Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by jahewson on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:40PM (#37602073)

[delayed]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by kasey_junk on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:54PM (#37602265)

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?param...

most of the Stewart case was about her actions post the tip. If she’d had just said “my broker told me to sell” she’d likely be good to go (who knows). But she didn’t. She obscured and made it obvious with her actions that she was trying to steal from other shareholders (by acting on information she should not have).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by mcguire on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:57PM (#37602310)

An intentional tip, right? Not an "overheard conversation".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by jiveturkey on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:14PM (#37602618)

Has to be. If you are monitoring the travel activity of cisco and splunk execs and happen to see them go to a fancy dinner after weeks of office meetings, there is no way that is insider trading. That's the same thing as overhearing a phone call in a cab.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by CrazyStat on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:57PM (#37602314)

Stewart was convicted and jailed for obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, not for insider trading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by namdnay on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:14PM (#37602625)

To continue the “theft from shareholders” analogy, acting on a deliberate tip is fencing stolen goods

[ Parent | on HN ]