> His wife - who was "stunned by this revelation" - reported the trading to her supervisor at BP.
> Her email and texts were reviewed by BP and it found no evidence that she knowingly leaked the information about the deal to her husband or knew he had bought the shares.
> But "BP nonetheless terminated her employment," said the filing.
Break the law, save your marriage?... your marriage to a person who used you and ruined your career for his own financial gain.
Inform your company, attempt to save your career, send your spouse to prison?... lose your marriage... and what happened to those wedding vows?
The moment the guy broke her trust and did insider trading was the moment she was put in a lose/lose scenario.
He claimed he was doing it so that she wouldn't have to work so much and they'd have more time together. They're both loaded: it wasn't exactly stealing bread to survive another night.
She chose to not break the law, not risk prison and possibly save her career. I'd have done the same.
Forget the marriage for a minute, that part depends totally on the marriage itself. Just on her, the reward for doing the right thing is getting punished slightly less? Maybe? I don't even think that the SEC would be able to make a good case against her if she simply plead the 5th on the stand. She didn't profit and had no involvement with the crime itself.
And besides, her doing the right thing solely benefits BP here. It looks like just a large corporation using someone who actually cares about them and then throwing them away. Why should future people in the same position ally themselves with a known defector?
If she didn't report this to BP and it became known, her entire career would be finished.
Having reported this to BP and being fired by BP for their own legal protection (kinda, maybe?), she might be able to interview for other jobs with BP-level corps. Might.
Because congress has declared that it is legal for them to do it, so there's no criminal activity to prosecute.
Is that bullshit: yes.
Does that mean you should not prosecute it when it is illegal: of course not.
I get that you're frustrated that elected officials are allowed to trade on non-public information, but you can't say "why aren't you prosecuting them for it" when it's explicitly legal for them to do so.
Given the idiocy of the current setup, my feeling is people should get state level laws that say "all elected officials representing [state] must make all trade information available 5 business days prior to them being issued and once made public they cannot be cancelled; if they are aware of information that would reasonably expected to impact the price of the stock[s] they're trading they must indicate that; if any form of NDA or confidentiality requirement prevents them from indicating they are aware of such information that cannot make the trade; if they in anyway suggest or instruct any other person or entity to make any trades, they must provide the above details publicly just as though it were their own trade; if anyone receives any information, suggestion, or instruction from an elected official and through any mechanism other than their public notice, any trades they make are illegal; If an elected representative becomes aware of other officials - not from their state - trading in stock, funds, or industries while in possession of information that would reasonably impact valuations, they must publicly report the people they believe are trading, and the stock, funds, markets, etc that would be impacted by that knowledge". Finally, I'd add a "and every elected official's investment funds, etc must be public and trackable such that they can be automatically matched by anyone else".
Obviously in the ideal world what would happen is once you get elected to office or your investments, etc would be handed over to the relevant government body, where they would be liquidated into a cash balance, and then when you leave office you get that cash back increased by the median wealth increase of the bottom 80% of people in your state (for state government) or the US (for federal office). You'd also be prohibited from working in any industry you regulated or monitored for five years, and no contracts that offer you positions or compensation from before or during your period in government would ever be enforceable.
Because it's clear congress is not going to pass any laws prohibiting themselves from insider trading, so we're stuck with the ability for people to pass state level policies and laws to force the trading to be public, and to provide advance notice to everyone.
She could've mentioned the deal when they were both at home together (in passing, taking an M&A call outside of business hours), even if they weren't working remote. Unsophisticated person who took advantage, and was too simple to know the SEC looks for this in the trade data stream and too callous to care what would happen to their partner when (not if) caught.
> Loudon and his wife generally worked in home offices within 20 feet of each other. As a result, they frequently overheard and witnessed each other’s work-related conversations and video conferences. In late December 2022, Loudon and his wife traveled to Rome, staying in a small Airbnb where Loudon’s wife regularly worked on the TA acquisition and discussed the deal while Loudon was seated nearby.
> But also: “Loudon’s wife acknowledged discussing aspects of the acquisition with Loudon during the normal course of marital communications.” This is not a case where she rigorously kept the deal secret from him, and he broke into her laptop: It’s a case where a husband and wife talked about their days, and she trusted that he would not go and insider trade on the deal. Because why would he do that? That would be crazy!
16 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] thread> Her email and texts were reviewed by BP and it found no evidence that she knowingly leaked the information about the deal to her husband or knew he had bought the shares.
> But "BP nonetheless terminated her employment," said the filing.
Break the law, save your marriage?... your marriage to a person who used you and ruined your career for his own financial gain.
Inform your company, attempt to save your career, send your spouse to prison?... lose your marriage... and what happened to those wedding vows?
The moment the guy broke her trust and did insider trading was the moment she was put in a lose/lose scenario.
He claimed he was doing it so that she wouldn't have to work so much and they'd have more time together. They're both loaded: it wasn't exactly stealing bread to survive another night.
She chose to not break the law, not risk prison and possibly save her career. I'd have done the same.
It's more "don't report someone else breaking the law, keep your job as you're now single".
And besides, her doing the right thing solely benefits BP here. It looks like just a large corporation using someone who actually cares about them and then throwing them away. Why should future people in the same position ally themselves with a known defector?
Having reported this to BP and being fired by BP for their own legal protection (kinda, maybe?), she might be able to interview for other jobs with BP-level corps. Might.
Is that bullshit: yes.
Does that mean you should not prosecute it when it is illegal: of course not.
I get that you're frustrated that elected officials are allowed to trade on non-public information, but you can't say "why aren't you prosecuting them for it" when it's explicitly legal for them to do so.
Given the idiocy of the current setup, my feeling is people should get state level laws that say "all elected officials representing [state] must make all trade information available 5 business days prior to them being issued and once made public they cannot be cancelled; if they are aware of information that would reasonably expected to impact the price of the stock[s] they're trading they must indicate that; if any form of NDA or confidentiality requirement prevents them from indicating they are aware of such information that cannot make the trade; if they in anyway suggest or instruct any other person or entity to make any trades, they must provide the above details publicly just as though it were their own trade; if anyone receives any information, suggestion, or instruction from an elected official and through any mechanism other than their public notice, any trades they make are illegal; If an elected representative becomes aware of other officials - not from their state - trading in stock, funds, or industries while in possession of information that would reasonably impact valuations, they must publicly report the people they believe are trading, and the stock, funds, markets, etc that would be impacted by that knowledge". Finally, I'd add a "and every elected official's investment funds, etc must be public and trackable such that they can be automatically matched by anyone else".
Obviously in the ideal world what would happen is once you get elected to office or your investments, etc would be handed over to the relevant government body, where they would be liquidated into a cash balance, and then when you leave office you get that cash back increased by the median wealth increase of the bottom 80% of people in your state (for state government) or the US (for federal office). You'd also be prohibited from working in any industry you regulated or monitored for five years, and no contracts that offer you positions or compensation from before or during your period in government would ever be enforceable.
Because it's clear congress is not going to pass any laws prohibiting themselves from insider trading, so we're stuck with the ability for people to pass state level policies and laws to force the trading to be public, and to provide advance notice to everyone.
That's the meat of it; an anti-remote article in disguise
Advantage was taken of the remote working situation which created the possibility to overhear a confidential phonecall.
I'm not against remote work but don't misinterpret reality to push a narrative.
https://www.velaw.com/insights/utilizing-data-analytics-sec-...
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-129
> I'm not against remote work but don't misinterpret reality to push a narrative.
Reality is this happens all the time without remote work.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sec+charges+insider+trading
https://github.com/0xNF/lawsofinsidertrading.com ("Matt Levine's Laws of Insider Trading, webified")
> Loudon and his wife generally worked in home offices within 20 feet of each other. As a result, they frequently overheard and witnessed each other’s work-related conversations and video conferences. In late December 2022, Loudon and his wife traveled to Rome, staying in a small Airbnb where Loudon’s wife regularly worked on the TA acquisition and discussed the deal while Loudon was seated nearby.
> But also: “Loudon’s wife acknowledged discussing aspects of the acquisition with Loudon during the normal course of marital communications.” This is not a case where she rigorously kept the deal secret from him, and he broke into her laptop: It’s a case where a husband and wife talked about their days, and she trusted that he would not go and insider trade on the deal. Because why would he do that? That would be crazy!