Mark Cuban vs. the SEC

I’ve been traveling and meeting for the past three days, so I’ve been catching up on some news reading this evening. I must say, I’m quite confused by the whole controversy surrounding the SEC suing Mark Cuban.

First, Why does the Southeastern Conference have jurisdiction over an owner of an NBA team? (Oh, wait. Not that SEC. Nevermind.)

Second shocker: How could Mamma.com be worth enough for Cuban to lose $750,000 by dumping just 6% of the company’s stock? I say that because I’ve never heard of Mamma.com.

Third and most importantly, Why is the SEC wasting time on Cuban when they should be out rounding up Wall Street executives who threw the U.S. economy off a cliff by packaging and selling worthless crap while calling it Triple-A Shinola?

The NBA has fined Cuban more than the SEC is suing him for — he typically just pays the fine, matches it with a contribution to charity, and keeps on saying whatever he was saying before they fined him. He never actually fights the NBA. The NBA, however, doesn’t have the ability to turn their complaints over to a “criminal” division.

I apologize for bringing nothing of any significance to this issue.

I just couldn’t let the event pass without mentioning it, as I have mentioned so many of his antics in the past.

Bonus link: Barbara Kiviat of Time.com explores the not-so-clear-cut case the SEC has against Cuban.

Quote:

“The SEC has brought charges against Cuban under a particular legal theory — but the legal theories around illegal insider trading have a long history of evolution, of getting rewritten in the courts. “He’s an interesting guy for them to have picked. He’s not going to roll over and play dead,” says (Steven) Bainbridge (a professor of law at UCLA who has followed insider trading law for two decades and written a book on the topic). “If he wants to, he has the resources to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court.” If it comes to that, the case could take on real significance.