?

~~~
arockwell
That's basically what has happened. Most of the articles are interesting, but
these essentially content free posts about his legal battle really aren't.

------
delackner
One of the comments on Cuban's blog said something that piqued my interest,
yet I haven't seen an adequate response to:

"So the allegation in paragraph 14 of the SEC’s Complaint that “Cuban agreed
that he would keep whatever information the CEO intended to share with him
confidential” is untrue? If so, the SEC would be in violation of FRCP
11(b)(3). This is especially true since a duty of confidentiality is an
essential element of either a 17(a) or 10(b) claim under the Exchange Act"

------
yters
For those interested in submitting and reading more financially related news,
there's always nickb's new forum:

www.newmogul.com

