Whats the right thing? Call up her fund manager and tell them how to trade and not trade? Thats actually the wrong thing. These trades were made without her knowledge. If it comes out she called her fund guy after a confidential senate meeting on covid and told him “a pandemic is coming, no one knows yet, make some trades based on that”…I will bow my head in shame.
This is probably a derail but this is a great example of a public shaming and witch hunt based on misleading article headlines and no facts and critical thought.
Yes, I read the post. You said in various ways that those insults apply if he does anything to try to force her to respect his parental rights to see his daughter.
Well yeah if him enforcing his parental rights puts the child in danger then he’s an asshole by definition and we can spend 100 posts on it but you’re probably not going to change my mind about that.
Sweden has finally issued new guidelines. Today marks the first time they “explicitly required healthy, symptom-free people to keep their distance from others in public spaces.” They also recommend: “avoiding taking part in large social events such as parties, funerals, christenings, and weddings”.
I think that a scenario with similarities is when landlords evict medical workers because of fear that they could be infectious. I think we mostly agree here that that should not be allowed even if the landlord lives in the same property and has children they want to protect.
Is there an increased risk of infection? Yes. Is there an egregious risk where he is guaranteed to get it and pass it on to his child? No. Is there a reason to believe that he will not be careful and take all necessary precautions with his child? I will presume no, unless you can tell me otherwise.
I strongly lean towards the side that the father’s custody rights ought to be respected, absent the opinion of a medical professional to the contrary.
I am a lawyer (in fact one that specializes in this exact area of law) and it is a defense to insider trading.
One of the elements of insider trading is scienter - i.e. your mental state. If she truly had no involvement or even knowledge of the trade she can’t be liable for it. Now if she heard the non-public information and passed it on, intending that he trade on it she would be liable as that satisfies the scienter element.
Lol at believing the timing of these trades is just a coincidence. Doesn’t matter whether she told him exactly what to trade or just said yeah bad day today this covid thing is going to be huge. Its clearly corrupt, stop dissembling and carrying water for these fucking vultures.
Cool thanks for the explanation. So it could potentially come down to a situation where it is her word against the brokers? How do those cases usually shake out in your experience?
Not following the investment scandal, but all a congressperson has to do is have a vague idea of what they are invested in before they vote on laws in order for there to be a conflict. They don’t have to make any trades because of pending legislation.
They’ve always gotta keep running up the scoreboard to hoard more wealth, otherwise they might have to scrape by on $400k a month like Trump did at his lowest. The horror.
Sure, if the broker says she gave him non-public information or that she directed him to make the trades, and she denies that.
In practice that will never happen, the broker has no incentive to turn on her. Right now he is not on the hook for the trades, but could be if he knowing traded on the basis of non-public information, so why implicate himself.
Only way she goes down if there is a smoking gun - i.e. an email to the broker. Even a phone call right before the trades might not be enough, if they can offer some plausible explanation for the call.
It’s also a pretty good defense that the trades were so small w/respect to her overall portfolio. It’s much easier to convict in the Burr scenario when you can show that the trades were out of the ordinary.
The odds that these trades are a coincidence relies heavily on how she trades when she doesn’t have knowledge of an imminent pandemic. Given that the questionable trades are an insignificant part of her portfolio and not very good trades given what was coming, it’s much more likely they were routine. Your method for evaluating the evidence here is terrible.
Why don’t we start with list of the trades that seem “suspect” and see if they are not ordinary trades to be expected in a managed fund of her size. Then we can also create a list of trades made about the same time that were actually really bad ones based on the same thesis the suspect trades were supposedly based on.
After that if things seem like its possible these trades were made with inside information she had then we can get to trying to prove if she had any contact with the people making these trades during this time.
This is the right analysis and I’m sure it will be done.
I will say that it’s also an annoying analysis and I think leads to the wrong conclusion in clearing trades. Many (all?) fund managers know that this analysis is done, so even when they have inside information the limit the size of their trades so it is not out of the ordinary. Sure you make less on each trade, but do it often enough and it adds up. There is a reason that it’s almost always individuals caught (and often not the super wealthy) for insider trading and not funds.
