Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Dell_Griffith]

That is a quote from the SEC website. If someone has a vested interest in something, and are also trying to prove a one-sided point, will they also want to give the negatives? It's much more complex than that.

First, you have to prove "scienter" (fancy term for intent, but intent at a very, very high level - e.g., the murderer was seen killing the victim, he is standing there with the bloody knife, 20 witnesses saw it and when the cops arrived, he was still standing there with said knife in his hand, while yelling out to all there, "Yes, I killed him and I did it because he beat me in a business deal (while detailing specifics of the business deal), and I lost a million dollars!!!"). Secondly, there is nothing "classic" about an insider trading case. Did he tell you something was up? He didn't tell me or anyone I know he KNEW, not "thought," something WILL, not "may," occur with 100% certainty, and it did happen.

Anyway, you cited the SEC's position, but the cases are EXTREMELY rare, unless the info was transmitted to others; that is the "classic" case, but still very, very difficult to prove. You essentially need an admission. "Yes, I admit I told the other guy and this what I got in return and he sold right away and he made huge dollars off it."

There's a recent Leon Cooperman case where he ADMITS he got insider info from an insider, but the SEC has still got a huge uphill case. The cases are also usually only high-profilers with big dollars who got the info from an insider stupidly telling them - think Martha Stewart, Phil Mickelson, Cooperman, etc. and you can bet it was because the insider decided to cooperate, so they had a great case against the 3rd party. Bottom line - if you're an insider, don't tell anyone else (most importantly), don't sell right away, and you're good.

There is nothing "classic" about Chung buying in other than he "simply has faith in the Company." That's the correct and standard answer that will NEVER put an insider at risk and the longer the insider holds, the more the trade becomes "old and cold." He's being smart about it and playing within the rules. Like him or not, you can't fault anyone for playing within the rules.

FWIW, to highlight the point, here's a very good insight where the SEC admits unbiased difficulty as determined by the ultimate arbiter - the courts:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/the-perils-of-a-circumstantial-insider-trading-case/

Executive summary-

When defendants put up a united front and deny trading on inside information, the government has to do more to meet its burden than just relying on outsize profits from well-timed trading to prove a violation.

The quote, "Your bunny has a good nose," was very, very funny and/or "a little birdie told me." Morons.

Anyhow, no charge, although it cost me a fortune.