The New York Times has an editorial in Sunday’s newspaper about the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a First Amendment case with business journalism implications.
“In the case, the publisher of a financial newsletter promised a hot stock tip, based on inside information, to people willing to pay $1,000. About 1,200 people agreed to pay, but the tip did not pan out, and the stock failed to soar. The Securities and Exchange Commission sued the publisher for securities fraud, and the lower courts agreed that the publisher, Frank Porter Stansberry and his company, Agora Inc., should be penalized.
“It was the first time the S.E.C. had gone after a publisher who did not have a stake in the stock in question. Normally, the laws against securities fraud are designed to prevent insider trading or manipulation by people who stand to profit through ownership of a stock.
“Mr. Stansberry’s actions might seem unorthodox or even unethical by the standards of most reputable publishers, but that does not make them illegal. The implications of the S.E.C.’s action are potentially profound: newspapers or Web sites promising their paying readers stock information that later turns out to be untrue suddenly leave themselves open to fraud charges. Any financial commentator who passes on bad information in good faith could be sued.”
Read more here.
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
Larry Avila has been named interim editor for Automotive Dive, an Industry Dive publication. He…
View Comments
This is interesting and scary. Its getting to the point where sharing one's opinion can land you in legal trouble. Surely the reader has to take a certain degree of responsibility for doing his/her own due diligence before making up their own mind on whether or not to buy stocks? Where else will this lead? Will publishers like Mr Stansberry need to start adding a disclaimer to each article they write?
Let's get this straight. Stansberry was not convicted because of publishing an opinion but because a Federal judge and an Appellate Court found that he ran a complex, for-profit scam, disseminating information he KNEW TO BE FALSE in order to push up a penny stock, in view of selling more of his $1,000 a pop reports.
The claim that Stansberry is a journalist is ridiculous... last time I checked journalists tend to procure 2 independent sources for every claim they make. Had he done that, he'd have nothing to sell!
You could claim Madoff was unjustly persecuted because his falsified reports are protected speech!
Please read the actual findings of the court (http://cmaeda.com/blogfiles/agora-judgement-memorandum.pdf and http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081037.P.pdf) before taking Stansberry's lies about government persecution. They are true eye openers!!
And the look at the price development of NSUMF between June 30 and July 20 2010 to see how he continues to manipulate stock prices...