Seeking Alpha

Icahn Enterprises -4% but insider trading case will be hard to prove

  • Icahn Enterprises (IEP) tumbled 4% in today's trade despite the apparent majority view that regulators could have a hard time proving Carl Icahn violated insider trading laws.
  • "It's not enough to show that there was material, non-public information divulged," says Columbia securities law professor John Coffee. "You must show that there was a breach of fiduciary duty."
  • “Carl Icahn is a well-known investor who has made a career of trying to put companies into play like Clorox,” says Richard Holwell, who presided over the Raj Rajaratnam insider trading trial, adding that Icahn disclosed his ownership, "so people would have known... that he was going to make a run” for Clorox.
  • Authorities reportedly have pored over phone records, seeking trading patterns, but phone records provide only circumstantial leads.
From other sites
Comments (4)
  • phildevoyd
    , contributor
    Comments (159) | Send Message
     
    IMHO, the SEC is looking for either low hanging fruit or sensational headlines to justify their existence or further their careers after their time with the government.
    It's easy to be biased. After all, I have not seen more than what the media feeds us.
    I was involved in 2 insider cases during my time in the brokerage industry. One was an open and shut violation; the other a fishing expedition by a very lucky (or unlucky) neophyte speculator buying out-of-the-money puts ahead of an earnings announcement. I'd feel differently if I saw evidence of an even-handed approach. Sadly, there is no oversight for the SEC, except Congress.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Bearded and busy
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    It is truly unbelievable that in Insider-Trading Probe Hits Snag, June 1, 2014 http://on.wsj.com/1p24Vfy The WSJ has turned to the level of journalism it has if you can even call it that. I can't remember the last time that I read a story in a credible newspaper where the writer referred only to unnamed sources. To that end, there is not a single quote sourced in this WSJ story and the entire story is based on hearsay. Given the fact that the people who are named in this story didn't even know there was a pending investigation, if there is even one, should tell you all you need to know about the amount of due diligence the WSJ did before publishing this story. It appears that the journal grasping at straws to write a story here because of the high profile public figures involved in an effort to sell more copies. It's truly a shame - The Journal and the articles two authors have not only embarrassed themselves in writing this story, as it is clearly a violation of journalism ethics, but it is truly an insult to their readers intelligence. With this level of journalism, or lack thereof, the WSJ should just start selling itself at grocery counters everywhere alongside the rest of the tabloids.
    2 Jun 2014, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (1407) | Send Message
     
    I gave up on the WSJ back in the 90's when the Washington Bureau was run by the likes of Al Hunt and Jill Abramson.
    2 Jun 2014, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • dacama1
    , contributor
    Comments (220) | Send Message
     
    The SEC's has a losing track record over the past few years with these cases. This one will extend that record as well.
    3 Jun 2014, 08:24 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs