Loading...
On Wednesday, Mark Cuban won a long courtroom battle in a matter where the US Securities and Exchange Commission had tried to prove that Mark Cuban had committed insider trading when selling his shares in Mamma.com in 2004.
The jury in the federal district court in Dallas found that the SEC had failed to prove key elements in the case including their claim that Cuban had agreed to keep relevant information confidential and or that he had agreed not to trade upon such information.
After the verdict, Cuban denounced the SEC and said that the SEC and its lead trial attorney had lied about the evidence and had targeted him because of his fame.
Observing that defendants with lesser resources than him may have easily been bullied by the SEC and forced to settle, Cuban said the SEC had led a personal attack on him. He said, “It’s personal. When you put someone on the stand and accuse them of being a liar, it’s personal. When you take all these years of my life to try and prove a point, it’s personal.”
He admitted, “I’m glad I’m able to be the person who can afford to stand up to them.”
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
The SEC had alleged that Cuban had used insider information when selling $7.9 million of stock in Mamma.com. The CEO of the company testified by video that Cuban, as the company’s largest shareholder and agreed not to disclose information he received about a stock offering he knew would depress the price of shares in the company.
However, before the company announced the stock offering to the public, Cuban sold off his shares.
The SEC sued Cuban in the matter in 2008, but U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater tossed out the lawsuit the next year. The SEC won in appeal and the appeals court sent the matter back to Fitzwater for trial. On Wednesday, the jury in the trial found the SEC’s case lacking the proof sufficient to assert their claims.
There was not strict interpretation of the standards of evidence as this was not a criminal trial, and the evidence did not require to be beyond reasonable doubt.
