Word: cases
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...case law maintains that two main things must be established for an act to be illegal insider trading. First, the information in question must be material and non-public. Second, revealing or trading on the information must entail knowingly breaching a duty of "trust or confidence." This can be a fiduciary duty, which an officer of a company would have to a firm's shareholders (perhaps an Intel managing director), or - as the Supreme Court has more recently found - a lower-level employee who has a broader duty to not share, or personally benefit from, his firm's proprietary information...
...successfully prosecute a person who receives insider information and then trades on it (such as a hedge-fund manager), the government must show that the person knew the information came from a breach of duty. In the case of Rajaratnam's alleged Google stock tip, he didn't talk to the source of the information directly but rather to a middleman informant. That middleman purportedly told Rajaratnam who the tipster was - thus revealing the breach of duty. For that particular charge, that communication is key. (See pictures of crime in Middle America...
...current case involves many charges - all told, six defendants, nine companies whose securities were allegedly illegally traded and many more than that number of actual trades. And while one alleged instance of illegality conveniently included Chiesi comparing her situation to the most famous insider-trading case in recent memory (though Martha Stewart ultimately went to prison for obstruction of justice and making false statements, not insider trading), many of the other instances could be more open to interpretation. This is a big case, and it will take a long time to untangle it in court...
Zero-tolerance policies have always come under fire for being too strict. Christie’s case illustrates just why more flexibility may be necessary; the consequences seemed to far outstrip the crime. Indeed, although zero-tolerance policies are necessary measures for ensuring the safety of America’s schools, fairness requires that the punishments assigned for violating these policies be discretionary...
...Christie’s school district, the zero-tolerance policy is clear: Weapons are not allowed in school “regardless of possessor’s intent.” Although many have claimed that, in Christie’s case, intent should have been taken into account, the district’s injunction is an essential one in creating a secure school environment. When students bring knives or any other implements that can be used as weapons into school, they are engaging in inherently unsafe actions. Even if, as in Christie’s case, the weapon...