Many actions involve regulatory settlements regarding alleged insider trading.
I wrote about insider trading and the apparent lack of enforcement before:
The fact that action has been taken is good, this should act as some sort of deterrent.
However, there are two clear negatives:
- Some of these cases are very old, even up to eight years. Why does it take so unbelievable long before any action is taken?
- In all actions, the following text can be found: "when they agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against them for insider trading". This is a quite common way to settle matters in the USA, but I don't like it very much. Did the alleged insider trading indeed take place, or was the alleged perpetrator so fed up with the process that he/she was willing to settle?