Re:Inside Information and Kodak Stock
by refurb on Saturday August 01, 2020 @09:33PM
(#24025551)
Matt Levine writes about this all the time. The current law is kind of murky.
If I remember correctly, 2 things need to be proven: 1) someone shared non-public information they shouldn’t have, 2) there was some consideration (money, etc) given for such information.
So there are cases where #2 becomes the issue because no money changed hands. Then the argument can get weird where the argument is “he offered the insider information in exchange for friendship”.
If I remember correctly, 2 things need to be proven: 1) someone shared non-public information they shouldn’t have, 2) there was some consideration (money, etc) given for such information.
So there are cases where #2 becomes the issue because no money changed hands. Then the argument can get weird where the argument is “he offered the insider information in exchange for friendship”.