- UID
- 223327
- 帖子
- 324
- 主题
- 105
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2013-10-21
|
5#
发表于 2013-4-28 05:48
| 只看该作者
Well, it’s been a while, but my understanding is that the firms were conducting standard distressed trading practices where CI agreements were in place with the law firms which had the confidential information. There’s only a handful of distressed trading firms and an even small amount of law firms handling these bankruptcies so it’s likelihood that they would cross paths is highly likely, which is confidentiality agreements are relied upon (again standard practice).
There’s also the question of duty. As a distressed investor they have no duty to the company as they are not an insider as generally defined, which can get complicated, but in some cases allows someone to actually use insider information to trade so long as they are not violating a duty to the organization. I’m not sure the defense the funds are using is “hey we’re not an insider therefore we can trade on inside information all we want,” but the judge’s ruling did classfy the funds as insiders subject to general insider trading provisions we’re all familiar with. This is the ruling that I think will be thrown out or overturned, because this essentially puts distressed debt holders as an insider which would dramatically hamper this business. Ideally, we want to facilitate this market or else the value of the distressed companies will be even less valuable.
That being said, I do think there is some changes that should be made in the grey opaque market of distressed debt trading. It seems that these guys are getting an advantage in the marketplace and their profitability seems to prove it. |
|