Forum Archive Index - March 2004

[Capitalist <capitalist@paradise.net.nz>]

 A forward I agree on:

 

:So what if Sam calls up Martha and says, "Look, the books are in
great shape, and the FDA is going to refuse to review our drug.  Your
best bet is to wait until the stock tanks, and buy a WHOLE LOAD MORE.
Why, you ask?  Because if you wait two years, the FDA will approve the
drug (it did) and the stock price will come back (it did)."

Would you charge Martha for this action based on inside information?

 

I wanted to toss these salient facts from www.cato.org into the discussion on
the Martha Stewart "trial"...most notably, the simply fact that there are no
actual laws against anything called "insider trading".

<Besides, Congress never enacted any law against insider trading. A fine
book on the topic by Stephen Bainbridge notes, "The modern prohibition [of
insider trading] is a creature of SEC administrative actions and judicial
opinions." >

In my opinion, it is quite tragic and disconcerting that the reams of legal
chicanery, which the government used to "get" Martha Stewart, actually
worked to persuade a groups of jurors that they were looking at a criminal
and not a hero.

RCR