are your legs sore from backpeddaling that hard?
http://www.nypost.com/photos/galleries/news/regionalnews/pp_20080724_ashley/photo01.htm come on now…
daj224 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I meant done as in his BRAND is looking at a LIFE > sentence. boom How well has Martha done recently? I think going to jail was the best thing for her. It’s like the world decided that anyone who could tastefully decorate a cell wall with feces ought to be listened to for homemaking advice.
Like the saying goes - A penny wise and a pound foolish. He’s such an idiot for doing that. He probably could spend $750k during a weekend and not blink.
Steve Bainbridge (Law Prof at UCLA) has done as much work in the area as anyone I know. He’s got a very well written book on the topic (which he manages to mention - a lot). He’s his analysis of the issue: http://www.businessassociationsblog.com/lawandbusiness/comments/the_insider_trading_charges_against_mark_cuban/
JoeyDVivre Wrote: It’s like the > world decided that anyone who could tastefully > decorate a cell wall with feces ought to be > listened to for homemaking advice. i found this amusing
busprof Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Steve Bainbridge (Law Prof at UCLA) has done as > much work in the area as anyone I know. He’s got a > very well written book on the topic (which he > manages to mention - a lot). He’s his analysis of > the issue: > > http://www.businessassociationsblog.com/lawandbusi > ness/comments/the_insider_trading_charges_against_ > mark_cuban/ That blog is very interesting - all law and not an ounce of common sense. The CEO of momma.com called Cuban and asked him to return the phone call ASAP. Cuban called him back three minutes later (from an airport or something). That means that Cuban has all kinds of relationship with the CEO beyond the 6.3% ownership. The CEO of momma.com must have had all kinds of expectation that Cuban would keep it confidential from previous business relationships or neither of them would have handled it in this way. That’s enough to make either the misappropriation theory (he deceived the CEO) or the fiduciary duty theory (which he “impliedly” entered).
Yep, Bainbridge can be a piece of work. I like some of his insider trading stuff (I read his along with others while looking at some insider trading-related research topics). He writes well about wine, and not so well about politics. And he’s pretty full of himself, even for an academic (and as you know, that can be a high bar to get over). But I’m often amazed at how legal issues turn out. Philosophers debating angels on pins have nothing on lawyers arguing angles on statutes. I guess it takes a “special” person to convolute an argument like that. But as long as the convoluter is on my side, convolute away.
busprof Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, Bainbridge can be a piece of work. I like > some of his insider trading stuff (I read his > along with others while looking at some insider > trading-related research topics). He writes well > about wine, and not so well about politics. And > he’s pretty full of himself, even for an academic > (and as you know, that can be a high bar to get > over). > > But I’m often amazed at how legal issues turn out. > Philosophers debating angels on pins have > nothing on lawyers arguing angles on statutes. I > guess it takes a “special” person to convolute an > argument like that. Tell me about it. You wouldn’t believe the stuff lawyers have done to me. This is a really public case though so if it goes to trial, everyone will be careful. > > But as long as the convoluter is on my side, > convolute away.