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

Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

securities.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 227 posts

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#111

Post by jagged-chisel »

steveklabnik wrote: post #107
hermitdev wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite possible that these were scheduled trades that were arranged far in advance before either executive was aware of the breach. So, no, not necessarily insider trading. The optics sure look bad, but it could just be shitty timing.

From the parent: > These sales were not made pursuant to a Rule 10b5–1 trading plan.

"pre-arranged" != "Rue 10b5-1 trading plan"

I'm not an expert in stock trading, but this logic seems very plausible. A Plan does not preclude other arrangements to sell shares

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#114

Post by throwaway744678 »

falcor84 wrote: post #103
peteradio wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatant insider trading. That however does not preclude you from being crazy, nice try.

Yup. According to formal logic, the answer then is just yes. p or true => true

In natural language, "or" generally means "xor" - as is the case here.

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#115

Post by [deleted] »

hermitdev wrote: post #104
peteradio wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is blatant insider trading. That however does not preclude you from being crazy, nice try.

It's quite possible that these were scheduled trades that were arranged far in advance before either executive was aware of the breach. So, no, not necessarily insider trading. The optics sure look bad, but it could just be shitty timing.

[deleted]

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#116

Post by steveklabnik »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #111
steveklabnik wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the parent: > These sales were not made pursuant to a Rule 10b5–1 trading plan.

"pre-arranged" != "Rue 10b5-1 trading plan" I'm not an expert in stock trading, but this logic seems very plausible. A Plan does not preclude other arrangements to sell shares

I am admittedly not the most educated person in this area (I wasn't 100% sure that "rule 10b5-1" was the rule that applied here), so I'd like to learn more. Can you give me an example of a reason you'd pre-arrange the sale of stock but not do it in accordance with Rule 10b5-1?

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#117

Post by LurkersWillLurk »

24gttghh wrote: post #95
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Note that this is an order on a motion to dismiss; none of the fact claims reported here are findings by the court, they are allegations made against Equifax. In a motion to dismiss, the facts in dispute are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and here Equifax and other defendants are moving to dismiss. That's why the supporting reference for every fact claim is to the complaint against Equifa…

So, the footnotes for the "admin" "admin" (46. Id. ¶ 225 (emphasis omitted) points at footnote 1. Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) claim refer to the amended complaint, paragraph 3? Any idea where this amended complaint is, which most of the early footnotes are referring to?

Here's the Amended Complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.241666...

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#119

Post by cdelsolar »

aloknnikhil wrote: post #35

These security nightmares begs the question: Why don't databases use asymmetric keys and authenticate & authorize access? Why are we still reliant on password based authentication? If it's simply the question of key management and distribution, that's a solved problem.

http://begthequestion.info/

Re: Equifax securities fraud class action [pdf]

#120

Post by eyegor »

sn41 wrote: post #48

This is quite strong policy. Usually in most sinister incompetent companies, the user name is "admin" and the password is "password". On a serious note: there should be a mandated, periodic, third-party security audit by neutral parties for all entities which deal with user data beyond a certain specified level of sensitivity. It should not be left to their discretion when to run such an audit from their end. Whether…

Unfortunately if there were such audits, I can practically guarantee that it would end up being bottom-dollar devs employed through unions or insider dealings. And the larger companies like equifax would likely have a deal allowing them to self audit to some extent.

See: Boeing, iso certifications, building inspectors, health inspectors, any large civil engineering or aero firm, etc.

To be clear, I do agree that it is absolutely needed in the US. I just have no idea how you could implement it. Culturally the US seems to think that asking forgiveness and looser regulation for businesses is the right direction.

Post reply on HN