Cuban's Duty of Trust?

A bit more information on the Mark Cuban insider trading case. As I discussed here and here, one important part of the SEC's case is that Mr. Cuban breached a duty to keep the information confidential; a duty of trust. In their complaint they attempt to create that duty by alleging that mamma.com's CEO prefaced their conversation by saying that he had confidential information to give Mr. Cuban, and Mr. Cuban agreed to keep it confidential.

It's an oddly worded allegation, as discuss here, but that is the allegation, and without it, the SEC's case is dismissed. And, according to Stephen Best, on of Mr. Cuban's attorneys, it's not true.

Mr. Best has a post at Mr. Cuban's blog, posting a piece of the transcript of "an interview" with the CEO:

1) Q- We spoke earlier about you were telling Mr. Cuban in words or substance : “I have confidential information for you”.

A- Right.

2) Q- Do you recall anything Mr. Cuban said in response or reply to that statement by you ?

A- No, I do not.

Case over.

Of course, one answer in one deposition does not make or break a case (and I am assuming this if from a deposition, since it is a very rare occurance to have a transcript of an "interview" with an adverse witness). But the question asked by Mr, Cuban's lawyers, and which jumps out from this "interview" is "Does the SEC have a different transcript?"

They better hope they do.




SEC P2 « blog maverick