Perhaps if you disagree that it's "clear cut", you at least agree that it was plausible. It wasn't simply bullying, that seems certain.
His defense was not that he didn't trade based on a tip, but that he never agreed to keep the tip confidential, and he challenged the definition of what an insider is.
This is a technicality. That's the problem with insider trading laws - "insider" isn't really defined. So, although it's often common sense and most people can make a judgment call on the spirit of the law, this often won't be sufficient for a trial. Still, this doesn't mean the SEC is wrong to pursue such cases.
It's possible for an action to look like clear cut insider trading, but not be. I don't it's SEC bullying for them to investigate things that look like clear cut insider trading. That's why we have the trial, after all, to determine if the action is what it looked like.
The evidence is the testimony that Cuban was told by the CEO about the offering. The jury needed to believe it beyond reasonable doubt, but we don't need to because as individuals, our tolerance for coincidence is much lower than it is for juries.
Actually, since this is civil I think the bar is lower than in a criminal case. They probably only needed to prove that he's guilty based on the "preponderance of the evidence". Essentially that it's more likely he did it than he did not do it.
Just knowing the timing alone would suggest a greater than 50% chance of him being guilty to me. I'd convict him in 5 minutes.
The government's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information and promised not to trade based on it. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Mark Cuban's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information but didn't promise anything. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Both of these claims would exhibit the same timing, so I don't see how timing can help decide the important question, which was whether he was technically an "insider" for the purpose of the law.
Perhaps if you disagree that it's "clear cut", you at least agree that it was plausible. It wasn't simply bullying, that seems certain.
His defense was not that he didn't trade based on a tip, but that he never agreed to keep the tip confidential, and he challenged the definition of what an insider is.
This is a technicality. That's the problem with insider trading laws - "insider" isn't really defined. So, although it's often common sense and most people can make a judgment call on the spirit of the law, this often won't be sufficient for a trial. Still, this doesn't mean the SEC is wrong to pursue such cases.