Also, I believe OC compliance manual was admitted into evidence. Surely it has to have a definition of what is and is not material. If their manual definition is in accordance with the law, it should be quoted in closing arguments imho.
Since Raj Rajaratnam has been the biggest IT case recently, I looked back at some articles on his case to see if it stated how Preet Bharara or the prosecutors determined "material" or "non-public" info that is traded on.
Here's a 5/12/11 article after he was convicted and a quote from it:
Prosecutors dismantled Mr. Rajaratnam’s defense by acknowledging that Galleon performed legitimate research. But at the same time, they argued, the firm routinely violated securities laws.
In the words of a former Galleon portfolio manager who testified during the trial, the firm did its homework — but also cheated on the test. Mr. Rajaratnam sought out information that was confidential, beyond the reach of research, and illegally traded on it.
****So from the his case, IT is based on ""Confidential and beyond the reach of research.""****
mordicai, it amazed and even shocked me that both Gropper and Kruger would so "Strongly" say on numerous occasions that "settlement talks" were not material. Do you think they were advised by their attorneys to say that purposely to in someway protect themselves criminally.
My thinking is that if they get charged with IT, later they say "oh but I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, I didn't think this was material".
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
