#Mathew Martoma

[newyorktown]

Supreme Court denies insider trading appeal by SAC’s Mathew Martoma https://nyp.st/2JW5xXV

[moneyhealthfinance-blog]

Mathew Martoma Isn’t Getting Out Of Jail The wheels of justice turn slowly. Too slowly, it turns out, for Mathew Martoma. Like other... Dealbreaker

[remainnstobeseen]

On Insider Trading, an Appeals Court Comes to Its Senses

By JAMES B. STEWART A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors. Published: September 14, 2017 at 11:46AM via NYT http://ift.tt/2h5iAJg

[thecapitaladvisor]

Steven Cohen: História e Estratégia de Investimentos

Quem é Steven Cohen, como ficou rico, onde investe e qual sua estratégia de investimento? Descubra e saiba como investir na bolsa de valores da forma como os investidores de sucesso fazem! Uma das formas para ganhar dinheiro com os investimentos é modelar a mentalidade dos grandes investidores de sucesso da bolsa e replicar os seus acertos. A maioria deles se tornaram bilionários, mesmo começando a investir na bolsa de valores com pouco dinheiro. Se você deseja alcançar a sua independência financeira, a melhor forma é saber como investir na bolsa de valores com sucesso. “Em investimentos, o que é confortável raramente é rentável.” Robert Arnott, CEO da Research Affiliates. Então, você está pronto para saber quem é Steven Cohen e conhecer suas estratégias de investimentos? Leia até o final e descubra agora como investir melhor o seu dinheiro.

Quem é Steven Cohen?

Steven Cohen é um dos bilionários do mercado financeiro, gestor de fundos de hedge e conhecido pelos seus investimentos de alto risco e altos ganhos. “Stevie”, como é conhecido, criou o SAC Capital Advisors um dos maiores e mais bem-sucedidos fundos de investimentos hedge da história da bolsa de valores. O SAC lhe rendeu uma enorme fortuna, mas também o envolveu um escândalo após acusações de esquemas fraudulentos de compra e venda de ações com informação privilegiada. A empresa se declarou culpada e Cohen foi forçado a encerrar a SAC Capital e pagar US$ 1,8 bilhão em multas. Steve Cohen reiniciou o gerenciamento de capital externo em 2018 com a Point72 Asset Management, uma empresa de fundos de hedge.  Atualmente sua fortuna é estimada em US$ 14 bilhões. Vida e carreira Steven A. Cohen nasceu no dia 11 de julho de 1952, em Greenwich, estado de Connecticut, Estados Unidos. Durante a juventude apostou em diversos torneios de pôquer e acredita que isso veio a ensiná-lo a correr riscos. Formou-se em economia pela Wharton School da Universidade da Pensilvânia em 1978 onde aprendeu sobre o mercado de ações com um colega de classe. Seu primeiro emprego em Wall Street foi como trader júnior no departamento de arbitragem de opções da Gruntal & Co. Já no seu primeiro dia obteve um lucro de US$ 8 mil. Logo passaria a ganhar cerca de US$ 100 mil por dia. Em 1984 já liderava seu próprio grupo comercial e gerenciava um portfólio de US$ 75 milhões. Em 1992, com US$ 10 milhões de seu próprio dinheiro e outros US$ 10 milhões de capital externo, Cohen fundou a sua própria empresa, a SAC Capital Advisors. Ficou conhecido por transações frequentes e rápidas que fizeram com que o SAC se tornasse um dos maiores fundos de hedge. Seu nome ganhou mídia em 2012, quando foi acusado como o mentor de esquemas fraudulentos de compra e venda de aç��es com informação privilegiada em sua empresa. Esta é uma estratégia criminosa conhecida como insider trading. No processo, a SAC Capital Advisors se declarou culpada e fez um acordo de US$ 1,8 bilhão pela prática além de fechar para investidores externos. A imagem de Steve ficou arranhada e ele foi proibido de administrar dinheiro externo por 2 anos como parte do acordo devido à sua responsabilidade pelo ato. Passada a proibição, Steven Cohen fundou a Point72 Asset Management e vem obtendo bons números. Além do sucesso no mercado financeiro,  Cohen é conhecido por sua paixão pela arte, sendo considerado um dos 10 maiores investidores em arte. Nome Completo: Steven A. Cohen Data de nascimento: 11 de junho de 1956 Nacionalidade: norte-americano Fortuna: US$ 14 bilhões Ocupações: gerente de fundos de hedge, investidor, colecionador de arte e filantropo.  Banner will be placed here

Como Steven Cohen Ficou Rico?

O sucesso de Steven Cohen na Bolsa de Valores foi baseado em operações de alto risco com altos ganhos. Cohen é um trader nato. Sua ascensão veio logo depois que começou a trabalhar no banco de investimentos Gruntal & Co. Segundo um ex-colega ele era um operador excepcionalmente melhor que todo o mundo e gerenciava negociações diárias na casa dos US$ 100 mil. Em 1992, criou o seu próprio fundo e conseguiu fazer com que o SAC tivesse sucesso no mundo dos negócios. Em 2009, já administrava US$ 14 bilhões em patrimônio. Durante duas décadas de funcionamento o fundo gerou um retorno médio anual de 30% para os clientes. Para atingir estes resultados, a SAC usou várias estratégias de investimento, incluindo carteiras de ações longas / curtas, renda fixa e estratégias quantitativas globais. Em 2008, a SAC havia acumulado uma posição longa de US$ 700 milhões nos produtos farmacêuticos Elan e Wyeth, que estavam desenvolvendo um medicamento para tratar o Alzheimer.  As ações destas empresas despencaram após anunciarem o resultado negativo de sua segunda fase de testes clínicos. Mas a SAC Capital não participou da perda, pois Cohen liquidou as posições na semana anterior. Seu lucro foi de US$ 275 milhões. Em 2012, veia à tona um escândalo envolvendo a SAC sobre um esquema de troca de informações privilegiadas. Ela então passou a ser investigada pela Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), uma espécie de Comissão de Valores Mobiliários americano. Mathew Martoma, ex-gerente de portfólio da SAC Capital, foi indiciado por acusações de abuso de informação privilegiada. Foi considerado culpado e condenado a nove anos de prisão. A SEC alega que Martoma recebeu informações sobre os ensaios clínicos Elan e Wyeth antes que os detalhes fossem divulgados ao público. Em posse destas informações, aconselhou Cohen a vender a posição.  O nome de Cohen também foi ligado no caso, porém nunca foi acusado. Mas o escândalo custou caro a Cohen e ao SAC. O fundo teve que assumir responsabilidade e pagar uma multa bilionária e Cohen obrigado a parar de administrar investimentos para pessoas de fora por 2 anos. O SAC foi transformado em fundo familiar chamado Point72 Asset Management e continuou superando o mercado. A proibição da empresa de aceitar capital externo expirou em 2018. No mesmo ano, a revista Forbes classificou Cohen como o oitavo gerente de fundos de hedge com maior lucro nos Estados Unidos.

Onde Steven Cohen Investe

Steven Cohen se destacou no mercado pelas suas habilidades e estratégia agressiva. Na maior parte do tempo se utilizou de investimentos de alto risco e operações rápidas.  Entretanto, ao longo dos anos, ampliou sua abordagem para outras estratégias de investimento. No seu fundo de hedge, SAC Capital Advisors, utilizou inicialmente uma abordagem agressiva e de alto volume. Com a estratégia de Day Trade, mantinha as posições por apenas alguns dias ou, em alguns casos, apenas horas.  Em 1999, Cohen sugeriu que a SAC negociasse cerca de 20 milhões de ações por dia. Em 2006, as negociações da sua empresa representavam 2% de toda a atividade no mercado de ações americano.  A estratégia de investimentos de Cohen na SAC evoluiu durante as décadas. Em 2007, assumiu uma posição de US$ 76 milhões na Equinix e viu o valor de ações crescer 32% um mês depois. Em 2009 e 2010 assumiu posições longas na Whole Foods por US$ 49 milhões e US$ 78 milhões e o preço das ações dispararam devido às mudanças operacionais. No início de 2012, apostou US$ 26,7 bilhões na Ardea Biosciences e lucrou quando a AstraZeneca comprou a empresa três semanas depois. O desempenho de Cohen é excepcional. Sempre se antecipando ao mercado, prosperou durante a crise das pontocom e fez uma série de apostas bem-sucedidas. Por outro lado, também sofreu perdas significativas  como as em empresas farmacêuticas, incluindo ImClone Systems e Human Genome Sciences. Além do mercado de ações, Steven Cohen tem um grande portfólio de imóveis de luxo e obras de arte. Ele e sua família vivem em uma mansão avaliada em mais de US$ 14,8 milhões em Greenwich, Connecticut. Somente a propriedade e outros bens pessoais de Cohen, sem incluir sua coleção de arte, valem cerca de US$ 400 milhões. Steven investe em imóveis e é frequentemente notícia por suas compras e vendas de seus apartamentos.  Sua cobertura em Manhattan foi posta à venda por US $ 45 milhões. Assim como sua casa de 3 andares localizada em The Abingdon que foi listada para venda inicial de US $ 33,5 milhões.  Cohen ainda possui uma casa de férias em East Hampton, Nova York e uma mansão em Beverly Hills, Califórnia. Apaixonado por arte, Cohen começou a colecionar obras de artistas como: Lucio Fontana, Alberto Giacometti, Willem de Kooning, Jeff Koons, Edvard Munch, Pablo Picasso e Andy Warhol. Em 2012 adquiriu a pintura o Le Rêve de Picasso por US$ 150 milhões. Sua coleção é avaliada em mais de US$ 1 bilhão e seu próximo é construir um museu pessoal. O bilionário também se tornou a mais nova figura do mercado de criptomoedas e é proprietário minoritário do time de beisebol New York Mets. Cohen investiu pela primeira no Mets em 2012 e está negociando uma compra de 80%, para assumir o controle do time por US$ 2,6 bilhões.

Estratégia de Investimentos de Steven Cohen

Steven Cohen opera de forma muito ativa e disciplinada. Seu objetivo é identificar tendências antes de qualquer um. Sua principal estratégia de investimentos é comprar e vender rapidamente ações em grandes volumes e lucrar com isso. Essa prática, conhecida como Day Trade, pode ser altamente lucrativa, porém, é de alto risco e exige muito conhecimento de mercado e tempo. Nós negociamos. Muito. Mais de 20 milhões de ações por dia. O sonho de um corretor realizado. Nós negociamos rapidamente. ... Não é investir em crescimento. Não é um investimento de valor. É um investimento de catalisador de curto prazo. Tirar proveito das altas e baixas do mercado é sua marca. Por isso, foi chamado de trader de gatilho, ou seja, alguém que abre e fecha posições em poucos segundos depois de ter uma ideia. Steven e toda sua equipe de traders utilizam muitos dados de várias fontes, assim como a análise fundamentalista em combinação com a análise técnica. Veja mais estratégias de Steven Cohen para você usar nos seus investimentos: Respeite seu perfil de investidor Para Cohen o que mais as pessoas fazem de errado ao investir em ações é tentar ser o que não é. Se você tem o perfil de trader, seja trader. Se você é um investidor de longo prazo, seja. O mais importante para ter sucesso nos investimentos em geral é respeitar seu perfil de investidor. Confie na sua intuição Segundo o próprio Steven, seu estilo de negociação é mais da metade, baseado em instintos. Ajustar as estratégias Cohen sempre foi muito bom em antecipar as tendências e ajustar as estratégia da SAC Capital para se manter à frente do que o mercado estava fazendo. Apesar de investir no curto prazo, poderia fazer buy and hold se julgasse promissor. Controle as emoções Ser dominado pela emoção no mercado acionário pode fazer com que perca dinheiro. Segundo Cohen, muitos investidores fazem negócios sem uma boa razão e apenas vendem ações porque estão em alta, sem um motivo. Fazem porque se emocionam com o mercado.

Livros de Steven Cohen

Steven Cohen não é autor de nenhum livro, mas a sua história de escândalo em Wall Street sim. Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street. Que pode ser traduzido como “Black Edge: informações privilegiadas, dinheiro sujo e a missão de derrubar o homem mais procurado em Wall Street.” É o livro da autora Sheelah Kolhatkar que expõe e levanta questões de como Steven supostamente obtia informações privilegiadas para traçar os rumos dos seus investimentos.

Frases de Steven Cohen

A principal razão pela qual sou tão produtivo é porque criei um grupo incrível. Quando perguntado o que procura ao contratar traders: Estou procurando pessoas que não têm medo de correr riscos. Uma das perguntas que faço é: 'Conte-me algumas das coisas mais arriscadas que você já fez em sua vida.' Quero que os caras que têm confiança estejam por aí; sejam tomadores de risco. Sobre o que aprendeu na faculdade de economia:  40% do movimento dos preços de uma ação foram devidos ao mercado, 30% ao setor e apenas 30% ao próprio estoque, o que é algo que acredito ser verdade. Não sei se as porcentagens estão exatamente corretas. , mas conceitualmente a ideia faz sentido. Você não pode controlar o que o mercado faz, mas pode controlar sua reação ao mercado. Examino o que faço o tempo todo. É disso que se trata a negociação.

Conclusão

Steven Cohen não é um investidor em valor. De fato, é exatamente o oposto. Ele é um trader, um especulador. Se tornou famoso ao fazer uma enorme fortuna com os seus investimentos de alto risco em curtos períodos de tempo. Dias, ou horas. Com o Day Trade é possível obter um retorno bastante significativo, mas os riscos são proporcionais. Para a maioria dos investidores, esse estilo de negociação é uma estratégia perdedora.  Até Cohen já admitiu que seus melhores traders apostaram corretamente apenas 63% das vezes.  No entanto, Cohen e sua equipe conseguiram ter sucesso, perdendo e ganhando apostas. Steven fundou dois fundos de hedge bem-sucedidos, a SAC Capital Advisors e a Point72 Asset Management. Embora sua reputação possa ter sido manchada por conta das acusações de insider trading, seu status de lenda dos fundos de hedge permanece intacto. Steven Cohen é apontado como um dos mais bem-sucedidos gestores de hedge funds, com uma fortuna de US$ 14 bilhões. Tanto que sua estratégia de investimentos inspirou o personagem de Bobby Axelrod, do seriado, Billions. Saiba mais das histórias dos Grandes Investidores de Sucesso e Suas Estratégias Vencedoras. Read the full article

[hax121]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court on Monday upheld the insider trading conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former portfolio manager for billionaire Steven A. Cohen, finding enough evidence to establish guilt despite defective jury instructions.

from Reuters: U.S. https://ift.tt/2MZ080f

[theadmiringbog]

The second type call to mind terms like street smart and scrappy. They might have watched their fathers struggle to support the family, toiling in sales or insurance or running a small business, working hard for relatively little, which would have had a profound effect on them.

--

They might have been picked on as children or rejected by girls in high school. They make it because they have a burning resentment and something to prove, or because they have the ambition to be filthy rich, or both. They have little to fall back on but their determination and their willingness to do whatever it takes, including outhustling the complacent rich kids. Sometimes the drive these people have is so intense, it’s almost like rage. Steven Cohen came from the second group.                 

--

“When so many people from a single hedge fund have engaged in insider trading, it is not a coincidence. It is, instead, the predictable product of substantial and pervasive institutional failure,” Bharara said. “SAC trafficked in inside information on a scale without any known precedent in the history of hedge funds.”                 

--

The opening argument was one of Devlin-Brown’s favorite parts of a trial. In a case like this, it was sometimes all that mattered. The U.S. Attorney’s Office had a formula for it, a system that was passed down through generations of prosecutors. It started with what they called “the grab”—a quick, two-minute summary of the case, meant to capture the jury’s attention. The grab could begin in one of two ways. The first was with a big thematic idea, as in, “This is a case about greed.” Devlin-Brown preferred what he called the “It was a dark and stormy night” beginning, which dropped the jurors right into a dramatic scene. Just like in a movie.                 

--

On this day, his version began with, “It was July of 2008.” He spoke in a gentle, even voice. “Mathew Martoma, the defendant, was one of about a thousand people packed into

[somekindamushroom]

AMANITA DERIVATIVES: A NEW TREATMENT FOR DEMENTIA? - PART I

The predictable failure of the much-hyped Alzheimer's drug Intepirdine, announced by Bermuda-based biotech firm Axovant Sciences last Tuesday, follows a slew of failures with similar drugs that act as 5-HT6 antagonists. Only this February past, Denmark-based Lundbeck threw in the towel with its own 5-HT6 drug. Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline had already taken Intepirdine to Phase II clinical trials before dumping it on start-up Axovant for just $5 million in December 2014, “lunch money”, as one analyst called it. With no other asset, and with no clinical data for Intepirdine or patients enrolled in any clinical trials, Axovant managed to raise a whopping $360 million in the largest biotech IPO in U.S. history (within months the company had a vastly-overinflated market value of $3 billion) only for shareholders to see its shares plummet 75% on Tuesday following the announcement - casualties of the biotech bubble. This won't affect company founder Vivek Ramaswamy, a former QVT hedge fund manager who at age 29 made a big chunk of his $600 million fortune taking Axovant public.

It's a similar story with the range of Alzheimer's drugs produced by manipulating E.coli, Salmonella and other bacteria and fungi. These drugs targeted the beta-amyloid plaque build-up that clogs the brains of Alzheimer's/dementia patients and is closely associated with intracellular calcification or an excess of calcium in the brain. The most readily available source of amyloid fibrils, the accumulation of which (the plaque build-up) are believed by some to cause neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, may be found in the casein that makes up 80% of the protein found in cow's milk, a substance nature never intended for human consumption, otherwise two-thirds of the global population would not be lactose intolerant to some degree.

Extensive mainstream media coverage proclaimed these brain plaque-targeting drugs as 'breakthrough' treatments, though little was said about subsequent failures in late-stage human trials. In 2012, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson scrapped Bapineuzumab after two Phase III trials failed to produce better results than placebo. In 2013, Eli Lilly scrapped a similar drug, Solanezumab. In 2014, Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, scrapped Crenazumab after the drug caused fatal respiratory failure in a number of patients as well as one instant death. By the time of Axovant's IPO in early-2015, over 100 dementia drugs had failed in just 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of elderly people with Alzheimer's/dementia had risen by 50% and continues to grow. It is a 'market' worth an estimated $800 billion a year and could soon top $1 trillion. For many entrepreneurs the lucrative biopharma market is a fast-track to a penthouse in Manhattan, a mansion in Boca Raton, or a condo in Tel Aviv. Hell why not have all three.

Take the aforementioned Vivek Ramaswamy. A few months before floating Axovant for $360 million (see above) he set up the parent/holding company, Roivant Sciences, which was financed by his former employer QVT along with Israel's Dexcel Pharma for the purpose of finding drugs abandoned by Big Pharma which might, just might, still have some therapeutic value. QVT is owned by former Deutsche Bank trader Daniel Gold and holds 75,000,000 Axovant shares, the bulk of its share capital. Last October, Roivant pulled off another major coup with the biggest biotech IPO of 2016, Myovant Sciences, raising $218 million. Ramaswamy formed this new company on the basis of an April 2016 deal with Takeda Pharmaceuticals for a prostrate cancer drug and a female infertility drug, both of which were already abandoned by Big Pharma (they have plenty of failed drugs to choose from!) Now that Axovant has proven to be a such a flop, the prognosis is not good for Myovant Sciences, never mind dementia patients in general.

As there hasn't been a new drug approved for Alzheimer's since 2003, dementia patients are stuck with three questionable pharmaceuticals - Donepezil, Galantamine, and Rivastigmine - which inhibit the action of cholinesterase in the brain, an enzyme essential for muscle function. Cholinesterase was originally extracted from electric eels and later from electric ray fish. Today, most pharmaceutical cholinesterase is extracted from genetically-modified goats. Any drug which interferes with cholinesterase is a neurotoxin. For example, all nerve gases, such as sarin, are cholinesterase inhibitors. It takes 10 minutes for sarin to kill by convulsive muscle spasms and ultimately suffocation as a result of breathing muscle malfunction. The initial symptoms - runny nose, tight chest, constricted pupils, difficulty breathing, nausea, drooling, twitching, jerking, vomiting, involuntary urination and defecation  - are similar to the side-effects of all these failed Alzheimer's/dementia pharmaceuticals to some degree.

Since Donepezil, Galantamine and Rivastigmine are also potent neurotoxins, and millions of patients can't handle them, there's a fourth drug, Memantine, which supposedly acts by blocking glutamate receptors. None of these four drugs are actually any good at counteracting the memory loss and cognitive changes associated with Alzheimer's/dementia. Their efficacy is modest at best, they can have terrible side-effects, and they don't slow the progress of the disease. Whether 5-HT6, amyloid plaque build-up, cholinesterase, or glutamate actually have anything to do with the etiology of Alzheimer's, no one really knows. Everything we're told about the neuropathology of  Alzheimer's is guesswork. Most neurological conditions are still a mystery. Yet Memantine alone achieved sales of $1.8 billion in 2014.

That's really what a lot of this is about: making money. For the businessmen jumping on the biotech bandwagon it hardly matters whether a given drug ends up going to market or fails. They invest in start-up companies and make money from initial public offerings (IPO's), they make more money by manipulating share prices along the way, and they make even more money by either going long (betting on the share price going up) or short (betting on the share price going down) based on advance information they receive from insiders i.e., the scientists working on these drugs who themselves are not immune to making some extra cash. These are people who took the Hippocratic Oath!

The aforementioned Alzheimer's drug, Bapineuzumab, had already failed previously in 2008 due to serious adverse effects. One month prior to the failure announcement, Steven A. Cohen, whose SAC hedge fund had built up a $700 million stake in Bapineuzumab's developers, surreptitiously changed from a long to short position based on inside information given to SAC portfolio manager Mathew Martoma by the elderly neurologist Sid Gilman who was heading the “safety monitoring committee” for the drug - a scientist with a highly-distinguished career. Martoma paid Gilman $108,000 for the information. When the developers' share prices plummeted following the announcement, Cohen's fund made $276 million, believed to be the largest profit for a single insider trading transaction in history. In November 2014, Martoma started a nine-year prison sentence and had to sell his multi-million Boca Raton mansion to pay a fine, but Cohen got off scot-free, just like he did when another of his portfolio managers, Michael Steinberg, used inside info to make millions for SAC, not to mention at least six other SAC traders who were jailed for conspiracy and securities fraud. In November 2013, Cohen himself admitted SAC's catalogue of criminal wrongdoings and agreed to pay a $1.2 billion fine, but he was not incarcerated. He just put SAC behind him and went off to start another hedge fund.

In July 2010, one of Bapineuzumab's developers and Alzheimer's specialist, Dublin-based Elan, was fined $203 million for fraudulent marketing of its epilepsy and Parkinson's drug Zonegran (zonisamide). Elan also tried to downplay initial reports of patients getting leukemia after taking its multiple sclerosis and Crohn's Disease drug Tysabri (natalizumab). Elan's fine came on the back of Novartis paying a $185 million for fraudulently marketing its own epilepsy/anticonvulsant drug Trileptal (oxcarbazepine), and Johnson & Johnson paying $81.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit for its epilepsy/weight-loss drug Topamax (topiramate). So the extent of corruption in biotech runs from the smallest start-ups to the Big Pharma conglomerates. Greed is in their blood. In 2009, one of the world's biggest drug companies, Pfizer, paid a record $2.3 billion fine for fraudulent marketing of Bextra (an anti-inflammatory pulled in 2005 for causing heart attacks and strokes), Lyrica (an anti-epileptic), Geodon (an anti-psychotic), and Zyvox (an antibiotic). Pfizer pleaded guilty to misbranding “with the intent to defraud or mislead” and also admitted paying doctors to prescribe these drugs via kickbacks, a common practice in the industry. Last December, Pfizer paid a record UK fine of £84.2 million for NHS overcharging. By changing the status of its anti-epilepsy drug Epanutin from a branded (regulated) drug to a generic (unregulated) drug, the price to the NHS went up 2600% overnight, from £2.83 to £67.50. This cost the UK taxpayer “tens of millions of pounds”.

Big Pharma doesn't want the soon-to-be 50 million dementia sufferers to know that there is a more effective, non-pharmaceutical solution for the treatment of Alzheimer's and associated cognitive disorders: cannabis. The minority of people with dementia who either smoke medicinal cannabis or use medicinal cannabis oil are unanimous in praising the drug's efficacy. Apart from psychoactive THC, the other major component in cannabis is the non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD). Recent scientific studies have shown that stimulating the brain's cannabinoid receptors with CBD not only improves memory function, but it ameliorates inflammation of the brain, damage to brain cells due to oxidative stress, and the build up of amyloid plaque. Not only this, but CBD actually helps new brain cells to grow - a process called neurogenesis. And to cap it all, CBD has no toxic side-effects. Gary Wenk, Ph.D, professor of neuroscience, immunology and medical genetics at Ohio State University, recently told Time Magazine that in 25 years of searching for a drug that restores cognitive function and reduces brain inflammation, “cannabinoids are the first and only class of drugs that have ever been effective.”

CBD has recently received orphan drug status in the USA for the treatment of Dravet Syndrome (a rare form of epilepsy) and similar brain disorders in children. Perhaps surprisingly, it was Britain that gave medicinal cannabis the first official green light. In 2010, the 'Sativex' mouth spray was launched in the UK for multiple sclerosis (you could say multiple calcification). Sativax was the first cannabis-derived drug in the world to be licensed for medicinal purposes, but the NHS refuses to prescribe it (except in Wales since 2014). Each spray of Sativex delivers a dose of 2.7 milligrams THC, and 2.5 milligrams CBD. Sativex was developed by a small British start-up, GW Pharmaceuticals, in collaboration with the Dutch firm HortaPharm which grew medicinal cannabis for the Dutch government. HortaPharm was co-founded by David Paul Watson, known as “Sam the Skunkman”. While well over 100 cannabinoids are present in cannabis, the Dutch firm has developed two strains of cannabis which produce an incredible 98% THC and 98% CBD respectively. GW Pharmaceuticals now grows these strains in the UK (approximately 100 tonnes a year) and exports Sativex to more than 30 countries. The cannabis mouth spray is also being used off-label by people with other conditions as a form of self-medication, including cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, epileptics, and dementia sufferers.

GW Pharmaceuticals has also teamed up with Japanese firm, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, to market a cannabis-derived drug in the USA to alleviate the pain of cancer. Another excellent cannabis drug is nabilone (trade names: Cesamet, Canemes et. al.). Nabilone is a synthetic form of THC and is used to treat the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy drugs, wasting from AIDS, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease (such as Crohn's Disease), nightmares in people with post-traumatic stress disorder, and medication overuse headache. Clinical trials are underway for various other conditions, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other neurological disorders. A similar drug is called 'Cannador' which contains THC and CBD at a ratio of 2:1. It is also used to treat anorexia (because it gives anorexics the “munchies”). These cannabis drugs don't cause people to have LSD-like hallucinations, or thoughts of suicide, or start self-harming themselves like most of the drugs I've mentioned so far.

But as far as Alzheimer's is concerned there may be a ray of hope for Big Pharma yet, and it may lie in a compound called gaboxadol. Gaboxadol is derived from muscimol the principle psychoactive ingredient in the common toadstool, Amanita muscaria, known colloquially as the 'Fly Agaric', and in certain circles as the “sacred mushroom”. The prefix gab- in gaboxadol relates to GABA, which is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord).

[bigredsays]

On Insider Trading, an Appeals Court Comes to Its Senses

By JAMES B. STEWART A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors. Published: September 13, 2017 at 09:00PM from NYT Business Day http://ift.tt/2h5iAJg via IFTTT

[nancyjnelson88]

Common Sense: On Insider Trading, an Appeals Court Comes to Its Senses

A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors. from Binary Trading Tips https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/business/insider-trading-court.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[moscigarclubus]

A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors.

[businessnewz]

A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors.

[dailybiznews]

On Insider Trading, an Appeals Court Comes to Its Senses

By JAMES B. STEWART A decision upholding the conviction of Mathew Martoma, a former SAC Capital portfolio manager, gives the upper hand back to prosecutors. Published: September 14, 2017 at 01:00AM from NYT Business Day http://nyti.ms/2xAPAQH via IFTTT

[amybkirkusa]

“It’s Complicated:” The Evolving Case Law on How Relationships Impact Insider Trading Liability

Last Wednesday, former SAC Capital Advisors manager Mathew Martoma lost a bid to overturn his 2014 insider trading conviction in the Second Circuit.  United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599, 2017 WL 3611518 (2d Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).  Martoma, the latest in a string of important insider trading decisions, is significant because the Second Circuit departed from the “relationship test” that had been central to Second Circuit insider trading cases in recent years.  See United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014).  The departure was based on a 2016 Supreme Court decision, Salman v. U.S., in which the Court rejected the “relationship test” as set forth in Newman, and reaffirmed the standard set in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 103 S. Ct. 3255, 77 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1983), holding that where a close relationship exists between the tipper and tippee, the government is not required to show that the insider received a benefit of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”  Martoma had appealed his conviction before Salman was issued, and relied heavily on the Second Circuit’s relationship test outlined in Newman.

In Newman, the Second Circuit overturned the insider trading convictions of two portfolio managers who were “remote tippees,” individuals who traded on inside information but with one or more layers of individuals between them and the insider who originally provided the information.  The insiders in Newman were friends with the tippees but did not gain any personal benefit in exchange for the information provided.  The government argued in that case that it only needed to show that the tippees traded on “material, nonpublic information they knew insiders had disclosed in breach of a duty of confidentiality.”  However, the Second Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that the government was required to show that the insider shared confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit, and that the remote tippees were aware of that fact.  The Second Circuit also held that where there is no quid pro quo exchange for confidential information given by a tipper to a tippee, such information only amounts to a “personal benefit” when the tipper has a “meaningfully close personal relationship” with the tippee.  To meet the test, that relationship must “generat[e] an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”  (Emphasis added.)  Essentially, if there was no potential for financial gain resulting from the gift of information, no personal benefit existed under Newman.  In the immediate aftermath of Newman, many insider trading prosecutions within the Second Circuit became untenable and were dropped.

Martoma’s appeal relied heavily on Newman, which was decided after his original conviction.  He claimed that he and the tipper, a doctor, did not have a “meaningfully close personal relationship,” and that the doctor had not received any personal benefit in exchange for the confidential information he provided Martoma.  Martoma also argued that even if the evidence was sufficient to uphold his conviction, the district court’s jury instructions were insufficient because they did not instruct the jury regarding the “personal benefit” requirement under Newman.  However, while Martoma’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420, 196 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2016).  Salman explicitly rejected Newman’s requirement that the tipper must receive something of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for a gift to family or friends.  The Court held that providing information to a relative or friend who later trades on it is sufficient to satisfy the personal benefit requirement, although it did not specify how close the relationship must be.  After Salman was decided, Martoma offered supplemental briefing in the Second Circuit, arguing that his conviction still should be reversed because Salman did not overrule Newman’s “meaningfully close personal relationship” requirement.

The Second Circuit rejected Martoma’s argument and held that Salman overruled Newman to the extent Newman required a “meaningfully close personal relationship” between the tipper and tippee.  The court further held that there was no clear error in the jury instructions, and that any alleged error would not have changed the outcome of the trial because the government presented “overwhelming evidence that at least one tipper had received a financial benefit from providing confidential information to Martoma.”

While on its face Martoma appears to have opened the door to a broader range of insider trading prosecutions than were possible under preexisting Second Circuit case law, Judge Pooler’s 44-page dissent calls into question what the effect of the decision will be.  Her dissent argues that the Second Circuit panel went far beyond the limitation previous Supreme Court precedent set, which she said had not been disturbed by Salman.  That limitation was that an insider only receives a personal benefit from gifting information when it is gifted to family or friends—as these people are very unlikely to use the information for valid commercial reasons.  Furthermore, in the dissent’s view, the majority opinion “radically alters insider-trading law for the worse.”  Judge Pooler’s scathing dissent could indicate that the Second Circuit will convene an en banc panel to review the decision.  If en banc review is denied or if the panel affirms the decision, it is expected that Martoma will appeal to the Supreme Court.  In any event, the Martoma opinion may not be the final word on this topic.

from News About Securities Fraud http://blogs.orrick.com/securities-litigation/2017/08/31/its-complicated-the-evolving-case-law-on-how-relationships-impact-insider-trading-liability/

[vincenzabartl]

Prosecuting Insider Trading Cases Just Got Easier: The Martoma Decision

The 2nd Circuit upheld Mathew Martoma's insider trading conviction that resulted in a 9-year prison term, the case may help clarify the fuzzy securities ... which may give an advantage to prosecutors. from Forbes Real Time //www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2017/09/06/prosecuting-insider-trading-cases-just-got-easier-the-martoma-decision/ via IFTTT

[thewallstreetexecutive]

Insider trading.  Yesterday I wrote about Mathew Martoma and the "personal benefit" test in insider trading law. One thing that I say all the time is that insider trading is not about fairness, it's about theft: The goal of (U.S.) insider trading law is not to prevent people from trading on material nonpublic information, but to prevent corporate insiders from enriching themselves using the material nonpublic information they get through their jobs. This explains the "personal benefit" test. If an investor learns something about a company that no one else knows, using legitimate research and moxie and gumption and shoe leather and elbow grease, and trades on that information, that's good! We

[nancyjnelson88]

White Collar Watch: In a Boon to Prosecutors, Insider Trading Ruling Is Reshaped

The opinion affirming the conviction of Mathew Martoma found that the approach taken to tipping confidential information in another case “can no longer be sustained.” from Binary Trading Tips https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/business/dealbook/insider-trading-mathew-martoma-appeal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss