[Guest post by DRJ]
The SEC has filed charges against Mark Cuban alleging he avoided more than $750,000 in losses by using confidential information to time the sale of his stock in a search engine company, Mamma.com.
The article notes Cuban had an estimated net worth of $2.3B in March 2007.
UPDATE: The WSJ has more.
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Powered by WordPress.
I loath Cuban. He’s absolutely classless. But I seriously wonder if he’ll get a fair trial.
these types of offenses seem to be handled very poorly. He could down for some offense crafted during the investigation that he hasn’t yet ‘committed’.
I just lack faith in the SEC. If he did do this, that’s pretty pathetic.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 11:47 amThe charges you are looking for are “Perjury” and “Obstruction”…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:00 pmHa! Didn’t he produce The Smartest Guys in the Room?
MayBee (4f6fae) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:20 pmI know that prosecutor filings always read like an open and shut case, even on charges that are really shaky. If they don’t, the prosecutor didn’t do his job correctly. But assuming that the facts as stated in the filing are not made up, I’m having a hard time coming up with any possible additional facts that would be exonerating.
So I’m going to be interested in reading the defense filings when they come out. What’s the normal timeframe for that? 30 or 60 days or something? I’ll have to watch for it.
Skip (ba6438) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:25 pmI’ve updated the post to link a Wall Street Journal article that has a link to the SEC Complaint.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:30 pmAs he is an IU grad, this makes me laugh.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:33 pmDamn. I hope by ‘IU grad’ you mean University of Illinois.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:39 pmNope. Indiana University. Any self-respecting Illini would never confuse the term IU for U of I.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:42 pmSorry. I is a transplanted Hoosier. And stoopid, too.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:43 pmYou can take boy out of the Hoosier, but you can never take the Hoosier out of the boy.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 12:56 pmThat’s cold, man. Cold.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:29 pmAnd where is Obama from again?
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:30 pmHello, Mr. Redundancy… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:31 pmAnd where is Obama from again?
Hawaii, or Kansas, depending on the target of the ad.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:37 pmScott, while you’re right, it’s obstruction generally that I’m talking about, it’s a charge that has been abused.
Hey, if he’s guilty, then he should be punished and I will laugh at him (I already do that). I just don’t think the SEC has much credibility.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:38 pmFair enough. Rephrasing: What jackasses elected him? Whom does he ‘represent’? What is his constituency? And don’t say it’s ‘all of us’. ‘Cos he don’t.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:45 pmOh, you forgot Kenya.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:46 pmAnd/or Indonesia.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:47 pmNote that this is a civil lawsuit by the SEC. The result would be civil liability for a money judgment or an injunction.
The term “guilty” would be inappropriate.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:47 pmThanatopsis – Is that a name of a story or a poem? Bryant, if my memory serves?
Oh, yeah. Illinois is responsible for Teh One. Since I am a transplanted Illini living in Indy, I guess the Hoosiers are to blame as well.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:50 pmSPQR – IANAL, so could you explain why the SEC would pursue a civil remedy if Cuban broke the law?
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:51 pmJD, depending on the facts, in something like insider trading, there are both civil and criminal causes of action possible.
A civil action has less burdensome elements to prove, and a lower burden of proof ie., preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing versus beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if the DOJ won’t file criminal on behalf of the SEC ( the SEC is not authorized to prosecute crimes ), then the SEC files civil action.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/17/2008 @ 1:57 pmSPQR – Are there statutory numbers that they can recover?
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:01 pmHope you’re not polluting the gene pool. And I apologize for the frick-frack football team. IU’s, that is. They can get a good reciever but no QB or running back. They can get a good reciever, a decent QB, but no running back. Etc. etc. One needs all three to be competitive.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:02 pmGod, I remember when Lee Corso stopped a game w/Ohio State because IU was ahead so that the team could be photographed in front of the scoreboard when IU was leading.
Shit.
I have no life.
Pity me or pray for me.
SPQR, I appreciate that correction.
Though I guess it might mean the SEC doesn’t have a convincing case. It’s unfair for someone to be prosecuted by the infinite resources of the government and carry a nearly equal burden of proof. not that Cuban is lacking for resources.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:03 pmOh, ‘Thanatopsis’ is a poem. Read it. You’ll like it.
Thanatopsis (9eac56) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:04 pmThanatopsis – I went and found it. Good choice.
One of my neighborhood friends was on that Ohio State team. He thought it was funny.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:36 pmI thought that Obama was a gift from God. . . .
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:39 pmYa know, when you look at Cuban, and you say to yourself “What an egotistical asshole!”, that should be a sign of a willingness to do whatever it takes — legal or otherwise — to ‘win’. It’s the same Type-A personality failing that landed Martha Stewart in the pokey.
Icy Truth (aedb2f) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:42 pmI like Mark Cuban, for some reason. I hope he buys the Cubs, and spends billions not winning the World Series.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:44 pmAre you sure you like Mark Cuban? 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:49 pmIn a twisted kind of way, yes I do, Scott.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:52 pmThe charges you are looking for are “Perjury” and “Obstruction”…
Or simply lying to a government official. That’s what they got Martha on, after all.
I’m amazed that someone as wealthy as Cuban would take any risk at all for less than about $10 million. Meh. Maybe that’s why I’m not worth $2.3 billion.
Eric (605286) — 11/17/2008 @ 2:59 pmIf he ends up making little rocks from big rocks I hope he starts with the one in his head. Cuban is a truther and bankrolled the anti-military movie Redacted. I hope they have him and nail him at least as hard as they did Martha Stewart. And if they don’t maybe Obama can make a spot for him in his cabinet.
Bel Air (2fd7f7) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:03 pmI guess 2008 just wasn’t the year of the Maverick.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:34 pmIt’s not really lying to a government official. It’s being inaccurate to a government official. Which is impossible to avoid if they ask you enough questions and you cooperate long enough. Nobody is perfect. IF they are investigating something they already know is no crime, they may go on and on until they find some inconsistency to convict you on via obstruction.
I don’t think an investigation should continue once the underlying crime is debunked. And I’m not talking about Valerie Plame.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:41 pmThe easiest solution is to say:
Another Drew (a9bf4b) — 11/17/2008 @ 4:09 pmNo!
I’m sorry, you’ll have to talk to my attorney,
or wait until he can be here with us.
I guess 2008 just wasn’t the year of the Maverick.
Well done, sir.
JVW (89c289) — 11/17/2008 @ 4:18 pmXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlq
“I guess 2008 just wasn’t the year of the Maverick.”
XrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlqXrlq
Yes we have a winner!
Vermont Neighbor (5ea336) — 11/17/2008 @ 4:51 pmAnother Drew,
Certainly that would seem to be the correct response. But self incrimination privilege isn’t that hard to dispose of. This is a civil case and Cuban could be granted criminal immunity.
I’ll stop whining now.
Xrlq, congrats on the comment.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 11/17/2008 @ 8:23 pm