The thing is you are mixing cases. The court judging if the company breeches an agreement will never include trading information.
If Scott did a P&D it has nothing to do with a work agreement.
For the sake of ease let's say Currah was the contractor that did the drilling and Dan didn't pay him. If he drilled the holes he is owed for that.
Following the drilling Currah paid a pump news letter to lie about the cores and sold a heap of stocks on that lie.
That fraudulent act would not mean he doesn't get paid for drilling. The fraud would not be allowed to be discussed because it is irrelevant to the agreement.
It's up to Dan to take them to court. But first there would need to be an investigation by the authorities that finds the fraud.
If they never drilled that would be different.
So it depends on what the agreement was for.
But the trades of a person would have no relevancy to the agreement.
JMO
But remember Dan is the defendant. He is there to defend not prosecute.
What you want takes a different court and different defendant.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
