chetan86

Thank you devildog for the very well thought-out and clear explanations.

In the case of Staple though, is his action considered 'acting' on the material non public info - as opposed to the broker who is clearly in violation. I am not trying to be difficult here; I am just trying to understand why Staple would be in violation when he has not personally benefited from the insider info.

So, in other words, is there a fine line that says if you tell another family member you are clearly NOT in violation (as long as no one acts on the info), however if you communicate that same info onto an entity outside the family and the entity acts and benefits from it then you are in clear violation. Or to put it more succinctly, the violators will be ONLY those (i) who acts on the info and (ii) the immediate accomplices who communicate that info to the person who acts on it. Is this right?

I also agree that the story would have been more credible had the violators been CFA members.

Thanks.