Black Unicorn writes:
Incorrect. The deciding factor is the court's determiniation of whether the information was "material non-public information." As the question of materiality is vague, subjective and subject to whim, even a low level employee is risking time and fines. Often materiality has exactly zero to do with what effect it may have on stock price.
There is a simple solution to avoiding liability. Don't trade in your own company's stock.
You make the case that it is somehow shocking to think that an employee wouldn't be able to buy stock in their employer. Such restrictions have existed for decades. Why are you so stunned?
I trust it won't stun you to find that many, many large and even small corporations -- including my current employer [*NOT* SecureWare, BTW, despite the email address] -- actually encourage their employees to buy stock by offering stock purchase plans as a benefit of employment. They even make it convenient by deducting purchases from one's paycheck. Presumably then, we ordinary employees are so in-the-dark that any non-public information we do hold is considered non-material? So perhaps Tim over-simplified by saying that there were no limits on what ordinary employees could do. OTOH, it seems that Perry also over-simplified by flatly stating that Tim's trades while an Intel employee were "illegal". -- Jeff