Activision Cooperating With Federal Insider Trading Probes (usnews.com) 9
An anonymous reader quotes Reuters: Activision Blizzard is cooperating with federal investigations into trading by friends of its chief executive shortly before the gaming company disclosed its sale to Microsoft Corp, it said in a securities filing on Friday.
It received requests for information from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and received a subpoena from a Department of Justice grand jury, the maker of "Call of Duty" said in an amended proxy filing.
The requests "appear to relate to their respective investigations into trading by third parties – including persons known to Activision Blizzard's CEO – in securities prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction," it said.
It received requests for information from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and received a subpoena from a Department of Justice grand jury, the maker of "Call of Duty" said in an amended proxy filing.
The requests "appear to relate to their respective investigations into trading by third parties – including persons known to Activision Blizzard's CEO – in securities prior to the announcement of the proposed transaction," it said.
kick someone ass day one or become someones bitch (Score:2)
kick someone ass day one or become someones bitch and you will do fine
cool now investigate congress (Score:1)
Politicians shouldnt be able to own stock in companies that they oversee regulations for.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with the sentiment, that alone will not fix the problem. Everything Congress does is connected every other thing Congress does. If you are able to stop reps and senators from holding stock, they'll transfer their holdings to their wives and children and feed them the information. If you stop the wives and kids, they'll simply use their siblings. Stop those as well and pretty soon it gets bogged down in the courts for abridging their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of ill-gotten gains.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the proper way it's done is all the investment holdings are transferred to a third party trust who manages the holdings as a disinterested third party - the investments are treated as ordinary investments that someone would do in self-interest.
The politician has zero input on what the third party does, the third party is completely in charge and invests it according to the desired goals (e.g., conservative, growth, aggressive, etc). The politician doesn't even know what is being held.
Presidents t
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What are the ramifications of this? Is this the ole, "NFL players shouldn't bet on the game because we can't trust anyone!" argument?
Seems to me that its hard enough to find decent people that have a brain that also want to politic.
Are you suggesting that we whittle the pool down even further?
--
Isn't life a series of images that change as they repeat themselves? - Andy Warhol
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that its hard enough to find decent people that have a brain that also want to politic.
I'd argue that decent people with a brain would divest from companies they regulate. And allowing this may entice less decent people (with or without a brain) to enter into politics for all the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
That problem is not limited to senators though, and should be covered under sharing insider information (which is illegal). It's true you cannot block that by construction (unlike holding shares), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix the most glaring issues. It's a general thing with corruption, or crime in general: you can never have airtight regulation that solves it all. But this doesn't mean that all regulation is useless (nor that more regulation is always better, of course: at some point it c