Earlier quoted context omitted.
> both - if the information was non-public (which it was) then it can’t be legally traded on That’s not how insider trading law works in the US. In fact, almost no country works this way, with a few exceptions like France. Insider trading laws in the US are mostly specified in terms of fiduciary obligations. I suggest subscribing to Matt Levine’s excellent Money Stuff column. He covers this stuff constantly, includin…
That's the book definition of insider trading. What's your definition?
Your definition would mean a cab driver would be insider trading if he overheard random speculation about a company that turned out to be true--that's not illegal. However, if the cab driver's passenger said, "hey, I'm an executive at at XYZ and I saw that we're acquiring FGH," that is insider trading three ways: the driver believed they were receiving confidential information, the executive breached his duty, and the executive caused stolen information to be traded. And an acquisition would of course meet the material test.