Comments on: Free Mark Cuban ! http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/ Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:15:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Simon http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-195038 Simon Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:12:09 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-195038 That Mark guy...say he's got a good blog too. Nice link thanks BR That Mark guy…say he’s got a good blog too. Nice link thanks BR

]]> By: Transor Z http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-194979 Transor Z Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:53:47 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-194979 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. 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.

]]> By: leftback http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-194950 leftback Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:01:34 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-194950 Transor, your suggestion that the SEC is staffed entirely by 20 Watt bulbs is.... frickin' hilarious...!!! Transor, your suggestion that the SEC is staffed entirely by 20 Watt bulbs is…. frickin’ hilarious…!!!

]]> By: Transor Z http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-194861 Transor Z Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:57:03 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-194861 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 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

]]> By: Transor Z http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-194847 Transor Z Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:33:15 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-194847 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. 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.

]]> By: VennData http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/free-mark-cuban/comment-page-1/#comment-194826 VennData Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:34:16 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=32681#comment-194826 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? 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?

]]>