UPDATE 3-Billionaire Mark Cuban cleared of insider trading; blasts U.S. government

[phillygirl]

Oct 16 (Reuters) - Flamboyant billionaire Mark Cuban on Wednesday was cleared by a Texas jury of using a private tip to avoid a big loss on his 2004 sale of Internet company shares, in a stinging rebuke for the U.S. government which had accused him of insider trading.
Cuban, 55, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, lashed out at the U.S. government and lead prosecutor Jan Folena after the verdict, saying the government had tried to bully him.
"Jan Folena, who represents the United States of America, stood up there and lied," an angry Cuban told reporters after the nine-member jury read its decision.
"I'm the luckiest guy in the world and I'm glad I could stand up to them," he said.
Estimated by Forbes magazine to have a net worth of $2.5 billion, Cuban was accused by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of trading on non-public information when he sold his 600,000 shares in Internet search company Mamma.com - worth $7.9 million - and avoided a $750,000 loss.
The SEC brought the civil lawsuit against Cuban in November 2008. A judge dismissed the suit in 2009 but an appeals court revived the case the following year.
Cuban refused to settle the case and went to trial, even though he said on Wednesday that he had spent more on fees for lawyers than the possible fines for admitting to insider trading. He could have faced up to $2 million in fines, his lawyers said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/sec-cuban-idINL1N0I620D20131016

[Billy Jingo]

That was pretty big news around here but I didn't follow the case at all.

Cuban is a character, though. He tried to get in on the Rangers action when they went up for sale recently and I am very glad he didn't win the bidding.

[Adam]

"Cuban refused to settle the case and went to trial, even though he said on Wednesday that he had spent more on fees for lawyers than the possible fines for admitting to insider trading."


Good for him. The SEC is probably second only to the IRS in their malicious prosecution of people for the crime of being wealthy. I don't condone insider trading or any other such financial scam, but these guys at the SEC simply pick wealthy people and try to find a way to prosecute them.


I think Cuban should sue the Hell out of the SEC for malicious prosecution and recover all of those attorney fees, plus some for his time.


If nothing else, you have to appreciate the fact that he took a principled stance, even at his own expense.

[Billy Jingo]

"Cuban refused to settle the case and went to trial, even though he said on Wednesday that he had spent more on fees for lawyers than the possible fines for admitting to insider trading."


Good for him. The SEC is probably second only to the IRS in their malicious prosecution of people for the crime of being wealthy. I don't condone insider trading or any other such financial scam, but these guys at the SEC simply pick wealthy people and try to find a way to prosecute them.


I think Cuban should sue the Hell out of the SEC for malicious prosecution and recover all of those attorney fees, plus some for his time.


If nothing else, you have to appreciate the fact that he took a principled stance, even at his own expense.

That is interesting. I won't doubt that it can be done but should every person found not-guilty do the same or only rich people?

[phillygirl]

That is interesting. I won't doubt that it can be done but should every person found not-guilty do the same or only rich people?

Anybody that has a colorable claim of malicious prosecution should do the same. The trick is to find an attorney that will take on such a case. Generally I would think rich people would be more successful in finding such an attorney, as then there is a chance of getting paid for the efforts. But your suggestion of class differences is noted.

[Billy Jingo]

Anybody that has a colorable claim of malicious prosecution should do the same. The trick is to find an attorney that will take on such a case. Generally I would think rich people would be more successful in finding such an attorney, as then there is a chance of getting paid for the efforts. But your suggestion of class differences is noted.

So is yours.

[phillygirl]

So is yours.

Mine was a practical explanation, yours was a sneer. I can't help but wonder why there seems to be an exceedingly frequent reference to the "rich" in this country. It's almost as though there has been a concerted effort to assert a negative connotation with respect to anyone who may have accumulated wealth in this country. Strange, as the "American Dream" used to be about the ability to do so, regardless of color, creed, etc. I'm uncertain as to why being successful is such a negative thing these days.

[Billy Jingo]

Mine was a practical explanation, yours was a sneer.

Potato, potato.

I can't help but wonder why there seems to be an exceedingly frequent reference to the "rich" in this country.

I think it has usually been the case (here's a good one). But the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands while those who rely on labor for their bread seem to be moving backward may exacerbate the issue a bit.

It's almost as though there has been a concerted effort to assert a negative connotation with respect to anyone who may have accumulated wealth in this country.

Strange. I have seen the opposite where labor is demonized and those who, God forbid, turn to assistance (even while working) are denigrated, dismissed, and maligned for spending all that welfare queen money on spinning rims.

Strange, as the "American Dream" used to be about the ability to do so, regardless of color, creed, etc. I'm uncertain as to why being successful is such a negative thing these days.

It isn't. It is so great, money earned through risk is taxed at a lower rate than money earned through labor. It is far from a negative.

[Billy Jingo]

Reminds me of the Tocqueville bit:

Another very remarkable thing is Ohio is this: Ohio is perhaps the State of the Union in which it is easiest to see, in a striking way and close up, the effects of slavery and of liberty on the social state of a people. The State of Ohio is separated from Kentucky just by one river; on either side of it the soil is equally fertile, and the situation equally favorable, and yet everything is different.

Here a population devoured by feverish activity, trying every means to make its fortune; the population seems poor to look at, for they work with their hands, but that work is the source of riches. There is a people which makes others work for it and shows little compassion, a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise. On one side of the stream, work is honored and leads to all else, on the other it is despised as the mark of servitude. Those who are forced to work to live cross over into Ohio where they can make money without disgrace.

The population of Kentucky, which has been peopled for nearly a century, grows slowly. Ohio only joined the Confederation thirty years ago and has a million inhabitants. Within those thirty years Ohio has become the entrepot for the wealth that goes up and down the Mississippi; it has opened two canals and joined the Gulf of Mexico to the North Coast; meanwhile Kentucky, older and perhaps better placed, stood still.

These differences cannot be attributed to any other cause but slavery. It degrades the black population and enervates the white. Its fatal effects are recognized, and yet it is preserved and will be preserved for a long time more. Slavery threatens the future of those who maintain it, and it ruins the State; but it has become part of the habits and prejudices of the colonist, and his immediate interest is at war with the interest of his own future and the even stronger interest of the country.

So nothing shows more clearly than the comparison I have just made that human prosperity depends much more on the institutions and the will of man than on the external circumstances that surround him. Man is not made for slavery; that truth is perhaps even better proved by the master than by the slave.

Certainly explains why the Republican base is primarily in the South.

[Adam]

That is interesting. I won't doubt that it can be done but should every person found not-guilty do the same or only rich people?

It has nothing to do with rich or poor, and it doesn't mean that every not guilty verdict should result in someone successfully suing the prosecuting government involved. It has to do with whether the prosecution was so incredibly fucked up to begin with that the thing never should have seen the inside of a courtroom. Now, I will certainly admit that I do not at all know all of the ins and outs of this case, but at least based upon what little I have seen of it, this one is a prime candidate for "never should have seen the inside of a courtroom."

The Duke lacrosse case is one that never should have seen the inside of a courtroom.

The George Zimmerman case never should have seen the inside of a courtroom.


Both are cases of utterly egregious prosecutorial misconduct, and if the state (or feds, in this case) can't manage to keep their prosecutors from engaging in outrageous misdeeds in the government's name, then they need to pay the penalty for that. Much like medical malpractice, I think that there probably ought to be a cap, at least as far as punitive damages goes, but the government in question should feel the sting a bit. It's a good spur to the taxpayers to demand that their government engage in only reasonable prosecutions.

[Michele]

Knowing that he's a big donor to the democrat party and pretty tight with Obama and Clinton to boot, I'm surprised this even went forward.

[scott]

Mine was a practical explanation, yours was a sneer. I can't help but wonder why there seems to be an exceedingly frequent reference to the "rich" in this country. It's almost as though there has been a concerted effort to assert a negative connotation with respect to anyone who may have accumulated wealth in this country. Strange, as the "American Dream" used to be about the ability to do so, regardless of color, creed, etc. I'm uncertain as to why being successful is such a negative thing these days.

Because the jealous idiots need to feel better about themselves. Small minds sneer.

[Gramps]

Because the jealous idiots need to feel better about themselves. Small minds sneer.

It's a continuation of the presidential campaign.

Fuck those rich bastards.

It's their fault.

Let me spend this country to prosperity, which is defined as 'we are the gubment... we will grant you what you need'

Bread and circuses all around.


Hold it.. is that the Goths or the Vista-goths meandering outside the walls?