There may be something here.
Posted on 09/19/2004 2:41:21 PM PDT by rantblogger
No but these were material events occurring which effected the value of the stocks. During such periods there is a presumption of knowledge for key insiders. If the stock traveled south after he sold the SEC has definitely already started to investigate. He could be liable for any losses he avoided by this sale. In effect he will have sold to an unsuspecting trusting public not privy to the same info he had.
I don't think that applies to insiders in a company. The Fair Disclosure law just doesn't permit insders trading on inside information on any level. Now if you are an employee and do not have inside information, than you can exercise an option at any time.
Keep in mind that an option is a buy and sell transaction. If President X has an option for Y number of shares at $5.00 and he exercises that option when the stock is at $10.00 the company buys the stock at $10.00 and sells it to him for $5.00 and he sells it for $10.00. So he has to advise the SEC in advance before he does this. And they use a form 144.
If the law did not prevent this then they could use insider information to transact their trades.
Sorry, I disagree. This kind of sale would have been planned weeks in advance. Moreover, SEC is not investigating as of yet. We would know about it. Plus what info would he know that we already don't know about? We practically know everything (but without the certainty that Burkett was the culprit).
Notwithstandng any other issue, the timing does not appear coincidental...
It looks to me like Redstone is trying to dump enough to get some cash before a bigger fall, but not too much as to cause a major upset.
And someone tried to suggest that he had 100 million shares??
Maybe. When exactly did the memos first cross CBS' prow?
Who, if anyone, spoke to Redstone or his people prior to handing them off to CBS?
How long did Redstone's particular stock dump actually take?
if he were really anticipating a fall in the stock, he should have sold months ago, look at the stock's chart. anyway, as a holder of restricted stock, he can only sell certain weeks of the year in order not to conflict with earnings/news announcements.
It doesn't matter how long the sale was "planned" only what was happening at the transaction time. Company lawyers at a firm I had been at would identify when we were in a window when we could or could not trade, at our peril. Didn't even matter if we actually knew why we were in a window - the door was shut.
Doesn't an officer of a corporation have to give 30 notice of intention to sell?
Well I don't think he would be willing to go to prison for this.
The stock is up from its recent low of $32 and change, the patteren indicates that it may continue its up move from where it presently is.
since most people with 401ks probably have Viacom in their portfolios, I suggest we keep an eye on this and sue if there is harm to our stocks - then we SUE THE BASTARDS and have the FEC bring SUIT AGAINST THE BASTARDS.
/vent
All I know is that if I owned CBS (Viacom) stock I'd dump it first thing tomorrow morning - Monday, 9/20.
I think you're right..but I think Redstone will not be happy that this fiasco subjects the transaction to additional scrutiny ..
There may be something here.
SEC would tell the company. The company would get notified and would have to disclose. If SEC is still in the initial phases, then it would not matter to any party in reality.
As far as whether the CEO had insider trading issues, I don't see the problem. Almost everything was public from the first weekend the scandal arose. You and I probably know more about the scandal, since those idiots at CBS told everyone that there was no problem.
Redstone had the very first insider peeks at the devastating effect the corrupt CBS News Department is having on the network's ratings. Redstone realized that Dan Rather and the rest of the Alzheimer leftists at CBS News are going to cost Viacom hundreds of millions of dollars in lost advertising income. He bailed before the market realized how grossly overpriced Viacom equity was.
As Hugh Hewitt notes: "For reasons unfathomable to outsiders, the Board of Directors of Viacom is watching the brand value burn to the ground without lifting a finger to stop it. This isn't about a one week ratings fade. It is about setting free an entire generation of news viewers to sample other networks and develop new habits. The events of the past week may be taught in business schools for decades to come."
CBS is in free fall ratings collapse, dragged into financial ruin by the utterly corrupt CBS News division. Drudge cites much evidence for this, but my favorite is in ultra-liberal New York City. I n the nation's top market, New York, Rather finished not only behind NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT -- but also pulled less audience than reruns of the SIMPSONS, WILL & GRACE and KING OF QUEENS. Rather finished dead last in New York during the 6:30 pm timeslot among all broadcast channels tracked by NIELSEN on Tuesday.
you are so right---if they were really clued in at CBS, they would have done a mea culpa, investigation and it would have been behind them by now. that was the answer to one of the company's problems -- not selling stock!
We will apply the Dan Rather/CBS/MSM standard to this situation.
Who gives a damn about the reality of the thing, it is the perception that matters.
The SEC gives a damn.
wouldn't firing the head of CBS be a better response to their suicidal moves than selling the stock?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.