back to article Mark Cuban charged with insider trading

Mark Cuban, technology entrepreneur, billionaire, Dallas Mavericks owner, and ardent attention-seeker is getting a new title by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today: "defendant." The SEC has charged Cuban with insider trading, accusing him of dumping his entire stock in a start-up Internet search engine …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Charles Manning

    Fry the CEO too

    Silly bugger should not be giving out info. The only reason for giving "heads up" info is to allow Cuban to act on it.

  2. Glenn Gilbert


    > by selling his shares before the public announcement, Cuban avoided losses in excess of $750,000

    Or to put it another way, someone paid $750,000 too much for the stock through a fraudulent action which deliberately overvalued the stock.

    Isn't that theft?

    And the penalty would be, say, 10+ years in jail if it were a blue-collar crime. Hmm.

  3. DrewHew
    Paris Hilton

    Suck it!

    You know what?

    Mark Cuban is such a fucktard, I actually don't feel sorry for him!

    He keeps spouting off at the mouth about technology, and he really doesn't know shit about technology - he's just a lucky, loud-mouth asswipe that benefited from the dot com bubble. Got a good domain name early, and sold it to a bunch of losers before the bust.

    Good riddance! If Martha could do time, so should he. (Let's see if he doesn't keep that blow-hole shut in prison, lest his room-mate stick something in it! :D)

    Paris - cuz even she's smarter than this idiot (and would make a better room-mate)

  4. James O'Brien
    IT Angle

    Doesnt sound like he wanted to make too much

    I mean seriously "sell whatever you can the next day" doesnt sound like he was dumping to be malicious. Sounded like he wanted out regardless. I dont blame him. If he was doing it to bring a profit then fine....but seems to me like he was doing it to get out before the bottom hit. So what if he knew its not like he did this to make a profit....I would have been out too from what it sounds like.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why now 4 years later?

    If this happened in 2004, none of the facts are disputed so why prosecute now?

    IMHO they are trying to ride the sentiment of anti capitalism to get a prosecution on a very weak case there.

    If the PIPE was a good thing for the company then why do they claim Cuban would have made more money by dumping the stock than buying the PIPE shares at a discount?

    Without the profit motive, what have you got? A shareholder who is allowed to BUY on secret news but not allowed to SELL on secret news, even though the secret news is supposed to be good for the company???

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Charles Manning: Fry the CEO too

    Its a PIPE deal, the PI in PIPE stands for Private Investor. The best people to approach for funding a PIPE deal are Private Investors would already have a substantial share in the company.

    If the CEO is not allowed to ask anybody to invest in the PIPE deal then how exactly does he get the Private Investors for the PIPE deal in the first place?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    If someone turned up on my doorstep and said "Those shares you bought are going to be worth jack sh1t tomorrow after our PIPE deal and you can't do a damned thing about it" then I'd probably think "screw you" and sell anyway.

    Either I lose money due to a dodgy management decision or I lose money due to being fined for dodgy dealing. He chose dodgy dealing - at least that way there was a chance no-one would find out...

This topic is closed for new posts.