Still would not be unblinded nor would it impact a fund complex from making a decision, despite an employee or even a principal employee stumbling on info. They would have procedures and ways to address it. Clearly the fund holders are not unblinded and they have different processes fir dealing with any regulatory loophole, though it is doubtful any revelation would have prevented him from selling or buying more fir years.
And a compassionate arm is not different than an unblinded phase 1/2. It’s not the data from the main trial, it is unblinded by nature and therefore not an “unblinding”. If he thought truly it was going to fail, if anyone at his fund thought that, they would have been duty bound to preserve the capital of the investors, third-parties, who were never unblinded. The fund would have had that duty, not anyone only personally. They never sold. I do not think he could buy more, for a variety of reasons. But they never sold until the fund was forcibly wrapped up maybe under the third-party trustee whose job was to liquidate some funds, without regard to long-term perceptions.
I the think the media story always lacked proper depth and was played as a kind of moral play that allowed a few journalists to suggest that he was arrogant, and that he somehow got “played”, which is really what the disasters wanted. He could not comment immensely after events had played out. The fund not selling, spoke most loudly to me, regardless of all the other scuttlebutt.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
