Comments on: Selling short, then suing http://overlawyered.com/2006/03/selling-short-then-suing/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=selling-short-then-suing Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sat, 26 May 2012 21:33:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: PointOfLaw Forum http://overlawyered.com/2006/03/selling-short-then-suing/comment-page-1/#comment-2349 PointOfLaw Forum Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:36:59 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3170#comment-2349 <strong>Short 'em, then sue 'em</strong> A reminder that our Featured Discussion between Moin Yahya and Larry Ribstein has been proceeding through the week. Their topic: what if anything should be done about the phenomenon of lawyers' or their confederates' selling short the stocks of target... Short ‘em, then sue ‘em

A reminder that our Featured Discussion between Moin Yahya and Larry Ribstein has been proceeding through the week. Their topic: what if anything should be done about the phenomenon of lawyers’ or their confederates’ selling short the stocks of target…

]]> By: Trolling In Shallow Water http://overlawyered.com/2006/03/selling-short-then-suing/comment-page-1/#comment-2348 Trolling In Shallow Water Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:17:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3170#comment-2348 <strong>Gaming the system</strong> There is no regulatory scheme so airtight that no one can figure out a way to game it. Gaming the system

There is no regulatory scheme so airtight that no one can figure out a way to game it.

]]> By: Shivering Timbers http://overlawyered.com/2006/03/selling-short-then-suing/comment-page-1/#comment-2347 Shivering Timbers Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:18:05 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3170#comment-2347 It sounds a lot like insider trading, and I don't think it would be too hard to make the charge stick. The definition of "inside information" is only that it be material and nonpublic. "Material" means that the typical investor would want to know the information before making an investment decision. So a big lawsuit almost certainly counts. But it is NOT necessary for the "inside information" to be known by the company itself. An analogous situation would be if Company X was about to make a hostile takeover offer for company Y. If you worked at Company X you could not legally buy stock in Company Y in order to profit from the announcement. It sounds a lot like insider trading, and I don’t think it would be too hard to make the charge stick.

The definition of “inside information” is only that it be material and nonpublic. “Material” means that the typical investor would want to know the information before making an investment decision. So a big lawsuit almost certainly counts.

But it is NOT necessary for the “inside information” to be known by the company itself.

An analogous situation would be if Company X was about to make a hostile takeover offer for company Y. If you worked at Company X you could not legally buy stock in Company Y in order to profit from the announcement.

]]> By: markm http://overlawyered.com/2006/03/selling-short-then-suing/comment-page-1/#comment-2346 markm Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:20:30 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3170#comment-2346 That sounds like insider trading to me. That sounds like insider trading to me.

]]>