Free Mark Cuban !
By Barry Ritholtz - July 17th, 2009, 12:29PM
The civil suit (insider trading allegation) against Mark Cuban has been dismissed:
WSJ: A federal judge has dismissed a civil-insider trading lawsuit against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater granted Mr. Cuban’s motion Friday. Judge Fitzwater gave the Securities and Exchange Commission 30 days to file an amended complaint.
You may now return to being everyone’s favorite loudmouth billionaire basketball team owner . . .
July 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
So what do I do with the “Free Mark Cuban!” t-shorts I had printed up? Just another example of Liberals destroying small business owners. Is CIT’s bankruptcy judge going to want that money back?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
What was that — a friggin’ 12(b)(6) motion? Wow, the SEC really does suck.
Me write pleedin’ reel gud.
COUNT I – INSYDE TRADERZ
1. Man name Mark Cuban.
2. Man ofacer of kumpney
3. Ofacer is fidoosharrarries. And stuff.
4. Man name Mark Cuban know spechial stuff becuz he ofacer.
5. Man do stuff he not supposed to with knowlidge. Get money.
6. Man bad man for that.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
If anyone is interested, here is the SEC complaint against Cuban, filed November 2008:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf
and a nice summary of the legal issue around Cuban’s alleged fiduciary duty from Laura Fitzpatrick of Time:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1860675,00.html
July 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Transor, your suggestion that the SEC is staffed entirely by 20 Watt bulbs is…. frickin’ hilarious…!!!
July 17th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Lefty, the SEC attorneys relied on a standard of duty that the SEC created, namely that a person who merely agrees to a confidentiality agreement and receives information under it can be liable as an insider. The Texas federal judge held that the SEC overstepped the allowable definition of “insider” and said the SEC needs a better hook to have a 10(b) case. They need to allege that Cuban promised to keep the info confidential.
So the question is why, from a technical legal pleading perspective they did not do so. None of the possibilities reflect well on them.
1. They can’t prove it. Fine. So you’re going to sue a billionaire using a poorly tested legal theory while an SEC official cyber-stalks Cuban on unrelated ideological topics. CREEPY FAIL
2. You either forgot or do not understand alternative pleading. Dim bulb asshat FAIL
Since the SEC specializes in celebrity 10(b) insider trading this is what passes for their A game.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:12 am
That Mark guy…say he’s got a good blog too. Nice link thanks BR