More About Cuban And The SEC, If You’re Into That Thing
The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has an interesting though possibly unrelated development in the SEC’s case against Mark Cuban. A Fort Worth trial counselor for the SEC named Jeffrey Norris took exception to Cuban’s financing of the the film Loose Change, so he sent Cuban a harshly worded email. Cuban being Cuban replied. The exchange continued and got increasingly testy with doses of sarcasm. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox got in on it—or rather, got cc’ed on it. The SEC says Norris had nothing to do with the investigation into Cuban’s Mamma.com deal and Cox recused himself from the vote to indict, but Cuban’s lawyers might bring the emails up at trial. Developing.
Update: As a kind commentor points out, the DMN had this story a couple of days ago.
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Chris Cox has nothing better to do nowadays?
This couldn’t be more obvious.
There’s a few good reporters left at the DMN. Dave Michaels and Eric Torbensen reported this two or three days ago.
“Indict” is a word used in a criminal case. This is a civil fine. There’s a big difference.
Good point, Brian.
This story serves as yet another painful reminder that the SEC continues to ignore the whole issue of insider non-trading. What is insider non-trading, you ask? Well, it’s insidious and works like this. http://dealflow.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/sec-continues-to-ignore-insider-nontrading.html
Pat:
Go and read all my comments on this matter — and then read Brian’s post. You’ll see he’s incapable of writing a complete sentence.