Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by andylynch on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:05PM (#37602456)

Caveat that other jurisdictions do take a broader view (from memory, France is one that comes to mind where overhearing something confidential and trading on it is unlawful).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by compsciphd on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:19PM (#37602720)

I believe the SEC went after capital one analysts who used information capital one has via credit card usages at stores to trade against companies not capital one. While one might say that the info that capital one had was proprietary (as they deffinitely use it for other things), its hard to view it ast hurting people one has a fiduciary duty to, but I believe they still won the conviction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by kevinmchugh on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:30PM (#37602905)

Were the analysts acting independently or on behalf of capital one? Because on its face it's capital one's information to trade with (other laws not withstanding)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by compsciphd on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:33PM (#37602949)

yes they were acting on behalf of capital one, I'm just saying why its just not fidicuary duty to shareholders of traded company.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by kasey_junk on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:18PM (#37602703)

Yes! Very explicitly I mention the US because our insider trading laws are based on a different theory than European laws (for instance)

[ Parent | on HN ]