Since I can’t seem to reply to danaris…

This seems to be an allusion to Matt Levine’s writing that “everything is securities fraud”.

It’s not as cynical against companies as you think. The overall point is that sometimes there’s a lot blurrier line between legitimate activities and what someone could interpret as securities fraud than you’d expect.

I think the other critical point is that some naive readers might think that regulators are interested in the pursuit of the truth. That they go in and weigh the information and make an honest attempt to figure out what happened.

This is not the case. They can and will take any information in the worst possible light. They want fine and convictions not for the fair decision to be made.

> They can and will take any information in the worst possible light

You are saying they want slam dunk cases, but are apparently obtaining these outcomes using evidence that can go either way? You don't see the contradiction there?

All you need to do is read a press release the DOJ puts out to know this is true. Especially the cases they lose.

The judicial system is adversarial by nature. The goal of the prosecution is to put forward its best possible case that basically means assuming the worst of any piece of evidence.

If it seems to you that everything is securities fraud, this may be an indication that you a) are in a very shady company, or b) have a very skewed view of what should be considered acceptable.

Even for officers of publicly-traded companies, it should not be difficult to avoid committing securities fraud if you're not actually attempting to make money in ways you shouldn't.

The way Matt Levine explains it is that something bad happens, but investor communications implies that it doesn’t happen. So, for example, the company has publicly disclosed that it has a policy against sexual harassment, but sexual harassment happened, so having a policy is seen as lying to investors that everything is okay.

So, this isn’t about committing securities fraud, it’s about writing something that shows that the company knows that something bad is going on. It’s about evidence.

Also it is very common and easy for people to speculate wildly about what might be going on, to make jokes, and to use legal terms they don’t really understand. This is Hacker News; you know this. In court, such nonsense may make it look like you actually knew something.