Over a decade ago, in August 2004, I watched the high-profile Martha Stewart insider trading matter play out as federal prosecutors decided not to charge Stewart with the crime of insider trading, the SEC did pursue a civil lawsuit against her, and the rest of the U.S. seemed to scratch its head and wonder what the concept of “insider trading” even meant anymore.
I wrote a column entitled “The Elusive Law of Insider Trading” observing that “the root of the problem with the ‘insider trading laws’ is that there really aren’t any,” which had led to a situation where understanding the rules was “out of the grasp of mere mortals.” I highlighted several cases, including the Barry Switzer case, that showed that “although we may feel that we will know insider trading when we see it, case after case shows that this simply is not so.” I concluded that
