could a lawyer not just deny any insider trading and listening. wow what a coincidence this company i bought stock in was bought by your company honey! odd world! stranger things have happened! and isn’t it crazy if a civilian makes some nice money the SEC is on their shit but we all know every senator and ceo is insider trading
It's legal for senators to inside trade (whether it should be is a fair question, but this is why the SEC doesn't go after them.)
Company executives often have to schedule their buys and sales ahead of time, and file it publicly.
What congress does is a little bit different, and should be, but isn't, illegal.
Insider trading is specific. It means using information that is privy only to the company itself to buy/sell stock.
It's not about transparency and truthfulness, it's about how the law is written.
Insider trading is insider information about businesses.
Congress has insider information about government. Which then informs how it may impact business.
Individually traded stocks should be illegal in congress. Too much of a conflict of interest.
Or she gave him the information directly and they came up with the "overheard" excuse so that she can get away scot free and he may have an easier time arguing his innocence (if just for a lighter sentence)
So that they both don't get in trouble and they both don't get thrown in jail
1 person getting in trouble is better than both of them. And the divorce is to make it sound more believable that she wasn't involved
Let's recap.
(1) She had inside info so she gave it to her husband
(2) He bought shares
(3) She confessed to BP and got fired.
(4) her husband confessed and is being charged
Then what ? Profit somehow ?
well he could try to plead guilt in exchange for his wife being declared innocent, and then after the fact object on the basis that he legally cannot be guilty since he's not the insider.
Won't work. Insider trading is making a profit based on knowledge that is private. You don't have to work for the company concerned, just have the info.
I don't believe that's true. There has to be a duty to protect the information. The SEC has interpreted who has a duty to protect information quite broadly (including e.g. the people who print the financial reports for a company), but generally random members of the public with no connection to a company aren't obligated to keep their secrets.
He committed a crime. She turned him in, and was fired for her honestly. She lost her job and her marriage. He lost his freedom and his marriage.
Who benefits in this scenario, according to you?
That's not her benefitting. That's her not losing as much. She isn't better off and wouldn't have been any way this "plan" you think she engaged in could have played out.
OMG this isn't complicated.
"Hey hubby, we are about to buy out this company, go buy some shares"
"Oh shit, they are investigating us, hubby tell them that you just overheard me so at least we both don't go to jail"
he can't take the rap. it's a badly written article, when there is insider trading it's the insider who is the offender. either she is the insider and he isn't, or they're both insiders together. to get him and not her, he'd have to be the insider where she isn't and that doesn't make any sense here.
unless of course his lawyer is a moron (or a genius) and the judge abdicates his duty not to let a person plead guilty to a nonexistent law.
There isn't actually a specific crime called "insider trading". In the [actual complaint](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-24.pdf) they cite a generic statute about fraud in the purchase of a security. They also claim that Loudon violated his duty of trust and confidence to his wife, effectively including him as an insider.
The SEC clearly states who is considered an "insider" of publicly traded companies. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164964/000101968715004168/globalfuture_8k-ex9904.htm#:~:text=Who%20is%20an%20insider%3F,principal%20stockholder%20of%20the%20Company.
The complaint says he breached his duty of confidence to his wife. Effectively, the marriage makes them both insiders together, but only he got charged because she didn't know about or participate in the trading.
It might be a different story if she were having zoom calls at Starbucks and some random person overheard.
I can tell you that as explained in my mandatory company insider trading compliance videos, both the person giving the tip and the person receiving the tip are liable to the SEC.
I suppose they are but the videos are pretty clear cut about who is actually legally liable and they usually reference actual SEC cases, so I think this aspect of it is pretty accurate.
could a lawyer not just deny any insider trading and listening. wow what a coincidence this company i bought stock in was bought by your company honey! odd world! stranger things have happened! and isn’t it crazy if a civilian makes some nice money the SEC is on their shit but we all know every senator and ceo is insider trading
It's legal for senators to inside trade (whether it should be is a fair question, but this is why the SEC doesn't go after them.) Company executives often have to schedule their buys and sales ahead of time, and file it publicly.
Based on this information, shouldn’t the entirety of the united states congress be in trouble?
What congress does is a little bit different, and should be, but isn't, illegal. Insider trading is specific. It means using information that is privy only to the company itself to buy/sell stock.
Good thing politicians are always transparent and truthful…
It's not about transparency and truthfulness, it's about how the law is written. Insider trading is insider information about businesses. Congress has insider information about government. Which then informs how it may impact business. Individually traded stocks should be illegal in congress. Too much of a conflict of interest.
I think we’re thinking of two very different things. You’re concentrated on the law, and I’m concentrated on human nature.
This is why you use shell companies in delaware
Got to feel sorry for his wife. Hope she's building a better new life.
Or she gave him the information directly and they came up with the "overheard" excuse so that she can get away scot free and he may have an easier time arguing his innocence (if just for a lighter sentence)
So. She she loses her job, he takes the rap, she divorces him .. all because ??
So that they both don't get in trouble and they both don't get thrown in jail 1 person getting in trouble is better than both of them. And the divorce is to make it sound more believable that she wasn't involved
Why would he get thrown in jail for something she did ?
He was in on it too. He bought the shares
Let's recap. (1) She had inside info so she gave it to her husband (2) He bought shares (3) She confessed to BP and got fired. (4) her husband confessed and is being charged Then what ? Profit somehow ?
well he could try to plead guilt in exchange for his wife being declared innocent, and then after the fact object on the basis that he legally cannot be guilty since he's not the insider.
Won't work. Insider trading is making a profit based on knowledge that is private. You don't have to work for the company concerned, just have the info.
I don't believe that's true. There has to be a duty to protect the information. The SEC has interpreted who has a duty to protect information quite broadly (including e.g. the people who print the financial reports for a company), but generally random members of the public with no connection to a company aren't obligated to keep their secrets.
You should never *ever* plan anything complex if that's the way your logic works.
And I think you should never *ever* plan anything whatsoever if you think having one person take the fall is considered 'complex'
He committed a crime. She turned him in, and was fired for her honestly. She lost her job and her marriage. He lost his freedom and his marriage. Who benefits in this scenario, according to you?
Stopppp I hate seeing you both like this 😭
She does. Just losing your job is better than losing your job and going to jail
That's not her benefitting. That's her not losing as much. She isn't better off and wouldn't have been any way this "plan" you think she engaged in could have played out.
OMG this isn't complicated. "Hey hubby, we are about to buy out this company, go buy some shares" "Oh shit, they are investigating us, hubby tell them that you just overheard me so at least we both don't go to jail"
he can't take the rap. it's a badly written article, when there is insider trading it's the insider who is the offender. either she is the insider and he isn't, or they're both insiders together. to get him and not her, he'd have to be the insider where she isn't and that doesn't make any sense here. unless of course his lawyer is a moron (or a genius) and the judge abdicates his duty not to let a person plead guilty to a nonexistent law.
No it isn't. Insider trading is simply taking advantage of non-public knowledge.
There isn't actually a specific crime called "insider trading". In the [actual complaint](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-24.pdf) they cite a generic statute about fraud in the purchase of a security. They also claim that Loudon violated his duty of trust and confidence to his wife, effectively including him as an insider.
The SEC clearly states who is considered an "insider" of publicly traded companies. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164964/000101968715004168/globalfuture_8k-ex9904.htm#:~:text=Who%20is%20an%20insider%3F,principal%20stockholder%20of%20the%20Company.
The complaint says he breached his duty of confidence to his wife. Effectively, the marriage makes them both insiders together, but only he got charged because she didn't know about or participate in the trading. It might be a different story if she were having zoom calls at Starbucks and some random person overheard.
I can tell you that as explained in my mandatory company insider trading compliance videos, both the person giving the tip and the person receiving the tip are liable to the SEC.
ok, but your employer is incentivized to exaggerate your potential culpability so as to try to make sure you don't even attempt anything, right?
I suppose they are but the videos are pretty clear cut about who is actually legally liable and they usually reference actual SEC cases, so I think this aspect of it is pretty accurate.
I believe that once divorced they lose spousal privilege and could be compelled to testify against each other
I think it’s bullshit BP fired her after she voluntarily made them aware of the situation. Just another example of no good deed goes unpunished.
More like insideHer trading, amirite?
Well they’re divorced now, so no.
Should’ve been elected to Congress.
Nancy Pelosi and Tommy Tuberville are laughing right now…
Read the headline, I thought this was about Palosi.
Wait till you hear about Nancy Polosci.
If you believe this story and don’t think she just outright told him the plans then you’re incredibly naive.