Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my original post.
Insider trading and allegations of insider trading by Tecco and the recipient of Tecco's "information" is the issue here given the post I originally replied to; your post about the use of insider info is not the same thing. Insider trading is quite complex and everyone just loves to throw generic statements together (I'm not specifically replying to you on this last point Wreckingballer but, rather, to some other posters).
When an insider like Tecco (the "tipper") has certain information that he allegedly tips to a third party (the "tippee"), you have to apply the test in Dirks v. SEC (which is a US Supreme Court case). Based on that case, one would have to demonstrate that Tecco received some benefit (directly or indirectly, pecuniary or non-pecuniary) from his disclosure. You'd have to demonstrate that Tecco breached his fiduciary duty or loyalty to refrain from profiting on information disclosed to the tippee. I personally doubt Tecco profited from this disclosure, so it doesn't count as insider trading.
It's a selective disclosure analysis, not an insider-trading analysis. The SEC didn't think the Dirks case went far enough because insiders could still disclose info to certain analysts as long as they did it under the guise of a corporate purpose (which is almost always) and that's why they later adopted Regulation Fair Disclosure ("Reg. FD"). Reg. FD mandates that the insiders (or agents of insiders) that disclose material, non-public info to market analysts or stockholders who may trade on the basis of that info also disclose it to the public. If Tecco intentionally provided this disclosure, then he has to also simultaneously disseminate it to the public (or else it's a breach of Reg. FD, not insider trading). If Tecco inadvertently disclosed this info, which may be the case as he was talking & let it slip, then he has to promptly publicize the disclosure after the fact (or else he's in breach of Reg. FD, not insider trading).
Again, this is all hypothetical because we don't really know what the truth is and nothing has been actually established yet, just someone who said he spoke to Tecco and posted what Tecco allegedly said. It still has to be established whether the disclosure is even true or material.
All IMO of course...
$ ELTZ $
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
