Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 177 posts

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#31

Post by glittershark »

devmunchies wrote: post #25
hqian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely yes. Actually if this doesn't count I don't know what is. However just like you, don't take my word, not a lawyer.

Off topic question... Is there a law about giving legal advice in a public forum if you're not a lawyer? Why do people add the disclaimer about not being a lawyer. Generally curious. Moreover, is there a law about impersonating lawyer in a public forum (not that any ethical person would do that of course)?

Not a lawyer (ironically) but afaik there are all sorts of laws governing an attorney-client relationship, and it's possible to implicitly enter into such a relationship by giving something resembling legal advice.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#32

Post by jzwinck »

devmunchies wrote: post #25
hqian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely yes. Actually if this doesn't count I don't know what is. However just like you, don't take my word, not a lawyer.

Off topic question... Is there a law about giving legal advice in a public forum if you're not a lawyer? Why do people add the disclaimer about not being a lawyer. Generally curious. Moreover, is there a law about impersonating lawyer in a public forum (not that any ethical person would do that of course)?

No there is not a law against giving legal advice if you're not a lawyer. It's lawyers who are sometimes prohibited from giving legal advice. Non-lawyers have the usual freedom of speech, restricted in the usual ways.

Claiming that you are someone you're not on the Internet is so commonplace it is hard to see where any trouble would come of it by itself. Again it's different if you knowingly cause harm to others.

I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Or maybe I am and it is. Who knows.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#33

Post by Teever »

wsxcde wrote: post #26
bigdubs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to have verifiable identity that is tied to something more secure than a (not random) 9 digit [0-9] string and an address. Your name is on the chain, the assertion you're you is done with your private key.

And are we expecting normal people to do key management?

How else do you expect them to start the cars and open the doors to the houses they bought on credit?

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#34

Post by ChuckMcM »

That seems incredibly stupid. The CFO especially would be hard pressed to convince anyone either that he 'didn't know' there had been a breach or define himself as not an 'insider.' If the facts are as reported these folks are in a world of hurt.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#35

Post by maxerickson »

mankash666 wrote: post #15

Credit reporting agencies are the cancer of the modern economy. They are rife with inaccuracies, and on top of that, highly vulnerable to hacking , as software engineering is just a cost for them, not their focus. Their entire function needs to move to the blockchain. Their only value is that of a distributed, trust less ledger, and they charge horrible fees and sit in the middle for doing that terribly

They actually sell trust.

Perhaps they are overcharging, but they aren't serving a trustless function.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#36

Post by jzwinck »

khuey wrote: post #11
stygiansonic wrote: post #5

FTA: " None of the filings lists the transactions as being part of 10b5-1 pre-scheduled trading plans. " Anyone with more knowledge: How normal is this sort of behaviour?

Securities laws in the United States prohibit trades made with "material non-public information". A 10b5-1 plan is an affirmative defense to insider trading. The basic idea is that before you get access to material non-public information, you decide "I want to buy/sell X shares on the second Tuesday of every month" or similar. Because the trades are made in a way that was determined before you had access to material…

What if you cancel the planned trades when you learn of some coming news that disadvantages them?

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#37

Post by trjordan »

korethr wrote: post #7

So, does this count as insider trading? My intuition says 'yes'. But my intuition about a thing and what the law says don't always match.

It's hard to prove intent.

If there's a history of these execs selling similar amounts of stock in other quarters, then it's probably not insider trading.

If the paperwork trail started an hour after the first meeting where they learned about the breach, and they had never sold stock before, then it's probably insider trading.

Since the truth is somewhere in between, it's hard to say. It's hard to believe that these people didn't recognize the optics of what they were doing. But, that's why we have investigators and courts.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#38

Post by c22 »

wsxcde wrote: post #26
bigdubs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to have verifiable identity that is tied to something more secure than a (not random) 9 digit [0-9] string and an address. Your name is on the chain, the assertion you're you is done with your private key.

And are we expecting normal people to do key management?

Perhaps Equifax could transition to a key escrow service for those who trust giant corporations more than themselves.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#39

Post by ericseppanen »

jzwinck wrote: post #36
khuey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Securities laws in the United States prohibit trades made with "material non-public information". A 10b5-1 plan is an affirmative defense to insider trading. The basic idea is that before you get access to material non-public information, you decide "I want to buy/sell X shares on the second Tuesday of every month" or similar. Because the trades are made in a way that was determined before you had access to material…

What if you cancel the planned trades when you learn of some coming news that disadvantages them?

This is a loophole that exists, yes.

10b5-1 plans set up by the company will sometimes have a rule that no changes are allowed for 30 days, which solves the problem. Not sure how widespread this practice is.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

jzwinck wrote: post #32
devmunchies wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic question... Is there a law about giving legal advice in a public forum if you're not a lawyer? Why do people add the disclaimer about not being a lawyer. Generally curious. Moreover, is there a law about impersonating lawyer in a public forum (not that any ethical person would do that of course)?

No there is not a law against giving legal advice if you're not a lawyer. It's lawyers who are sometimes prohibited from giving legal advice. Non-lawyers have the usual freedom of speech, restricted in the usual ways. Claiming that you are someone you're not on the Internet is so commonplace it is hard to see where any trouble would come of it by itself. Again it's different if you knowingly cause harm to others. I'm…

> No there is not a law against giving legal advice if you're not a lawyer.

In most (all, I think) US jurisdictions, providing legal advice is practice of law, and doing it without a license to do so in the state is prohibited (usually, a crime.)

This isn't not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Consult an actual lawyer licensed in your state before deciding whether or not you should provide legal advice.

Post reply on HN