Re: the last paragraph in the article

Considering this can potentially ruin Brown's reputation, shouldn't they wait to get solid confirmation before slapping him with the 'insider trading' label?

I'm really a bit confused here. If a Goldman employee did this, he'd get a $50M bonus, be knighted, and be given permanent immunity in advance by the President of the United States against all prosecution, whether related to this affair, or any others, past, present, or future. If a hedge fund manager did this, same thing. If any Republican politician did this, same thing. But somehow, if it's a tech industry employee, or (of course) anyone in the bottom 99.5% of the class structure in the US, they get fired and/or jailed.

Have you heard of the term "libel" ?

Insider trading is a criminal offence, if you're going to accuse a company of advocating it you should probably have solid evidence.

If you wanted to make a general point about how you think investment banks are unethical, then use the term investment banks.

Naming a real company and accusing them of illegal behaviour just to make a point isn't a good idea.

Wow, this reasonable response is getting downvoted, whereas the parent, which is basically a gibberish string of conspiracy theories is the top comment?

This is a pretty clear example that the comment threads have seriously gone downhill.

I think you are being just a bit over sensitive....

Imagine instead of Goldman the OP would have said "YCombinator", how fast do you think it would have been downvoted ?

You can't have one rule for companies you like and another for companies you don't.

I like many HN'ers am a startup founder, I'd be horrified if someone baselessly accused my company of advocating criminal activities. I don't care if the company being wrongly accused is Goldman, Microsoft, AOL or some tiny startup. Wrong is wrong.

While such behaviour might be tolerated in other online communities, it should have absolutely no-place on HN.

You're just being obtuse. I didn't wrongly accuse Goldman. I rightly pointed out past abuses which Goldman has carried out. Do you not read the news?

And yes. You most certainly can have one rule for companies who are multi-billion-dollar bad actors, and other rules for companies which, well, aren't.

This isn't complex.

Perhaps unfortunate, or inaccurate, but horrifying?

If I keep acting inappropriately, I can't blame anyone but myself for rumors that pass around about other inappropriate behavior. It's life.

Have you heard of the terms "if" and "freedom of speech"?

If you seriously think what I posted is libel, sue me. No, really. I'll be easy to find; just search nearby hospitals for the guy who was admitted because he was unable to stop laughing.

What a joke. Did Goldman pay you to defend them here? If so, your salary needs to be reduced.

I was making a general point about how financial firms in general have miraculously escaped any prosecution or financial consequences for the crisis they caused. I think it was a valid point. In any case, an opinion, voiced in the conditional, is about as far away from "libel" as can be imagined.

For be fair, I think Goldman was named by Bud because of their relation to this story.

> Insider trading is a criminal offence

The update in the article suggests that the trades may have been done prior to any non-public information about Goldman's valuation.

BTW, there is a good discussion about the (il)legality of insider trading for privately held companies over at Quora: http://www.quora.com/Do-insider-trading-laws-apply-to-privat...

Oh c'mon - I think poor old Goldman will survive any obviously tongue-in-cheek claims made on the Hacker News board just fine.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm, George Orwell

FB is still under SEC microscope hence the added insider trading second market rule as FB employee policy

Take everything posted by TechCrunch (and all news websites) with a big grain of salt for the next 24 hours.

Arrington is a lawyer. These are serious allegations. I don't think he's stupid enough to float something like this as a joke.

After the Calacanis lawsuit and the Techcrunch Tablet lawsuit, I'm not entirely convinced Arrington applies his legal skills in his business dealings.

True, but: http://twitter.com/arrington/status/53674557814472704

Arrington wants to keep the joke going. He goes to unusual lengths with his April Fools jokes. Again, take everything he says with a grain of salt for the next 24 hours.

But this isn't funny . . unless I am missing something!?

Well, if the article is not an April fools joke then its a leap to claim that this is "Insider Trading". The term specifically applies to public companies and not to companies in general. This distinction is not a "footnote" in the article, it is the fact that negates the entire article.

Insider trading cases in the US have been bought under SEC Rule 10b-5 which reads:

  To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale
  of any security registered on a national securities
  exchange or any security not so registered, or any
  securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section  
  206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), any manipulative or
  deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such
  rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as
  necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
  protection of investors.

(source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/78j.html#b )

Note in particular the line "security not so registered".

Trading in private companies can be considered Insider Trading.

I believe "insider trading" can also refer to a contractual violation, if Facebook had a specific policy.

I'm gonna stick taking everything on the internet with a grain of salt today. We really do need a safe word for "real news" for the day.

Or maybe not, since the sources conflict.

This is not something you write without being 100% sure.

Sincere question: has anybody ever punked a journalist as an April Fools prank?

Facebook released "Fax this photo" feature to a specific subset of user IDs. http://techcrunch.com/2009/09/10/yeah-ok-so-facebook-punkd-u...

Oh right, I remember that. Thanks for the link.