[sdinsn]

> If it is true, it is insider trading.

No, it's only insider trading if the information is based on insider (AKA private) information. Anything that can be derived from public information, even with a stretch, is also considered public.

[gridlockd]

I could have made myself clearer, I am talking about "damaging insider information". Publishing already published information isn't exactly news.

In this case, the alleged accounting fraud mentioned in the FT article was insider information.

[oh_sigh]

It depends where the knowledge came from - did it come from an insider, or was the accounting fraud discovered by poring over public records?